Disability Visibility

This is the article version of a talk I gave at work to our disability business resource group.

Hi, I’m Rachele DiTullio, a senior accessibility engineer. My day-to-day work is making sure digital information and digital systems work for people with disabilities. I’m talking to you today as a disabled co-worker. I figured out as an adult that I’m autistic. I was also diagnosed with ADHD. Learning this information about myself suddenly explained so much of the friction in my life. I got involved with the disability community and started understanding what it means to be neurodivergent.

I borrowed the title of this talk from the book Disability Visibility, a collection of essays by disabled authors, edited by disability activist Alice Wong. I wanted to use this title not only to highlight this great collection as an introduction into the diverse lives of disabled people, but because it reflects what the disability community wants you to understand about disabled people.

Book cover for Disability Visibility, first-person stories from the twenty-first century edited, by Alice Wong. The text overlays several overlapping triangles of different sizes and bright colors.

When I was asked to do this talk, I went to the disability community on Twitter to find out what disabled people want folks to know about disability. I’ve included selected tweets in this talk in order to share what other disabled people are saying, not just me. Two things came up over and over. Not all disabilities are visible; and many people have multiple disabilities.

When we talk about disability visibility, we’re acknowledging that many hidden disabilities, like chronic pain and cognitive conditions, need awareness and accommodation too. But even those with visible disabilities have largely been made invisible from our society due to a variety of access barriers that serve to keep disability hidden, even when an estimated one in four people in the United States experiences disability.

This quote from Alice’s book stood out to me:

Taking up space as a disabled person is always revolutionary.

Sandy Ho, “Canfei to Canji: The Freedom of Being Loud”

Many of us spend so much time masking or gritting our way through pain just to survive that being seen and having our needs met feels radical when it should be expected.

Let’s take a look at a tweet. Amy (@click2carney) says:

Not all of us report our disability or stand out as having a disability. You may not SEE us, but we are here. Also, we are on a spectrum within our community, & may have multiple disabilities, so there is no one-size-fits all for us as a whole or within our own community.

Disability is not a dirty word

In Ettie Bailey-King’s article “Disability is not a dirty word“, she reminds us that it’s okay to say the word “disability” because disabled peoples’ lives aren’t tragedies. There’s nothing to sugar-coat with euphemisms like “special needs.”

There are two main ways of talking about disability: person-first language and identity-first language.

Person-first language looks like this:

  • I’m a person with disabilities.
  • Rachele, a person with ADHD.
  • They have autism.

Identity-first language looks like this:

  • I’m disabled.
  • Rachele’s autistic.
  • They’re neurodivergent.

I prefer identity-first language but others may prefer person-first language. It’s best to ask people how they identify.

Let’s look at a tweet from Ellen (@ellenspertus):

Having a disability isn’t shameful. You don’t need to pretend not to notice it or look away in embarrassment when we tell you about it.

Disability is a part of the human experience.

Let’s talk about ways of defining disability. There are many models of disability but two in particular are used frequently. Again from Bailey-King, the first is the medical model of disability, which says:

  • People are disabled by cognitive, physical or motor differences or impairments.
  • The “problem” is in their body.
  • People can be mildly or severely disabled, depending on how far their body is from a “normal” body.

The second is the social model of disability, which says:

  • People are disabled by structures. A wheelchair user is disabled by design choices, like buildings without ramps.
  • The problem is social systems, not people’s bodies.
  • Disability is a mismatch between a person and the environment they’re in.

Let’s look at a tweet from Adam (@adamfare1996):


Friendly reminder that Autism and ADHD aren’t inherent mental illnesses, however they can be linked to mental illnesses.

And for some they are inherent disabilities, for others only disabling because of society, and for others not disabilities at all.

All are valid.

Attitudes towards disabled people

Scope, a disability rights organization out of the UK, conducted a survey of attitudes towards disabled people with over 4000 disabled people and discovered that they experience a lot of negative attitudes and behaviors in their daily lives.

One third of disabled people (36%) stated that they have often experienced negative attitudes and behaviors in the last 12 months. (This increases to one in two disabled people (50%) under the age of 55.)

44% of disabled people said they feel less equal to others because of the attitudes and behaviors they experience.

42% experienced negative attitudes from work management; 41% from coworkers.

