Series Subscribe to Series RSS feed

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. ...