Checked 9/24/2026 · https://citeglass.com/
No critical barriers in the checked HTML · 1 point to follow up.
Since the previous scan: no change.
How is the score formed? (100 starting points)
| 1 form fields without a recognisable label | -7 |
| Result | 93 / 100 |
Perceivable
1 form fields without a recognisable label
Check whether there is an aria-label set via JavaScript.
<input type="text" name="website">
This is what you should do: Link each field to a <label for> element or set aria-label / aria-labelledby. A placeholder alone is not enough.
Already handled correctly
- A skip link to the content exists
- A <main> landmark exists
- Contrast: no unambiguous breaches found in the CSS
Next steps
- 1 form fields without a recognisable label. Link each field to a <label for> element or set aria-label / aria-labelledby. A placeholder alone is not enough.
Weekly re-scan, JS-rendered, email on new barriers — coming soon.
Create an accessibility statement →
Method & limits
On 9/24/2026 the HTML that citeglass.com delivers on a first visit without login was checked, plus up to four linked CSS files from the same domain. Checked: colour contrast (from CSS), text alternatives, form labelling, names of controls, heading structure, page title and page language, zoom lock, duplicate ids, positive tabindex values, landmarks.
Not checked: anything that arises via JavaScript, keyboard operability, visible focus, focus order, screen-reader announcement, content behind login, subpages. The automated test finds roughly 20–35% of WCAG breaches — the rest needs a manual check. A snapshot, not a legal decision.
Overlay widgets (accessibility buttons that switch contrast or font size) do not make a site conformant — the barriers found have to be fixed in the source code. Why overlays don't help