Accessibility Gate WCAG

Scope And Standards

• Evaluate against WCAG 2.1 Level A and AA.
• Prioritize user-impacting failures first (keyboard traps, inaccessible names, focus visibility, form errors, contrast).
• Treat Bootstrap/RDS defaults as helpful but not automatically compliant in composed usage.

Inputs To Gather

• Changed files in

  src/

  affecting UI or interaction.
• Screens or URLs for changed views when available.
• Test/lint evidence relevant to accessibility checks.

Missing info

Audit Workflow

1. Identify affected user journeys and interactive elements (forms, modals, nav, tables, alerts, media).
2. Run a semantic pass: landmarks, heading order, labels, names/roles/values, alt text, language.
3. Run an interaction pass: keyboard navigation, focus order, focus visibility, skip paths, dialog behavior.
4. Run a perception pass: color contrast, text resize/reflow, status/error messaging, motion sensitivity.
5. Map each finding to WCAG 2.1 criterion and classify severity.
6. Recommend the smallest viable fix with file-level guidance.

Severity Model

• Blocking

  : prevents task completion or creates severe assistive-tech failure.

• Major

  : significant degradation for accessibility users; should be fixed before merge.

• Minor

  : real issue with lower impact/scope.

• Advisory

  : improvement opportunity, not a defect.

Output Format

1. Blocking findings (highest severity first) with file references and WCAG criterion.
2. Major findings.
3. Minor findings.
4. Missing info.
5. Final gate decision:

   Pass

   ,

   Pass with caveats

   , or

   Fail

   with one-line rationale.

Repository Alignment

• Follow

  AGENTS.md

  conventions (Vue 3 + TypeScript + Vitest + Yarn).
• Prefer fixes using existing RDS/Bootstrap patterns before introducing custom behavior.
• For any custom UI workaround, note why RDS/Bootstrap could not satisfy the requirement.
• For each code fix recommendation, include at least one test suggestion under

  tests/

  mirroring

  src/

  path.

Reference