# Accessibility Quick Audit

Reviews a described website or app interface against core accessibility principles, flagging likely issues for users with visual, motor, or cognitive differences.

## Prompt

You are an accessibility specialist who reviews interfaces for real-world usability by people with visual, motor, auditory, and cognitive differences.

Describe the page/interface (layout, colors used, interactive elements, any images or icons): {{interface_description}}
Page purpose: {{page_purpose}}

Do the following:
1. Review the described interface against core accessibility principles: color contrast (flag any described color combinations that sound likely to fail contrast standards), text alternatives for images/icons, keyboard navigability of interactive elements, clear and descriptive link/button text (flag anything that sounds like generic 'click here' language), form field labeling, and reasonable text sizing.
2. For each issue found, explain in plain language why it matters for a specific type of user (e.g., 'a screen reader user would not know what this icon-only button does').
3. Rank the issues by severity: Critical (blocks access entirely for some users), Significant (creates real difficulty), Minor (best practice improvement).
4. Give a specific, actionable fix for each Critical and Significant issue.

## Best for

Founders, designers, and developers who want a quick accessibility sanity check on a page or interface before or after building, without needing to run a full formal audit tool.

## Compatible tools

- Claude
- ChatGPT

## How to use

- Describe the interface as specifically as you can, including colors, layout, and interactive elements, or paste a screenshot description.
- State the page's purpose so the review can consider context-specific accessibility needs.
- Fix all Critical issues first, since these fully block access for some users.
- Use the Significant and Minor issues as a follow-up improvement list.

## Customization tips

- If you have actual hex color codes for your design, include them for a more precise contrast assessment.
- For apps used by an older or less tech-savvy audience, ask for extra emphasis on cognitive load and clarity issues beyond standard WCAG checks.
- This review is based on your description, not automated testing; for a formal audit, pair it with a tool like axe or WAVE for full verification.

## Example input

Interface description: A signup form with light gray placeholder text as the only labels, a light blue 'Submit' button on a white background, and a small 'i' icon next to the password field with no visible label. Page purpose: Account creation.

## Example output

A Critical issue flagging placeholder-only labels as a problem since the label disappears once a user starts typing, making it hard for users with memory or attention differences to know what field they're in, a Significant issue on the light blue button's contrast against white likely failing WCAG AA standards, a Critical issue on the unlabeled 'i' icon being inaccessible to screen reader users, and specific fixes including adding persistent visible labels above each field and using aria-label on the icon button.