This post is part of an ongoing effort to monitor public websites as a web accessibility professional. It is written with the goal of improving information accessibility and advancing technology — not as a political statement. I only recently found out the Cheong Wa Dae website had been redesigned. Life gets busy, and I was a bit late to the news — but as soon as I heard, I was curious enough to check it out. ...
This essay records what I have wrestled with on the ground about web accessibility, public web services, and the responsibilities of developers. Between law and technology, standards and reality, I try to answer the question: “Are we truly building for everyone?” Is today’s Seollal(Korean Lunar New Year) really providing equal information to everyone? Produced by: Nano Banana Ahead of the Seollal(Korean Lunar New Year) holiday, I browse the web to find helpful information. Seollal(Korean Lunar New Year) is a uniquely Korean holiday. As I visit site after site, the first thing I often encounter is an auto-rotating banner or card news. Around Seollal, these banners include important government notices like emergency information. ...
This post is a record of grappling with web accessibility, public web services, and the responsibilities of developers from direct, hands-on experience. Between law, technology, standards, and reality, I try to answer the question: “Are we really building for everyone?” In the previous post, we confirmed that the Digital Inclusion Act asks “what is usable?” Then this question remains: If AI is a system that makes decisions? If users can’t understand automated decisions? How do we distinguish between content created by generative AI? ...
This post is a record of grappling with web accessibility, public web services, and the responsibilities of developers from direct, hands-on experience. Between law, technology, standards, and reality, I try to answer the question: “Are we really building for everyone?” ↻ 2026-08-12 Updated Cross-checked against the enacted statute and corrected an article-number error. “Providing alternative means so services can be used without intelligent information technology” is Article 4, not Article 21, in the enacted law. Article 21 covers accessibility quality certification. The draft bill’s numbering had been carried over by mistake. In the previous post, we reached this question: ...
This piece is a record of wrestling with web accessibility, public services, and a developer’s responsibility from the field. Between law and technology, between standards and reality, I try to answer: “Are we really building for everyone?” While working on web accessibility for years, I found myself repeatedly hearing a similar question: “We’re certified and passed the checklist. Isn’t accessibility done now?” When I first heard this question, I nodded briefly. Many public websites did meet WCAG 2.1 / KWCAG 2.2 standards, passed screen reader tests, and satisfied contrast requirements. ...