35% said they avoided [work] completely because of their negative experiences.

What we’re often working against is ableism.

Ableism is a set of beliefs or practices that devalue and discriminate against people with physical, intellectual, or psychiatric disabilities and often rests on the assumption that disabled people need to be ‘fixed’ in one form or the other. Ableism is intertwined in our culture, due to many limiting beliefs about what disability does or does not mean, how able-bodied people learn to treat people with disabilities and how we are often not included at the table for key decisions.

Leah Smith, Center for Disability Rights

Let’s look at a tweet from Gregory Mansfield (@GHMansfield):

Nondisabled people: “I’m so sorry you’re in a wheelchair. It must be tough being confined to a wheelchair and wheelchair bound.”

Disabled people: “Congratulations on getting the wheelchair. You’ll have so much more mobility and freedom now.”

Ableism is endemic in our society and must be actively dismantled like other forms of implicit bias.

Types of disabilities

Disabilities are generally sorted into five broad categories:

  • Vision
  • Hearing
  • Mobility
  • Cognitive
  • Speech

Disability is a spectrum and may be permanent, temporary or situational:

Disability is the largest minority group there is and it’s the only one that we can enter at any time.

Disability is intersectional

Disability is not a monolith and there is no singular disabled experience. Some areas of intersectionality with disability include:

  • Race
  • Gender identity
  • Sexual orientation
  • Size
  • Socioeconomic status

The experiences of a Black disabled person will vary from those of a trans disabled person or a poor disabled person in meaningful ways. Disability also intersects with every aspect of someone’s life:

  • Employment
  • School
  • Family
  • Community
  • Mass incarceration

2016 data show that disabled people are overrepresented in the prison population making up approximately two-thirds of those incarcerated.

Talking about disability

We talked about the differences between person-first and identity-first language but let’s talk about some preferred terms for different types of disabilities.

  • Vision: Blind or low vision
  • Hearing: D/deaf, hard of hearing (HoH)
  • Mobility: Limited mobility (wheelchair user, keyboard user, etc.)
  • Cognitive: Neurodiversity, neurodivergent (Autism, dyslexia, Tourette syndrome, etc.)
  • Speech: Non-speaking

It’s also important to know what terms to avoid. This is not an exhaustive list. For more information, consult the National Center on Disability and Journalism style guide.

  • Handicapped. You still see this word used in signage, but the preferred term is to simply refer to things as being accessible.
  • Using “the”, e.g. “the blind” or “the deaf”. This is very othering language that serves to exclude people.
  • Crippled. This word should not be used anymore but it has been reclaimed by the disability community. You may hear disabled people refer to each other as “crips”, but you should not use this in-group term if you are not disabled.
  • Special needs. Disabled needs are human needs. Calling them special makes it easier to ignore them.
  • Differently-abled. As discussed, terms like this are unhelpful euphemisms. The preferred terms are disability and disabled.
  • Able-bodied. This term should generally be avoided. The preferred terms are non-disable or enabled. The disability community sometimes refers to non-disabled people as “ableds”.
  • Crazy/insane. These terms are pejorative towards people with mental illness and should not be used as insults.
  • Idiot/moron. These terms are pejorative towards people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and should not be used as insults.
  • Wheelchair-bound. No one is wheelchair-bound. People who use wheelchairs don’t spend all of their time in wheelchairs so this term is simply incorrect.
  • Spastic/spaz. This is a specific medical term for some motor conditions and should not be used as an insult.
  • Asperger’s or “high/low functioning Autism”. Asperger’s has not been in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) for more than 10 years and the term has roots in eugenics. It’s better to talk about Autism in term of the support needs of each person. Most people who are autistic are adults and we generally prefer the terms “autistic” or “autist”.

Let’s look at a tweet from Amelia (@ameliarchaeo), a Deaf archeologist:

Do not use ‘hearing impaired’, ‘deaf-mute’, ‘deaf-dumb’, ‘fall on deaf ears’, ‘tone deaf’.



Microaggressions are comments or actions that subtly and often unconsciously or unintentionally express a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalized group, like disabled people. Let’s look at some examples.

