Infolektuell

Right, not great, but really not the worst candidate. ;-) Such validator tools can provide a quick overview, but they have an efficiency problem. It is more efficient for devs to think about a11y in terms of workflows instead of a large ruleset that has to be fulfilled perfectly. Automated validators are not aware of the intended workflows in the app or website and thus cannot identify the critical parts. It's not about being perfect, but it's about how easy we can get the workflows done. Fixing the critical problems first and making progress step by step should be a good strategy. Validator tools tend to complain e.g. about every missing alt tag on images. Many devs think they have to invent a label for every image to make the validator happy. Most images on the web could simply get an empty alt attribute which hides them from screen readers, because their content is not critical. If the image is the only content of a link or button, it might convey critical information for the workflow and needs meaningful alt text.

Thanks, tested primarily on Desktop, have to do more mobile testing. ;-) Maybe this will be graded itself after a while. Generally, I want to reach a very compact presentation of relevant information instead of writing more long essays to accomodate the attention problems of these days.

To make Braille a bit more approachable for sighted persons, I created a little web app that lets you write unicode Braille using your keyboard like an old-school mechanical typewriter. This should also highlight the potential and advantages of unicode Braille. In pre-unicode times, braille characters were stored in text files by mapping each dot combination to an ASCII character. For correctly displaying and printing a Braille file, we had to know its ASCII encoding and the locale-dependent mapping between chars and Braille patterns. Storing Braille data as unicode resolves this ambiguity and makes them robust and portable.