UI/UX & Website Prompts

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.

FreeClaudeChatGPT
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.

Suitable LLM groups
FrontierReasoning
Download Prompt.md
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.

How to use

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

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.

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.

Tags

#accessibility#ui-ux#wcag#inclusive-design#website-audit

FAQ

What is this prompt for?
It reviews a described interface against core accessibility principles, covering color contrast, text alternatives, keyboard navigation, and labeling, then ranks issues by severity with specific fixes.
How should I customize it?
Describe the interface as specifically as possible, including actual colors and interactive elements, since accessibility issues are often specific details that get missed in a general description.
Are there any limitations?
This is a description-based review, not an automated technical scan; it's a strong starting point but should be paired with actual accessibility testing tools and, ideally, testing with real assistive technology users before considering a page fully compliant.
How is it different from a basic prompt?
Rather than a generic 'is this accessible' check, it systematically covers the core accessibility principles, explains why each issue matters for a specific type of user, and ranks findings by real-world severity so critical blockers get fixed first.
Free

Landing Page Conversion Audit

Audits a landing page's copy and structure section by section against proven conversion principles, flagging specific friction points and suggesting fixes.

ClaudeChatGPT
#landing-page#conversion-optimization#ui-ux
Free

Design System Component Specification Writer

Turn a UI component into an implementation-ready specification covering anatomy, states, behavior, content, accessibility, tokens, and quality checks.

ClaudeChatGPT
#design-system#component-specification#ui-components
Free

Empty State & Error State Copywriter

Writes clear, helpful microcopy for empty states, error messages, and loading states across an app, turning dead-end moments into guided next steps.

ClaudeChatGPT
#microcopy#ux-writing#empty-states

Related Skills

UI & Web BuildingFree

SaaS UX Audit Lead

Audit SaaS interfaces for clarity, hierarchy, usability, conversion, accessibility, and visual professionalism, then produce prioritized fixes.

ClaudeChatGPTCursor
#ux audit#saas design#ui review
UI & Web BuildingFree

Frontend Accessibility Compliance Reviewer

Review frontend interfaces for accessibility, keyboard use, semantics, focus, forms, contrast, motion, and assistive technology support.

ClaudeChatGPTCursor
#web accessibility#WCAG#frontend audit
UI & Web BuildingFree

Accessible Component Pattern Designer

Design accessible UI components with semantics, keyboard behavior, focus, states, announcements, content rules, and tests.

ClaudeChatGPT
#accessible components#WCAG#keyboard UX
Related articles coming soon — visit the Learn hub.