  • Petting a person’s guide dog. Guide dogs are working and should not be touched without their owner’s permission.
  • “I’ll pray for you.” Many disabled people find this infantilizing because it implies that the person is disabled because they haven’t satisfied some religious requirement.
  • “I could never do what you do. You’re so inspiring!” Disabled people are not there as inspiration for non-disabled people. We are just going about our lives, trying to survive.
  • Pity. Disabled people do not want or need pity or sympathy. Most of us do not view our disabilities in such a negative light.
  • Talking to the interpreter not the Deaf person. It’s just rude not to speak to the person you’re having the conversation with.
  • Getting angry when offers for help are refused. Many disabled people don’t want or don’t need help from others and when they do, they’ll ask. Don’t be offended if a disabled person refuses an offer of help.

Let’s look at a tweet from Jennifer (@jenpeggs):

Never touch someone without consent. This includes their wheelchair, cane and other aids. It’s frightening even if it was meant well.

Ask questions but never demand answers.


Accessibility is the extent to which a product, service, physical location or digital asset works for disabled people. Accessibility is the way we benchmark how well our solutions work to break down barriers.

Let’s look at a tweet from Justin (@FatElvis04), a blind accessibility consultant:

To me, accessibility means I can do all the stuff my sighted peers take for granted. My eyeballs not working isn’t what prevents me from using your website… Your inaccessible code is the problem.

Accessibility is a human right.

To aid accessibility efforts, we can incorporate inclusive design. Inclusive design principals seek to create solutions that are usable by a wide range of people. There’s a saying in the disability community: Nothing about us without us. This means that our design process must include disabled people. We need to hire disabled people to create and build solutions. We need to pay disabled people for their feedback on how our solutions can work better for them.

July is Disability Pride month

Each year on July 26, we celebrate Disability Independence Day which marks the day the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law in 1990. This year marks the 33rd anniversary of the signing. Let’s not forget what led to Congress passing this bill.

In March of 1990, over 1000 members of the disability rights group ADAPT met at the US Capitol to speak with members of Congress about ADA legislation. But the Capitol was inaccessible to many of the activists. There were 83 stone steps separating them from Congress. Many disabled people left their canes, crutches and wheelchairs to physically pull themselves up those steps to demonstrate the barriers they face every day.

A disabled white man on his knees and a disabled Black woman scooting ascend the US Capitol steps.

Members of ADAPT during the Capitol Crawl

Photo credit: Tom Olin

I want to leave you one of my favorite quotes about disability from Haben Girma, the first deafblind graduate of Harvard Law:

Disability is never a barrier. Design is.

Thank you.

Comparing Level Access automated tools to manual accessibility testing

Last updated: 27 January 2023

This article is in response to Adrian Roselli’s article Comparing Manual and Free Automated WCAG Reviews. Go read it first for background.

Automated accessibility testing tools cannot test all of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) success criteria. Adrian tested four free tools and compared them to his manual testing results. My intent is to add to the body of knowledge by providing results from the Level Access AMP accessibility testing tool. Level Access also provides a free browser extension that runs the same tests called Access Assistant.

I wanted to compare Level Access’s tools to Adrian’s manual testing findings because these tools are what we use at my work and I share his concerns that too many stakeholders lean on automated testing when it uncovers only a portion of potential problems.


I tested the same page,, and performed a review with the following tools against WCAG 2.1 Level A and Level AA:

I performed the tests on 19 January 2023 with a live version of the site. It does not seem to have changed since Adrian’s testing on 14 January 2023 of these four automated tools:

All references to manual testing results are Adrian’s data. I did not find anything additional in my manual testing.

a screenshot of the page with a navigation bar across the top with a search icon. Below is some introductory text, a looping video, a decorative image and an image with the text case study. webpage – dark mode


Number of success criteria failed
Tool Total A AA
Manual 18 11 7
AMP 5 5 0
axe 2 2 0
ARC 3 3 0
WAVE 0 0 0
EAAC 3 3 0

We compare this to the total number of unique failures as some issues have multiple instances but are counted only once and some success criteria have multiple issues.

Number of success criteria failures
Tool Total A AA
Manual 37 24 11
AMP 4 4 0
axe 2 2 0
ARC 3 3 0
WAVE 0 0 0
EAAC 5 5 0

Some tools provide alerts for issues to check manually, including AMP.

