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.
What we found: audit-report-top.png (alt "Screenshot of a gibson•works accessibility audit report for bekee.com."); audit-what-we-caught.png (alt "Screenshot of an accessibility audit finding card."); accessibility-page-top.png (alt "Screenshot of the top of the accessibility statement page on bekee.com.")
Keyboard and focus order (19 stops)
This is the only lane that drives the page instead of reading it: we pressed Tab and recorded where focus actually landed, until it wrapped. Roles and names come from Chrome's own accessibility tree, the same computation it hands a screen reader. A keyboard user passes 10 stops before reaching main content, and the page has a working skip link.
Nothing in this lane is a failure. The keyboard order was walked end to end and the deterministic checks came back clean.
The links list, as a screen reader user gets it 19 links, 16 distinct names
Screen reader users navigate by pulling up every link on the page at once (Insert+F7 in NVDA and JAWS), stripped of the layout that surrounds them. This is that list. Read in place a link can borrow meaning from the heading above it; read here it has only its own name.
Links
All announce as
3
bekee gibson
2
Say hello: contact page
Names appearing more than once, most repeated first. A repeated name is not automatically wrong: a "Home" link in the header and the footer is fine. It matters when the destinations differ and the name does not.
Heading outline, as announced
h1 When my accessibility audit tool audited me.
h2 The setup.
h2 What it found that I needed to fix.
h3 The mobile menu nav links.
h3 The screenshot alt text.
h3 The /writing/ archive hierarchy.
h3 And a handful more.
h2 What it found that taught the tool.
h2 The visible part.
h2 The point.
h2 About Bekee Gibson
What this looks like on the pageEvery keyboard stop, numbered in the order focus actually visits it. Red marks a stop that is itself a problem. Open full size (new tab)The same layout, showing what is announced instead of what is rendered. Hatched areas carry nothing for a screen reader user: background images, decorative graphics, and media with no text alternative. Interactive elements show the name Chrome computed; everything else is an illustrative approximation, not a finding. Open full size (new tab)
AI-assisted findings (needs human confirmation)
These are judgment calls about link purpose and heading clarity that automated tools cannot make. A model flagged them; confirm before acting.
moderate Heading: And a handful more.AcceptedDeliberate: voice heading. The section topic is clear in context.
This heading does not describe the content of the section it introduces. A reader scanning headings cannot tell what the additional items are or what category they fall into.
Suggested: Use a heading that names the type of issues covered, for example: 'Additional fixes: aria roles, color contrast, and focus indicators' or whatever the section actually covers.
moderate Heading: The visible part.AcceptedDeliberate: voice heading. The section topic is clear in context.
This heading is vague. 'The visible part' does not tell a reader scanning headings what aspect of the topic the section covers, as 'visible' could refer to many things in an accessibility context.
Suggested: Use a heading that names what the visible part refers to, for example: 'The visible audit results' or 'What the tool surfaces in the UI'.
moderate Heading: The point.AcceptedDeliberate: voice heading. The section topic is clear in context.
This heading is too vague to describe the section. A reader scanning headings learns nothing about what conclusion, argument, or takeaway the section contains.
Suggested: Use a heading that states the actual point or conclusion, for example: 'Why auditing your own tool matters' or 'Building tools forces you to face your own standards'.
