Challenge 05: Accessibility Review
What can you establish about the accessibility of an interactive experience, and what evidence supports your conclusions?
Individual Challenge · 10 points
MakerMap contains 20 deliberate accessibility issues based on material from Modules 01–05.
Conduct a complete accessibility review and identify all 20.
Use multiple testing methods. Support your conclusions with evidence, recommend corrections, and explain how you would verify them.
Challenge 05 is individual and cumulative across Modules 01–05. Begin during Session 10 and return after Session 11 to add screen-reader testing.
Your task
Use MakerMap to find a creative space for a project, compare available resources, review location and orientation information, and submit an orientation request.
Review Process
Use the methods needed to identify and verify all 20 issues. The Review Record documents your testing; the findings are the focus of the report.
- Normal use: Understand the service and complete its main task.
- Visual inspection: Review contrast, color dependence, text enlargement, and reflow; measure where appropriate.
- Media review: Evaluate meaningful images, the map, and prerecorded video.
- Keyboard testing: Try important interactions without a mouse or trackpad.
- Semantic/browser inspection: Inspect page structure, headings, controls, names, states, and relationships.
- Form and error testing: Complete the form, make errors, correct them, and submit successfully.
- Screen-reader testing: After Session 11, return to MakerMap and test structure, controls, form fields, errors, and status.
- Automated/assisted testing: Use WAVE, Accessibility Bookmarklets, a browser accessibility inspector, or another course-approved tool. Automated output is not proof of accessibility.
Deliverable
Submit one individual PDF through HuskyCT. Make it as long as necessary to document all 20 findings clearly and concisely. Screenshots may be used where helpful; one screenshot per finding is not required.
HuskyCT is the official location for submission, grades, and deadline information.
Section 1: Review Record
Keep this brief. Record the method/tool, browser or device where relevant, and what part of MakerMap you tested.
| Method | Tool / browser / device | What I tested |
|---|---|---|
| Normal use | ||
| Visual inspection | ||
| Media review | ||
| Keyboard testing | ||
| Semantic/browser inspection | ||
| Form and error testing | ||
| Screen-reader testing | ||
| Automated/assisted testing |
Section 2: All 20 Findings
Document all 20 deliberate issues. Keep each entry concise and specific enough that another person could reproduce the behavior.
- Observation: What is wrong? Describe what you observed or reproduced.
- Evidence: Cite relevant authoritative guidance, a measurement, or direct testing evidence.
- Recommendation: State what should change to address the actual barrier.
- Verification: Explain how you would confirm the correction works.
Include impact where it helps explain the significance. Avoid repeating a generic impact paragraph for every entry. Automated output alone is not sufficient evidence.
Section 3: Overall Judgment
Top Five Priorities
Rank the five issues you would address first and give a concise rationale for each. There is no single required prioritization formula.
One Thing You Would Not Call a Failure
Identify one aspect of MakerMap you might personally change but cannot confidently establish as an accessibility failure. Explain briefly.
AI Use Note
AI output is not evidence.
Include a brief note about AI use. You remain responsible for reproducing findings, verifying sources, checking citations, and making your own accessibility judgment.
Scoring
Challenge 05 is worth 10 points.
- Coverage and accuracy · 4 points: 4: essentially all issues accurately identified and reproducible; 3: most issues with generally accurate diagnoses; 2: significant gaps or several inaccurate/duplicate findings; 1: limited review with major gaps; 0: not meaningfully completed.
- Evidence · 2 points: 2: claims consistently supported by appropriate sources, measurements, or direct testing; 1: evidence mixed, weak, or inconsistently matched; 0: findings largely unsupported.
- Recommendations and verification · 2 points: 2: recommendations address the problems and verification meaningfully confirms correction; 1: mixed, vague, or incomplete; 0: missing or substantially inappropriate.
- Testing process · 1 point: 1: credible use of multiple relevant methods, including screen-reader testing; 0: missing or clearly insufficient.
- Prioritization, communication, and AI Use Note · 1 point: 1: Top Five demonstrates judgment, report is clear, non-failure distinction is reasonable, and AI Use Note is included; 0: substantially incomplete.
Total: 10 points. Individual submission.
Testing Resources
Submission and Deadline
Submit your individual PDF through HuskyCT. HuskyCT remains the official source for the due date, submission, and grades.
Return to Module 05 →