WEBSITE ACCESSIBILITY CHECKLIST

Website accessibility checklist for a more usable, reviewable launch

Accessibility is part of whether a website can communicate and convert for real people. A checklist helps uncover problems, but it should lead to testing representative tasks and resolving issues in the actual code and content.

Real codeDraft before publishVersion historyDocument and media library

Start with the paths that matter: search arrival, navigation, reading key evidence, completing a form, recovering from an error, and using the page with keyboard, zoom, and different viewport conditions. Keep decisions and exceptions documented.

Website launch checklist, international map, and analytics report

Start with the delivery question, not the demo

A search for website accessibility checklist can begin with an attractive demo or a short feature list. That is a useful first screen, but it rarely answers the delivery question: can the people responsible for the public website work from Collect page inventory, interactive components, forms, media, content structure, design tokens, browser and device test plan, and issue owners and Write one measurable primary action for a website review that finds practical accessibility risks before the public version is promoted, keep claims reviewable, and make the next change without starting over? The real risk is usually not a missing screen in the first build. It is the useful source material is trapped in page inventory, interactive components, forms, media, content structure, design tokens, browser and device test plan, and issue owners.

The operational problem behind this search

The useful source material is trapped in page inventory, interactive components, forms, media, content structure, design tokens, browser and device test plan, and issue owners
The page is designed before the team agrees on a website review that finds practical accessibility risks before the public version is promoted
Generic generation hides the missing evidence: documented task tests, semantic structure, labels and alternatives, focus behavior, contrast checks, issue tracking, and reviewed fixes

What changes with a persistent website agent

A focused page organized around a website review that finds practical accessibility risks before the public version is promoted
A durable project that preserves page inventory, interactive components, forms, media, content structure, design tokens, browser and device test plan, and issue owners
A reviewable Draft whose claims can be checked against documented task tests, semantic structure, labels and alternatives, focus behavior, contrast checks, issue tracking, and reviewed fixes

Turn the shortlist into one small, reviewable test

Use one real page, one approved evidence pack, and one named reviewer to test the workflow. Ask each option to produce a Draft, then check the path from source material to page, the quality of the review conversation, and the precision of the publish boundary. A useful result is not simply that a page appeared quickly; it is a focused page organized around a website review that finds practical accessibility risks before the public version is promoted. This keeps the comparison grounded in work the team can inspect rather than in a generic claim about which tool is “best”. The official material from W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 is useful for understanding its stated product model; it should not replace a team’s own production test.

From company material to a published website

Organize evidence

Put the campaign brief, company files, portfolio, resume, event details, documents, images, and video in the project library and label each item’s intended use.

Create a Draft

The agent reads the audience, goal, facts, and assets, proposes the information architecture, implements real code, and runs foundational build checks.

Review the result

Owners inspect the Draft, task evidence, completion summary, and version boundaries, then request another edit if needed.

Publish deliberately

Only an explicit owner action moves the public domain to the new version. The same project remains available for changes informed by traffic and feedback.

Source materials and website draft connected across a studio desk

Prepare this evidence pack

Collect page inventory, interactive components, forms, media, content structure, design tokens, browser and device test plan, and issue owners
Write one measurable primary action for a website review that finds practical accessibility risks before the public version is promoted
Mark documented task tests, semantic structure, labels and alternatives, focus behavior, contrast checks, issue tracking, and reviewed fixes as approved, missing, private, or reference-only

Who this workflow fits

Teams launching or rebuilding company sites, landing pages, portfolios, content hubs, and commerce pages
Teams that need a real URL, responsive code, analytics, and later revisions
Projects where reviewers must approve the page before traffic is sent

Limits and cases to evaluate separately

A checklist or automated scan does not certify legal compliance or guarantee accessibility for every person, technology, or context.
ClawCraft does not verify unsupported business, career, legal, event, or performance claims
Forms, ticketing, payments, ATS submission, or CRM workflows must be scoped and tested separately

Official reference sources

W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 ↗web.dev: Learn Accessibility ↗

Frequently asked questions

Can automated tools finish accessibility review?

No. They can catch some issues, but manual testing of real tasks, content, interaction, and assistive-technology behavior remains necessary.

Can the page keep changing after launch?

Yes. ClawCraft keeps the source files, coded website, Drafts, published version, and task history together so a later brief can produce another reviewable Draft.

Does an AI-generated page publish automatically?

No. Generation creates a Draft. The current public version stays online until the project owner reviews and explicitly publishes the replacement.

Continue with a related path

The first release should make the next decision easier

After the first release, document what changed, who approved it, and which page or conversion signal will decide the next iteration. That creates a practical operating record instead of a one-off prompt. Keep the boundary visible: A checklist or automated scan does not certify legal compliance or guarantee accessibility for every person, technology, or context.. If a workflow can support that discipline while still helping the team move quickly, it is a stronger candidate for a company website than one judged only by its first visual result.