Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Documents accessibility decisions and their rationale to preserve context across team changes, redesigns, and time. Includes a reusable decision record format with context, alternatives, impact, and tradeoffs.
npx claudepluginhub owl-listener/inclusive-design-skills --plugin accessibility-decisionsHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/accessibility-decisions:decision-documentationThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Record accessibility decisions so that future teams understand not
Captures accessibility decisions, tradeoffs, and WCAG compliance for a feature during design or shipping.
Creates structured narrative decision records for design system choices like components, tokens, tooling, and governance, capturing context, options, trade-offs, and rationale.
Documents the reasoning behind design decisions including alternatives considered, trade-offs evaluated, and principles applied. Useful for UX decisions, stakeholder alignment, and preserving design context.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Record accessibility decisions so that future teams understand not just what was decided, but why — preventing the cycle where good decisions get reversed because nobody remembers the reasoning.
Accessibility barriers accumulate quietly through redesigns, framework updates, staff turnover, and rushed deadlines. The most common cause isn't malice or ignorance — it's a new team member changing something without knowing why it was built that way.
Documentation is the immune system. It protects good decisions from being undone by people who weren't in the room.
For each significant accessibility decision, record:
A clear, searchable name. "Form validation: inline errors instead of summary banner"
When was this decided and by whom.
What situation prompted this decision? What were the constraints? "During user testing, 3 out of 5 participants with cognitive disabilities missed the error summary banner at the top of the page. They corrected individual fields but didn't scroll up to see the banner, so they didn't know the form hadn't submitted."
What was decided, specifically. "All form validation errors will appear inline directly below the field that needs correction. The error summary banner is removed. Errors are announced to screen readers via aria-describedby on each field."
What other options were evaluated and why they were rejected. "We considered keeping the summary banner alongside inline errors, but testing showed it created confusion — users didn't know which error indication to follow."
Who benefits from this decision and how. "Benefits users with cognitive disabilities (don't need to remember which fields had errors), screen reader users (errors announced in context), and all users (faster error correction)."
What might go wrong or what was sacrificed. "If a form has many errors, the user sees them one at a time as they move through fields, rather than all at once. For long forms, this could mean more scrolling. We accept this tradeoff because contextual errors have higher fix rates in testing."
What research, testing, or standards support this decision. "User testing session 2024-03-15 (5 participants, 3 with cognitive disabilities). WCAG 2.2 SC 3.3.1 (Error Identification)."
Document a decision when: