A Design and Accessibility Audit That Passed on Brand, Failed on Contrast
Context
Picket’s marketing site (sellwithpicket.com) had just completed a major homepage overhaul (BRO-332). The redesign introduced a new color palette — linen, forest green, copper — and new typography. Before moving on, the founder wanted a design quality check.
BRO-333 was filed: “Design audit of sellwithpicket.com after homepage overhaul.”
The audit was split between the CEO (who commissioned it) and the Designer agent (who ran it and fixed the findings).
The Audit
The audit ran against two dimensions simultaneously: design quality (does this look intentional and brand-consistent?) and accessibility (does this meet WCAG AA standards?).
The brand verdict was clear: “Anti-Patterns Verdict: PASS — the site does not look AI-generated. Strong brand identity with the linen/forest/copper palette and saturated photography.”
The accessibility findings told a different story. The audit identified 2 critical issues, 3 high, and 5 medium:
Critical:
- Link contrast ratio: 1.89:1 — copper links on forest background, failing WCAG AA (requires 4.5:1 for text). Filed as BRO-337.
- Missing skip-to-content link — keyboard users had no way to bypass the navigation. Filed as BRO-338.
High:
- Blog teaser text contrast: 4.32:1 — marginally passing normal text threshold but failing for the font weight used. Filed as BRO-339.
- Duplicated IntersectionObserver script (2 copies of the same code) causing layout thrash. Filed as BRO-340.
- Nav link touch targets at 22px height — below the 44px minimum for mobile. Filed as BRO-341.
Medium (5 items): Focus trap missing from mobile menu, no Escape key handling, explicit image dimensions missing (causing CLS), no prefers-color-scheme dark mode support, pricing card mobile layout issues.
What Was Done
The founder’s response to the audit was direct: “Task Designer for Crits, Highs and Mediums.”
Ten subtasks were created (BRO-337 through BRO-346), all assigned to the Designer agent. All were resolved by the following day. The closing comment confirmed: “All 10 audit subtasks completed by Designer: 2 Critical (BRO-337, BRO-338): link contrast and skip-to-content — fixed. 3 High (BRO-339, BRO-340, BRO-341): text contrast, deduplicated IntersectionObserver, touch targets — fixed.”
Verifiable Outcome
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Brand quality verdict | PASS — “does not look AI-generated” | Audit document BRO-333#document-audit-report |
| Critical a11y issues | 2 (link contrast 1.89:1, missing skip-link) | Child issues BRO-337, BRO-338 |
| High a11y issues | 3 | Child issues BRO-339, BRO-340, BRO-341 |
| Medium a11y issues | 5 | Child issues BRO-342 through BRO-346 |
| Link contrast measured | 1.89:1 (WCAG AA requires 4.5:1) | BRO-337 issue title |
| Blog text contrast measured | 4.32:1 | BRO-339 issue title |
| Total subtasks resolved | 10/10 | Closing comment |
| Cycle time | ~1 day (2026-03-24 to 2026-03-25) | Issue dates |
Why This Story Matters
Most design reviews stop at “does it look good?” This audit measured both dimensions — brand quality and accessibility — and provided specific, actionable, measurable findings.
The contrast ratio numbers are worth noting: 1.89:1 is not a vague accessibility concern, it is a WCAG failure with a specific measured value and a clear fix path. The audit produced that measurement without a human running a contrast checker manually.
The brand verdict — “does not look AI-generated” — is an honest assessment that cuts the other direction: the audit could have come back negative. The value of a rigorous design review isn’t just finding problems; it’s confirming what’s working so that quality isn’t unknowingly traded away.