Number of alerts
Tool Alerts
Manual 0
AMP 10
axe 0

Raw results

This section provides the output as provided by AMP for the various success criteria. It also includes alerts or what AMP calls “Needs Review” issues.

WCAG failures

The following table compares WCAG Level A failures between manual testing and AMP automated results.

Comparing WCAG Level A manual and automated test results
WCAG 2.1 SCs at Level A Manual AMP
1.1.1 Non-text Content Fail
  1. This svg element does not have a mechanism that allows an accessible name value to be calculated.
    • Rule: Provide alternative text for images
    • 1 instance
    • <svg viewBox="0 0 238 36" fill="currentColor" height="36" width="238" xmlns="">...</svg>
1.2.1 Audio-only and Video-only (Prerecorded) Pass
1.2.2 Captions (Prerecorded) N/A
1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded) N/A
1.3.1 Info and Relationships Fail
  1. This A does not have a ul element (without an ARIA-assigned role); ol element (without an ARIA-assigned role); an element with a role set to the value: list as a parent; or a ul element (without an ARIA-assigned role), ol element (without an ARIA-assigned role) or element with a role set to the value ‘list’ with an aria-owns attribute set to the ID of the element in the same DOM
    • Rule: Ensure list items are found in a list container
    • 28 instances
    • <a role="listitem" href="/new-patterns-july-2022/" data-category="" data-action="click" class="card card-vertical"a>...</a>
1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence Pass
1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics N/A
1.4.1 Use of Color Fail
1.4.2 Audio Control N/A
2.1.1 Keyboard Pass
  1. This A is focusable and has an aria-hidden attribute set to true
    • Rule: Avoid placing inactive elements in the focus order
    • 2 instances
    • <a aria-hidden="true" href="/interop-2022-wrapup/"></a>
    • <a aria-hidden="true" href="/web-platform-12-2022/"></a>
2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap Pass
2.1.4 Character Key Shortcuts N/A
2.2.1 Timing Adjustable N/A
2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide Fail
2.3.1 Three Flashes or Below Threshold Pass
2.4.1 Bypass Blocks Pass
2.4.2 Page Titled Fail
2.4.3 Focus Order Fail
2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context) Pass
2.5.1 Pointer Gestures N/A
2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation Pass
2.5.3 Label in Name Fail
2.5.4 Motion Actuation N/A
3.1.1 Language of Page Pass
3.2.1 On Focus Pass
3.2.2 On Input Fail
3.3.1 Error Identification Fail
3.3.2 Labels or Instructions Fail
4.1.1 Parsing N/A
4.1.2 Name, Role, Value Fail
  1. The role attribute value of ‘listitem’ given to this A is not allowed. The element’s role attribute should be set to one of the following text values: button | checkbox | menuitem | menuitemcheckbox | menuitemradio | radio | tab | switch | treeitem; or the role attribute can be removed
    • Rule: Ensure ARIA roles, states, and properties are valid
    • 28 instances
    • <a role="listitem" href="/new-patterns-july-2022/" data-category="" data-action="click" class="card card-vertical">...</a>

NOTE: The rule “Ensure list items are found in a list container” failed in AMP for two success criteria, both 1.3.1 Info and Relationships and 4.1.1 Parsing.

AMP did not fail any WCAG Level AA success criteria so I am not including that table of results. Manual testing found 11 unique failures.


AMP provides additional potential issues as a list of “Needs Review” items. These alerts may or may not be WCAG failures and require manual review to determine if there is an accessibility issue.

  1. Avoid inappropriate use of ARIA roles, states, and properties, cites 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value. The A element has an aria-hidden attribute set to the value: true. [2 instances]
  2. Provide valid, concise, and meaningful alternative text for image buttons, cites 1.1.1 Non-text Content and 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value. This button element has a suspicious accessible name value of: all. [1 instance]
  3. Ensure link text is meaningful within context, cites 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context). This A element has a suspicious (i.e. lacks purpose or is >150 characters) calculated accessible name value of: css. [1 instance]
  4. Provide synchronized captions for video (which includes audio) or other multimedia, cites 1.2.2 Captions (Prerecorded) and 1.2.4 Captions (Live). This video element does not have a track with kind=captions. [1 instance]
  5. Ensure heading level matches the heading’s visual importance/level, cites 1.3.1 Info and Relationships. [4 instances]
    • This article element contains an incorrect or missing heading level which may cause improper nesting within the document heading hierarchy.
    • This H3 creates an inappropriate jump in heading levels within the document heading hierarchy.
    • This H5 creates an inappropriate jump in heading levels within the document heading hierarchy.
    • This H1 creates an inappropriate jump in heading levels within the document heading hierarchy.
  6. Provide an informative context-sensitive page title, cites 2.4.2 Page Titled. This title has a suspicious value. [1 instance]

