AI Accessibility Code Generator

What the Code Generator Does

You describe a UI component, choose a framework and a WCAG target, and a hosted large language model drafts the component for you. The prompt it receives is not a generic coding request: it names the WCAG version and conformance level you picked, spells out which success criteria that version adds, and demands a fixed JSON structure with the code, an explanation of the accessibility decisions, usage examples, and lists of the criteria addressed, tests to run, mistakes to avoid, and follow-up improvements.

The response streams back as it is written, and the server parses it as JSON before handing it over; a reply that is not valid JSON becomes an error message rather than a broken page. The contents of each section are not verified. What you see has the right shape, but it has not passed an accessibility test; that part is yours.

How to Use It

1. Pick the component type and framework. The type steers which interaction pattern the model follows, so choose Combobox rather than Dropdown if the user can type, and Modal rather than Alert if the user must respond before continuing.
2. Set the WCAG version and level. The defaults, WCAG 2.2 at Level AA, are right for almost every project. Level AAA asks the model for 7:1 contrast tokens and extra cognitive support; Level A drops the AA criteria.
3. Describe the behaviour, not the look. Say what the component does, what states it has, and what happens on error. “A date picker that opens on click, supports arrow keys between days, and returns focus to the input on close” produces a far better draft than “a nice date picker”.
4. Generate, then review the sections in order. Read the code, then the testing guide, and run those tests before you read the WCAG compliance list. The list describes what the model intended, and the tests tell you whether it succeeded.

The WCAG 2.2 Criteria It Targets

Interactive components fail a predictable cluster of success criteria, and the prompt is built around them. Expect the draft and its compliance list to address:

• 2.1.1 Keyboard and 2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap (Level A): every action reachable by keyboard, and focus able to leave.
• 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value (Level A): native elements or correct ARIA roles, accessible names, and state attributes such as aria-expanded and aria-selected.
• 1.3.1 Info and Relationships (Level A): labels associated with fields, groups, headings, and list structure expressed in markup.
• 2.4.3 Focus Order and 2.4.7 Focus Visible (Level A and AA): focus moved deliberately in dialogs and menus, and never hidden by CSS.
• 3.3.1 Error Identification and 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions (Level A) for forms, with 4.1.3 Status Messages (Level AA) for anything announced through a live region.
• The criteria new in WCAG 2.2 that the prompt calls out by number when you choose 2.2: 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum), 2.5.7 Dragging Movements, 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum), 3.2.6 Consistent Help, 3.3.7 Redundant Entry, and 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum).

The compliance list in the output pairs each criterion number with a one-line justification. Check the numbers against the criterion pages linked above; models occasionally cite a plausible-sounding number that does not match the requirement they describe.

What It Cannot Do

The generator never executes, renders, or tests the code. It cannot see your design system, your existing focus styles, or the page the component will live in, so it cannot know whether the contrast tokens it suggests actually meet 1.4.3 in your theme or whether its focus ring will be visible on your background. It cannot verify its own WCAG claims. And like any language model it can produce ARIA that is syntactically valid and semantically wrong, such as a role that conflicts with the native element or a live region that fires on every keystroke.

Reading the Output

The result opens with the component code and a quick-actions bar for copying or downloading it with the right file extension for your framework. Detailed Code Analysis explains the choices in three tabs: a walkthrough of the code, the accessibility context behind it, and a real-world scenario. Implementation Examples shows basic usage, an advanced configuration, and a fuller integration.

The four summary cards are the review aids. Accessibility Features lists what the code claims to implement, WCAG Compliance lists the criteria and why, Testing Guide gives two to six concrete checks, and Best Practices records the conventions applied. Common Mistakes to Avoid and Enhancement Suggestions follow, and the Implementation Summary closes with ordered integration steps and your credit balance. If several cards read “No items provided”, the model padded a thin response; regenerate with more detail rather than trusting the code alone.

Frequently Asked Questions