The automated pass checked 34 pages on bekee.com against WCAG 2.1 AA and found no automated violations. Mechanical checks (contrast, ARIA, structure, alt presence, label presence) all passed.
The AI judgment pass flagged 15 items across 8 of 34 pages (24%): heading, form label, link purpose, page title. Each is a wording or clarity judgment, not an automated failure; confirm before acting. Of those, 14 are an active action item; 1 you have reviewed and accepted, grouped under "Noted, not action items" below.
The heading 'About Bekee Gibson' introduces a brief bio section on an article page. While it names the person, it functions as a generic author byline label rather than describing the content of the section that follows. On a dedicated About page this would be fine, but here it offers no signal about what the section contains beyond the name, making it only marginally useful as a section descriptor.
Suggested: About the Author: Bekee Gibson
The link text 'that post is here' does not describe the destination or topic of the linked post. Even with surrounding context explaining the subject (contrast measurement and a scanner bug), 'that post is here' is a generic pointer phrase that fails to identify where the link goes for a screen-reader user scanning links.
Suggested: Use the post title as the link text, for example: 'Measuring the right pixels: the contrast bug I found in my own scanner'
This h3 is the sole heading for the Ventures section body. It is a witty descriptor but does not describe what kind of content or projects follow. A user scanning headings would not understand what 'Ventures' contains from this heading.
Suggested: Side projects and independent products
The heading 'The rest.' does not describe the content of the section it introduces. A reader skimming headings cannot tell what topic or type of content follows.
Suggested: Replace with a heading that names the subject, for example: 'Background and experience' or 'Professional background'.
The sole h1 on the page is phrased as a question that presupposes context the visitor may not have. On its own it does not identify the page's topic or purpose (a contact/next-steps form for hiring a web professional). A user navigating by headings gets no clear sense of what the page is about or what action they can take.
Suggested: Give the heading a clearer subject, for example: 'Get in touch: next steps for working with bekee gibson' or 'Ready to work together? Tell me about your project'.
The radio button labelled 'Yes' (and its siblings 'No' and 'Not sure') lack sufficient context in their labels alone. Without knowing the question these radios answer, a screen-reader user navigating directly to the field hears only 'Yes', 'No', or 'Not sure' with no indication of what is being asked. The group needs a visible and programmatic group label (e.g. a <legend> or aria-labelledby pointing to the question text).
Suggested: Wrap the radio group in a <fieldset> with a <legend> that states the question, for example: '<legend>Do you have an existing site?</legend>' so that each option is announced as 'Do you have an existing site? Yes / No / Not sure'.
The radio buttons labelled 'No rush', 'Within a month', and 'It's urgent' form a timeline group with no programmatic group label. A screen-reader user navigating to these controls hears only the option value with no indication that the question is about timeline or urgency.
Suggested: Wrap these radios in a <fieldset> with a <legend> such as 'How soon do you need this done?' so each option is announced in full context.
The radio buttons labelled 'Ready to invest in fixing it' and 'Still exploring' form a budget-or-commitment group with no programmatic group label. Without a group label, a screen-reader user cannot tell what question these options are answering.
Suggested: Wrap these radios in a <fieldset> with a <legend> that states the question, for example: 'Where are you in the decision process?' or 'What best describes your situation?'.
The h1 'Nice to meet you.' is a greeting phrase and does not describe the content or purpose of the page. A user relying on headings to understand page structure would not know what this page is about or what section follows.
Suggested: Use a heading that identifies the page subject, for example 'Hello, I'm Bekee Gibson' or 'Bekee Gibson, Web Developer'.
The h2 'Working on something?' is a rhetorical question and does not describe the section that follows it. A screen reader user skimming headings cannot determine what content is in that section.
Suggested: Use a heading that describes the section's content, for example 'Start a Project' or 'Let's Work Together'.
The h1 'Worked examples' does not identify the specific type of content on the page. A visitor arriving via search or a screen-reader landmark list would not know these are case studies, which is the defined content category of the page.
Suggested: Case Studies
This heading is vague and does not describe the content of the section that follows it. A reader skimming headings cannot tell what topic or subject 'The honest part' refers to.
Suggested: Replace with a heading that names the specific subject, for example 'Honest tradeoffs made during the project' or 'Where we had to compromise'.
This heading is vague and gives no indication of what subject or outcome is being described. Someone navigating by headings cannot determine the section's content without reading the body text.
Suggested: Replace with a heading that describes the outcome specifically, for example 'Final results for Marigold Kitchen' or 'Accessibility outcomes and final state'.
The word 'Archive' is a WordPress default taxonomy label that adds no meaning for users. The title adequately identifies the site and section, but 'Archive' is generic filler that does not describe the page's purpose any more precisely than 'Case Studies' alone does.
Suggested: Case Studies - bekee gibson
Other scanners set aside 9 color-contrast checks across 3 pages as "needs manual review," because software cannot read the colors behind text sitting on a photo or gradient. We measured every one against the rendered page at desktop (1280×720) and mobile (390×844), worst case: 9 pass, 0 fail. The failures are listed with the other issues, each with a screenshot and a real ratio.
These images look like charts, graphs, diagrams, screenshots, or maps based on their filename or alt text. No automated tool can measure contrast inside an image. Confirm that parts required to understand each graphic have at least a 3:1 contrast ratio against adjacent colors, and that meaning is not conveyed by color alone. Plain photographs are exempt from the contrast requirement.
Inline SVGs can carry information through color: charts, diagrams, map regions, status icons. Confirm that meaning is also conveyed by shape, text, label, or pattern, and that graphical parts required for understanding have at least a 3:1 contrast ratio against adjacent colors. Decorative SVGs (aria-hidden) were excluded.
Submit the form with required fields left blank and confirm that required fields and any error states are indicated by more than color (asterisk, icon, label text, border thickness). Any color cue used must also meet contrast and must never be the only signal.
The same destination href is reached by links with different visible text on different pages (and 8 more). Screen-reader users who navigate by label expect a consistent name for the same destination.
Suggested: Pick one label per destination and apply it everywhere. The clearest, most descriptive variant is usually the right choice; update the rest to match.
Accessibility is not a certificate you earn once and hang on the wall. It is a continuum. Sites change, content gets added, and the WCAG guidelines themselves keep evolving; a site that passes today needs another look as it grows.
This audit covers what automated and AI-assisted testing can evaluate, which is a meaningful share of the WCAG 2.1 AA criteria. It does not include testing with assistive technology by the people who depend on it, such as screen-reader users; that work takes specialized expertise and equipment beyond this engagement, and I will always tell you plainly where a site reaches the limit of what I can verify. No audit, from anyone, certifies a site as one hundred percent accessible. The honest goal is steady, measurable improvement.