A lot of the times, when we discuss the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, there is a misconception that if you meet all of the criteria then your service will work for everyone. Here is a little thread to explain why #WCAG itself is not enough. It's very difficult to gauge how accessible something is or isn't based on WCAG alone. There are 3 levels (A, AA, and AAA). However, AA is pretty much the minimum standard, and even @w3c who wrote WCAG do not advocate for trying to meet AAA across the board.

I’ve been trying to form some accessibility principles for @DWPDigital; and with the help of @htmlandbacon I think we’ve cracked it.

I wanted them to be digital agnostic, as I think accessibility is often seen as a technology issue rather than about people.

#a11y 1. Inclusion is better than empathy

It's good to understand how other people might feel, but don’t assume you know their needs. 1 in 3 show unconscious bias towards people who have a disability. Include a diverse group of people and be collaborative when designing services.

I've recently been collecting accessibility audits to try and understand what makes a good one, what makes a bad one, and if there is any work we can do to try and standardise them a bit, at least across Government. Here is a thread of my findings. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) outlines that an audit should include 8 things:
1: Executive Summary
2: Background
3: Scope
4: Reviewer(s)
5: Review process
6: Results and recommendations
7: References
8: Appendices
w3.org/WAI/test-evalu…