The automated pass checked 48 pages on bekee.com against WCAG 2.2 AA and found no automated violations. Mechanical checks (contrast, ARIA, structure, alt presence, label presence) all passed.
The AI judgment pass flagged 21 items across 13 of 48 pages (27%): heading, page title, link purpose. Each is a wording or clarity judgment, not an automated failure; confirm before acting. Of those, 4 are an active action item; 17 you have reviewed and accepted, grouped under "Noted, not action items" below.
This h1 is a playful, indirect phrase that does not tell a reader scanning headings what the page is about. A user skimming headings cannot determine that the page lists the author's side projects or ventures.
Suggested: My side ventures and projects
The page title includes 'Good Standing' but the service page appears to be about a website maintenance or care plan. 'Good Standing' does not clearly describe the page's topic or purpose to someone who encounters it out of context, for example in a browser history or tab list. The phrase reads more like a brand name fragment than a description of what the page covers.
Suggested: Use a title that names the service and the site, for example: 'Website Maintenance Plans - bekee gibson' or 'Good Standing: Website Care Plans - bekee gibson'.
The link text 'Here's what it looks like' does not convey what 'it' refers to. A screen reader user encountering this link needs to know they are navigating to a services page, but the text only promises a look at something unspecified.
Suggested: Change the link text to something like 'See my website design and build services' or 'See what that work looks like on my services page'.
The page title names the client project only indirectly by describing the outcome, not the client or the type of page. A user scanning browser tabs or search results cannot tell from this title alone that it is a case study about Marigold Kitchen.
Suggested: Marigold Kitchen Accessibility Case Study | bekee gibson
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.
Set the window to 320 CSS pixels wide, or zoom a 1280 pixel window to 400 percent, and look at each item listed. Content that needs a two-dimensional layout to mean anything (a data table, a map, a diagram, video, code, a toolbar) is allowed to scroll sideways; ordinary text, forms, and navigation are not. Text reported as cut off or overlapping was measured against the same page at 1280 pixels, so only damage the narrow width introduced is listed. A carousel's peeking slide is excluded by design.
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.
A screen reader chunks a block by its elements, so a text node left alone after a link becomes its own stop. Where that text node is nothing but a period, the listener swipes, hears “period,” and swipes again to reach the next real thing. Read each one and decide whether it is worth an edit: moving the punctuation inside the link removes the stop, and so does rewriting the sentence so the link is not last. This is craft rather than conformance; it maps to no success criterion, and nothing here is a failure.
The scan doubled every font size on the page, the way text-only zoom does, while leaving widths and heights alone, and this text was cut off or drawn over other text as a result when it was not at normal size. That is the named failure for SC 1.4.4 (text in a container sized in pixels). It is surfaced rather than failed because browser page zoom usually satisfies the criterion on its own: zoom the page to 200 percent and confirm whether the same text survives. If it survives page zoom, the criterion is met and these are worth fixing for readers who enlarge text only.
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.
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. Each form here is the same form on every page that carries it, so one check covers all of those pages.
Other scanners set aside 117 color-contrast checks across 6 pages as "needs manual review." The reasons it gave: another element overlaps the text, the element holds symbols or punctuation, not words, element's background color could not be determined because it is overlapped by another element, and element's background color could not be determined because it partially overlaps other elements. We measured every one against the rendered page at desktop (1280×720) and mobile (390×844), worst case: 117 pass, 0 fail. Nothing failed, so there is nothing here to act on.
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 2.2 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.