1. Contrast and Alt Text
Detects readability and image-description gaps that block perception.
Accessibility UX as measurable operations, not guesswork.
B1C3 UX Evaluation
Live-site accessibility checks with report-first remediation. Audit what users actually experience, score risk clearly, and fix in priority order.
The Problem It Solves
Teams often believe a site is usable because it "looks fine" or passes a few static checks. Real users still hit friction: keyboard traps, unclear forms, weak semantics, inaccessible navigation.
B1C3-UX-EVAL closes that gap. It runs a repeatable Tier 0 accessibility UX baseline on live pages, then translates findings into a practical remediation path.
What Gets Evaluated
The baseline model covers six high-impact layers aligned to WCAG 2.1 AA intent:
2. Focus Management
Checks keyboard focus visibility/order and interaction continuity.
3. Semantic HTML
Inspects structural meaning so assistive tools can parse content correctly.
4. ARIA Attributes
Finds missing or conflicting accessibility metadata in interactive components.
5. Form Accessibility
Evaluates labels, instructions, errors, and completion flow quality.
6. Navigation Structure
Reviews orientation and movement clarity across the site experience.
How The Workflow Runs
Step 1: Live-Page Checks
Run automated detection on real internet pages, then manually verify key findings.
Step 2: Severity Scoring
Issue impact is weighted (critical/high/medium/low) and rolled into interpretable scoring.
Step 3: Report Output
Generate findings in report form: per-check breakdown, examples, and location-specific patterns.
Step 4: Remediation Plan
Deliver prioritized fixes so teams resolve blockers first and improve user outcomes faster.
What The Report Gives You
- Overall score (0-100): A clear baseline quality signal.
- Per-check scoring: Six-category visibility into strengths and weaknesses.
- Severity-ranked findings: Critical/high/medium/low mapped to user impact.
- Issue patterns by location: Where friction clusters and why.
- Fix roadmap: Prioritized actions that are immediately implementable.
This is the UX angle: not only finding defects, but translating technical issues into human impact and decision-ready remediation.
B1C3-UX-EVAL vs ux-tools
These two repositories are complementary and intentional:
B1C3-UX-EVAL
Assessment capability. Tells you what is wrong, where risk is concentrated, and what to fix first.
ux-tools
Implementation capability. Utilities and patterns that help teams build/fix accessible UX in code.
Read it as a loop: evaluate with B1C3-UX-EVAL, implement with ux-tools, re-evaluate for measurable improvement.
Concrete Use Cases
- Pre-launch readiness: Catch accessibility blockers before public release.
- Redesign baseline: Measure before-and-after UX quality and show progress.
- Accessibility debt triage: Focus teams on highest-impact fixes first.
- Portfolio benchmarking: Compare multiple properties under one scoring model.
- Ongoing quality gate: Re-run checks as part of continuous UX operations.
Scope and Honesty
This is a Tier 0 baseline, not a complete UX maturity model. Automated checks catch common high-impact issues, but nuanced edge cases still require manual review and contextual judgment.
That is a feature, not a flaw: B1C3-UX-EVAL is designed for reliable first-pass clarity and fast remediation planning on live properties.