Background
Accessible products reach more users and reduce legal risk for employers. A structured audit shows you can use WCAG criteria, assistive tech, and prioritization — not just "add alt text."
Your mission
Pick one real public careers or job-search webpage (company careers site, university portal, or job board). Conduct an accessibility audit, log issues with severity, and redesign two high-impact components in Figma.
Audit scope (minimum)
Run checks across these modalities:
| Modality | What to test |
|---|
| Keyboard | Tab order, focus visibility, trap in modals, skip links |
| Color/contrast | Text vs background (WCAG AA: 4.5:1 body, 3:1 large text) |
| Screen reader | VoiceOver or NVDA on key flow (apply, search, filter) |
| Zoom | 200% browser zoom — layout breaks, horizontal scroll |
| Forms | Labels, error association, required field communication |
Requirements
- Audit report (PDF) — URL audited, date, tools used, 8+ issues with:
- WCAG 2.2 criterion reference (e.g. 1.4.3 Contrast)
- Severity: Critical / Major / Minor
- Screenshot evidence
- Recommended fix (specific, not vague)
- Before/after Figma — redesign two critical or major components (e.g. job card, filter panel, application form).
- Prioritization note — why you fixed these two first (user impact × effort).
Evaluation criteria
- Methodology — reproducible steps; another auditor could verify findings.
- WCAG literacy — criteria cited correctly; not conflating UX preferences with a11y violations.
- Fix quality — after designs address root issue (contrast, name/role/value, focus).
- Communication — report readable by PM and engineer.
Tips
- axe DevTools or WAVE can seed findings; manually verify before reporting.
- Don't audit pages behind login unless you provide test credentials in private note.
- Show focus ring design explicitly in after mocks.
Submission checklist
