How a Parish Council Site Failed WCAG 1.1.1 and 2.4.4
How a Parish Council Site Failed WCAG 1.1.1 and 2.4.4
We recently worked with a Parish Council that had been trying to improve its website accessibility. Like many small publicly funded organisations, they had a limited budget and were under pressure to meet legal obligations. They had already paid for an audit from another company, but it turned out to be poor value. It was vague, automated, and lacked any real guidance.
When they came to us, we took a quick look at their website and immediately spotted key failures. The biggest issues fell under 1.1.1 wcag and 2.4.4 wcag — both fundamental checkpoints that are often overlooked, especially in low-cost template sites.
What they needed was not another big report. They needed practical advice on how to fix the things that mattered. And that is exactly what we gave them.
Understanding 1.1.1 WCAG: The Importance of Alt Text
The first major issue we flagged was their use of images. The site featured a large number of visual elements — photos of the local area, badges from regional associations, decorative flourishes — but most of these had no meaningful alternative text.
1.1.1 wcag requires that all non-text content has a text alternative. This is not optional. It is essential for screen reader users and for anyone who cannot see the images. When an image lacks a proper description, users are left with meaningless labels like “image1.jpg” or nothing at all.
In the case of the Parish Council, several key images — including ones used for navigation — had no alt text or had placeholder descriptions that did not convey any useful information. This made it impossible for blind users to know what those images were, let alone what function they served.
A proper audit should have caught this straight away. 1.1.1 wcag is not a deep-level technical checkpoint. It is a basic standard. The fact it had been missed showed just how ineffective their previous audit had been.
What 2.4.4 WCAG Says About Link Purpose
The second issue involved links — and this is where 2.4.4 wcag came in.
This rule is about link purpose. Specifically, it says that users should be able to understand where a link goes just from the link text. That means avoiding things like “Click here”, “Read more”, or “Download” on their own. Every link should make sense out of context.
Unfortunately, the Parish Council site was full of these vague links. Buttons were labelled with “More info” or simply “Website”, often next to a logo or image that had no alt text either. For a user navigating via screen reader, this created confusion. They would hear “link: website” over and over again, with no idea which service or page it referred to.
Even the main navigation had links repeated unnecessarily, sometimes pointing to the same page multiple times in different formats. This cluttered experience made the site harder to use and undermined its accessibility.
A small fix — renaming links so they clearly describe their destination — would have brought the site into alignment with 2.4.4 wcag. It would also have created a better experience for everyone, not just disabled users.
Why Cheaper Audits Can Cost You More
The Parish Council had already paid for a website audit before they found us. That audit had told them very little. It was mostly based on automated scanning and failed to highlight the very real, very fixable issues that violated both 1.1.1 wcag and 2.4.4 wcag.
This is an increasingly common story. As more public sector organisations become aware of their legal obligations, some vendors are stepping in with audits that look professional but deliver little value. These often miss context, ignore user experience, and completely overlook how people with disabilities actually use the web.
Our approach was different. We offered a basic audit — not because they were a small client, but because it was the right tool for the job. We assessed the homepage manually, tested it with assistive technologies, and identified specific, actionable items. Not one recommendation involved spending more than a few minutes on each fix.
Most importantly, we gave them peace of mind that they were on the right track.
How We Helped Fix the Failures
We guided their web team through a handful of small but powerful changes:
- Every image was updated with meaningful alt text, in line with 1.1.1 wcag. Where an image was decorative, we marked it correctly so screen readers would ignore it.
- All links were rewritten to describe their purpose, so a user hearing “link: planning application form” knew exactly where it would go — a direct fix for 2.4.4 wcag.
- Navigation was simplified. Duplicate links were removed. Tabbing order was checked and cleaned up. The whole experience became smoother as a result.
None of these changes required a developer or a rebuild. They were content decisions — decisions that could be made by anyone with a little guidance.
We rechecked the page using a screen reader and keyboard-only navigation. This time, everything worked. Nothing broke. No one was left behind.
Final Thoughts
Too many organisations believe they need a complete overhaul to meet accessibility standards. In many cases, that is simply not true. What they need is a better understanding of what the standards actually are.
1.1.1 wcag and 2.4.4 wcag are two of the most fundamental guidelines. If your site fails either, it is not accessible — no matter what a shiny PDF report might say.
If you are running a Parish Council or any other small publicly funded body, you deserve better than vague audits and checkbox reports. Real accessibility is practical, measurable, and achievable — especially when it starts with clear, user-focused guidance.
If you are not sure whether your website meets these standards, we can help. Just start with one page. You might be surprised how much clarity one honest review can bring.