Access Assistant

The Access Assistant browser extension Quick Test returned nearly the same results as the AMP test but as a list of issues with code snippets. Accessing the link for each issue displays an explanation of the issue but does not reference any rules or standards.

Screen shot of the Access Assistant browser extension window that displays quick test results for the URL in a list, the first issue being provide alternative text for images with a code example.
Access Assistant extension for Chrome

* denotes violations flagged by AMP:

  • Provide alternative text for images.*
  • Ensure text and images of text provide sufficient contrast.
  • Provide valid, concise, and meaningful alternative text for image buttons.
  • Ensure heading level matches the heading’s visual importance/level. [4 instances]
  • Ensure list items are found in a list container. [28 instances]*
  • Ensure all active elements receive keyboard focus or can be activated with the keyboard.
  • Avoid placing inactive elements in the focus order. [2 instances]*
  • Provide an informative, context-sensitive page title.
  • Ensure link text is meaningful within context.
  • Ensure ARIA roles, states, and properties are valid. [28 instances]*
  • Avoid inappropriate use of ARIA roles, states, and properties. [2 instances]
  • Provide synchronized captions for video (which includes audio) or other multimedia.

The Quick Test found one issue to check that was not flagged by AMP as either a violation or alert: Ensure text and images of text provide sufficient contrast.


The automated testing results from the Level Access tools are comparable with the other automated tools Adrian tested with manual testing finding more than 9x the unique success criteria issues. Use automated testing tools in tandem with manual testing to find the most potential accessibility issues. Relying on any automated testing alone will leave you with access gaps for your users.

Update: 27 January 2023

I’ve updated the Highlights data tables to reflect Adrian’s findings for the four automated tools he tested. For the sample, Access Assistant found more issues than WAVE Evaluation Tool, axe DevTools, and ARC Toolkit, and fewer than Equal Access Accessibility Checker.

Component library accessibility audit

The first project my manager tasked me with at my new job as a senior accessibility engineer in the Design Engineering organization was to perform an accessibility audit of the component library our team provides to the engineering team who codes the dotcom website. These components are generally page level rather than UI level, think a card or a form. In total, I audited 28 components in the context of the component library, not as the components have been implemented into the dotcom site.

Auditing solo components

Auditing components is necessary—all code should be tested for accessibility standards—but presenting a component alone on an empty page in the context of a component library has limitations.

Placeholder content

I don’t like working with placeholder content. Design should follow content creation so examples should be able to use real text and images. Instructions about how to create content should be presented separately along with instructions for how to markup content, e.g. “Optional Header” is an <h2>.

Announcing Optional Header (60 chars) The main body of the banner should be used to display the content of the banner's messages, supported by the header. (150 char max)
An example banner from the component library

This is the issue I created for this example banner which is HTML text over a background image:

In banner variations with text on a lifestyle background image, when zoomed in up to 400% at a viewport width of 1280px, some text may overlap portions of the image that do not provide enough color contrast.

It’s difficult for me to tell if this is just a bad example image or a true color contrast concern.

No context

This complication popped up on the first component I tested: Alerts. The library page presented these message boxes on a blank page. I wasn’t sure if the message boxes were supposed to be there on page load or if something triggered them. This matters because the message box containers have the role="alert" attribute.

two example alerts with an icon, message text and learn more link
Example alerts from the component library

The alert role is a type of status message. It’s supposed to be assigned to a container that is empty on page load. Then, when something happens on the page, the alert is loaded into the empty container and immediately announced to assistive technology because of the alert role. It’s not designed to include a call to action like “learn more” links.

I looked at the dotcom production site and saw an alert displayed on page load. Because it has the alert role, assistive technology announces the content of this message box before anything else, before even the name of the webpage or website. It also announces the message box content twice because it is the first thing on the page.

