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. ...
Introduction “How hard can a signup form be?” If that thought has ever crossed your mind… you’ve probably never tested it for accessibility. Forms are the most important interface for user input on the web. Login, checkout, search, surveys — virtually every core web function goes through a form. Yet for countless people, these forms are a complete barrier. Screen reader users can’t tell what an input field is asking for Keyboard-only users get stuck in front of a date picker People with cognitive disabilities see an error message but have no idea how to fix it A web form with multiple input fields — easy to get lost in, just like people navigating a maze. Photo: Susan Q Yin / Unsplash In this post, we’ll go through form accessibility from top to bottom, based on WCAG 2.2. No dry theory — just practical code you can use right away, paired with a demo page I built for this post. ...
Imagine a webpage with five images. Four of them have no alt text. When a blind user visits this page using a screen reader, those images are announced simply as “image” — or worse, as a raw filename. No meaning. No context. This isn’t a hypothetical. It’s the reality measured by South Korea’s 2025 Web Information Accessibility Survey, published on March 27, 2026. A user sitting in front of a laptop — without alt text, all image information is completely blocked Photo: Ardalan Hamedani / Unsplash What Changed This Year South Korea’s 2025 survey adopted a new standard. The guidelines were updated from KWCAG 2.1 (24 criteria) to KWCAG 2.2 (32 criteria), with 9 new items added. ...
Introduction “We used red and green to distinguish them, so it should be fine.” It’s a thought that comes up naturally during development. But more people than you’d expect have difficulty telling those two colors apart. Statistics based on Northern European ancestry suggest that roughly 1 in 12 men and 1 in 200 women have red-green color vision deficiency. The exact ratio varies by region and genetic background, but the fact remains: there are always users who struggle to distinguish red from green. ...
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. ...
Introduction Have you ever tried using the internet without a mouse? Most people take their mouse for granted. But there are many people who can’t use one. People with physical disabilities who can’t operate a mouse People with repetitive strain injuries like carpal tunnel syndrome People with temporary arm injuries Power users who simply find keyboards more efficient For these users, the question “Can I use this site with just a keyboard?” is crucial. ...
Introduction In Atomic Tests vs. Holistic Tests: A New Testing Methodology, we discussed balancing Atomic and Holistic tests. Now we need to address how we’ll “assert” and “document” these results. This is where Assertions come in. The scoring and conformance model covered in WCAG 3.0 Conformance Model: Changes After A/AA/AAA also connects with Assertions. This is because they provide a way to supplement areas not covered by quantitative tests with organizational processes and evidence. ...
Introduction When people hear “accessibility testing,” they often think of a checklist: “Does this button have alternative text?” “Is the contrast ratio high enough?” WCAG 2.2 is built around clear pass/fail checks like these. WCAG 3.0 moves toward a broader unit of evaluation, aiming to consider overall user experience quality. That shift naturally changes how we test. We now combine fine-grained checks (Atomic) with real-world contextual evaluation (Holistic). This shift directly connects to the score-based conformance model discussed in WCAG 3.0 Conformance Model: Beyond A/AA/AAA. The weight you give each test type can change the score and the level you reach. ...
Introduction In the previous post, we looked at why WCAG 3.0 reorganized “Success Criteria” into “Outcomes.” This post focuses on changes to the conformance model. WCAG 3.0 aims for a different approach than WCAG 2.x, but it is still in the Editor’s Draft (2026-01-05) stage and is not finalized. Conformance levels, scoring approaches, and evaluation methods are still being explored. Important: This post is based on the WCAG 3.0 Editor’s Draft (2026-01-05). The draft can change at any time, and the document itself is explicitly marked as a work in progress. ...
Introduction Running a blog in both Korean and English revealed an interesting problem. When sharing blog links internationally, visitors often land on the Korean page. Those who can’t read Korean are confused, right? Similarly, when Korean readers click on English post links shared in Korean communities, they face the same issue. While there’s a language switcher button in the header, new visitors often struggle to find it. This isn’t user-friendly, and from an accessibility perspective, it’s not ideal either. ...