Accessibility audit
workflow.
A11yGeniusAn accessibility workflow exploring how teams can move from a technical finding to an informed decision about a fix.
Product exploration / Accessibility & AIExplore the project
The remediation
challenge.
An audit can surface a problem without giving the person responsible enough context to resolve it. A11yGenius explores the gap between detecting an issue and understanding the affected element, the guidance, and the next review step.
My work spans product design and development. The interface connects audit overview, issue detail, and suggested corrections while keeping human judgment part of the workflow.
The review
workflow.
The intended path starts with an overview of the audit, moves into an individual finding, and brings the affected element together with correction guidance. Keeping that context connected is meant to reduce the translation work between a report and the code.
These screen concepts explain the proposed workflow. They show the design direction being prepared for early access.
Dashboard
An overview of audit activity, issue categories, and review tools. Product screen concept.
Audit history
Past runs and a route back into an individual audit. Product screen concept.
Audit overview
Findings and their breakdown across audit categories. Product screen concept.
Audit issues
Prioritized findings with context for review. Product screen concept.
Open issues
Outstanding findings grouped by severity. Product screen concept.
Fix guidance
The affected experience, its impact, and suggested correction. Product screen concept.
01 / Check the page
Start with the rendered experience and a clear view of the issues automated checks can identify.
02 / Understand the finding
Connect technical evidence with plain-language explanations and suggested corrections.
03 / Review the result
Recheck changes, carry out manual testing, and document what still needs attention.
The people
resolving issues.
Different people need different levels of detail from the same accessibility finding.
Developers & product teams
Inspect the affected element and review suggested code changes in context.
Agencies & web teams
Give designers and developers a shared starting point for remediation.
Accessibility leads
Support triage and documentation while keeping the need for manual review visible.
AI guidance.
Human review.
The key design tension is between making a recommendation useful and making it look more certain than it is. A suggested correction needs enough evidence for a person to judge whether it fits the actual interface.
That is why issue context and review matter alongside the suggestion itself. The workflow treats AI as support for a decision, with manual evaluation still part of the work.
More about how I workA little more
context.
What was your role?
I worked across product design and development, connecting audit workflows, information hierarchy, and the interface used to review findings.
Why show six screens?
The relationship between screens matters as much as a single polished view. These product screen concepts show how someone moves from overview to issue detail and correction guidance.
What can automation tell us?
An automated scan can identify some issues. Keyboard testing, assistive technology testing, and human review remain part of evaluating the experience.
What stage is the product in?
A11yGenius is in development, with the audit workflow and supporting guidance being prepared for early access.
What I would
test next.
The next evaluation should follow a real remediation task: can someone explain the finding, locate the affected element, assess a suggestion, and identify what still requires manual testing?
I would look for confusion between a suggested correction and a verified resolution. That distinction is central to whether the product helps people make better accessibility decisions.
Next: AstralKit