review testing

Comments on A quick Web Accessibility Checklist

I came across the article A quick Web Accessibility Checklist (published last July) and have some feedback. Some points were great, but others needed some work. I was going to leave a comment, but thought the points would be good to share in a blog post.

  • “Skip-to” links help, but wouldn’t put first on the list. Proper tag markup and ARIA are also big navigation helpers.
  • Font resize widgets are unnecessary as they add weight to a site, add clutter to the screen, and the behavior should be done by the browser.
  • A site map is not needed if navigation is done well and is accessible; the tip is more of a usability issue in my opinion.
  • Don’t know what “links have descriptive screen text” means. If it means tool-tips (title attribute), then I highly recommend not doing most of the time.
  • Yes, keyboard accessible dropdown menus are good, but remember that the whole site must be keyboard accessible.
  • People still use frames? iFrames also relevant to list here, and more up-to-date.
  • A good basic point missing is color; ensure sufficient color contrast, no content conveyed with color alone; etc.

Update, Jan 11:

I submitted a blog comment that linked to this page, and it did not yet get accepted.

Shortened URL to this page:

9 replies on “Comments on A quick Web Accessibility Checklist”

Nice article. On the point of colour contrast, I’d like to add that luminosity is also important – there are numerous free online testing tools for both contrast and luminosity.



I imagine that “descriptive screen text” in links is about not using “More” and “Click here” links, and if possible, making links useful when read isolated (as in a list of links of the current page).

Would you recommend adding a stylesheet switcher if the design has too little contrast? In other words, would you add a link that changes from a low-contrast design to a high-contrast design?

If you go down the route of multiple style sheets, you might want to consider a separate one for mobile browsers – or is that moving a little outside the remit of ‘a “quick” web accessibility checklist’? As far as I know, some assistive technology users often opt for mobile versions of sites due to their simplified nature.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *