Two observable markup gaps
We removed the label associated with the guide's single URL input and removed the image's alt attribute. The production formLabels check identified one unlabelled field out of one; imgAlt identified one image without alt out of one. These counts were checked against the exact source HTML.
The failing form label check triggered the accessibility critical cap. An image can require a meaningful description or an empty alt for decoration; the right value depends on its purpose.
<input id="website" name="website" type="url">
<img src="/audit-example.svg" width="640" height="320">Restore the accessible names and repeat the scan
The form label's for value now matches the input id. The image text describes the workflow conveyed by the example graphic. We left the rest of the HTML and environmental controls unchanged.
Both checks passed in the repeat run. Accessibility became 100/100; the overall score became 84/100. A 100 in this static example means its scored checks passed. It is not a certificate of accessibility or a complete audit of the rendered interface.
<label for="website">Website URL</label>
<input id="website" name="website" type="url">
<img src="/audit-example.svg" width="640" height="320"
alt="Audit workflow: inspect HTML, fix an issue, and verify the change">Verify the evidence yourself
Compare the before HTML with the after HTML. Download all checks from the sample report. The four-audit study documents the experiment controls and measurement mode.
What still needs human testing
On a real page, check keyboard navigation, focus visibility, error messages, reading order, zoom and screen-reader announcements. Verify labels in each template and state, including client-rendered forms. Static markup checks cannot establish the complete experience or a legal compliance outcome.
Run the accessibility checker on the URL with the form and use the website grader to review the other dimensions. Recheck the same URL after editing its template.