I decided someone got carried away with the ARIA and advised that they remove the role="alert" attribute because these message boxes do not fit the expected design pattern for an alert.

Not our problem

In The Book on Accessibility chapter “Accessibility Coaching Guide”, the section “Not our problem” covers one of the pitfalls of depending solely on component library accessibility: The component library is accessible, so the development team doesn’t think it has to worry about anything.

While an individual component can be completely accessible, they can be used in patterns that are completely inaccessible.

A helpful analogy is building a wall with bricks. Individually bricks are quite strong, but they can be arranged in a way that is fragile and very weak.

This is ultimately why I was tasked with this audit. Our team wants to ensure we are not introducing any accessibility issues in the code we provide. Then we can trace any accessibility issues in production to either the dotcom engineering team’s implementation of these components or to the content entry team.

Example component audit results

The format I used in my report was to provide a bulleted list of accessibility issues I found. I did not note the specific WCAG success criteria affected because I didn’t think the team needed to know that information.

Below the bulleted list of issues, I have a “Recommendations” heading where I repeated the same bulleted list but with the advice for how to remedy each issue. Below that is an optional section for “Resources” where I link to different articles or documentation to support the remediation advice.


The carousel does not follow the expected design pattern.

A carousel with a banner image and text. Controls include a play/pause button, tabs for each slides and previous/next buttons.
An example carousel from the component library
  1. The carousel is missing the expected role and accessible name.
  2. Slides and slide picker controls are missing the expected role and accessible name.
  3. Carousel controls are located after the slide content.
  4. The “play/pause” control has a confusing accessible name.
  5. The slide picker controls do not have sufficient contrast with the page background.
    • Foreground: #999898
    • Background: #FFFFFF
    • Contrast ratio: 2.88:1
  6. “Previous” and “next” controls do not have appropriate accessible names.
  7. The carousel does not stop advancing when a keyboard user activates the “previous” or “next” controls.
  8. Visible text beneath the slide heading is hidden from assistive technology.
  9. The “Call to action” control is a <button> element inside a link.
  10. Decorative slide images are announced by assistive technology.
  11. Hidden slide content is accessible to assistive technology.


  1. Add the aria-roledescription="carousel" attribute to the <section> element used to markup the carousel container. Provide an accessible name with the aria-label attribute.
  2. Markup slides and slide picker controls with tabpanel and tab roles with accessible names. See example. This includes enabling arrow keys to switch between slide tabs.
  3. Ensure carousel controls get keyboard focus before slide content. Group the “play/pause”, “previous” and “next” controls.
  4. When changing the name of a control depending on its state, do not use a toggle control. Remove the aria-pressed attribute from the “play/pause” control.
  5. Ensure slide picker controls have at least 3:1 contrast with the background.
  6. Remove the title and role attributes from the button <svg> elements for the “previous” and “next” controls; add the aria-hidden="true" attribute to hide them from assistive technology. Use the aria-label attribute on the button to provide the control with an accessible name.
  7. The carousel should stop advancing when any part of it has keyboard or mouse focus.
  8. Remove the aria-hidden="true" attribute from the visible slide text so that it is conveyed by assistive technology.
  9. Use either a link or a button for the “call to action” but not both.
  10. Ensure decorative slide images are hidden from assistive technology by providing an empty alt attribute.
  11. When a slide is visually hidden, it should also be hidden from assistive technology. This can be achieved by using the display:none CSS property on hidden slides or by adding the aria-hidden="true" attribute.


Common issues

Overall, the issues I found were pretty typical. It’s obvious people working on this component library have some accessibility knowledge and tried to create an accessible experience but likely did not do adequate testing with assistive technology, like a screen reader.

  1. Multiple ARIA issues with controls missing the expected roles and accessible names
  2. Decorative images and icons not hidden from assistive technology
  3. Information not available in smaller viewports or when zoomed to 400% at 1280px wide
  4. Color contrast issues with both text (4.5:1) and control borders (3:1)
  5. Some controls are not keyboard accessible


Testing a component library is challenging when it presents placeholder content without surrounding content for context. Testing the structure of a component is good for catching ARIA and resize issues but has limited value in ensuring the resulting website is accessible. Remember to test a representative sample of pages from your website that uses each of the library components with real content. What matters is how accessible your final content is.