Accessibility and Visual Regression Checks
A visually correct page still needs keyboard, contrast and state evidence.
Use the right surface
After this you can pick Browser verification for the right job and define done.
Done means you can add accessibility and regression evidence to the handoff.
For UI work, the proof is visual and behavioral: screenshot, console, keyboard and responsive checks.
Use Browser verification when a UI change could affect usability beyond the happy screenshot. Keep the boundary narrow.
Start small. Name the job, attach the context that proves the point and decide what evidence would make the output trustworthy.
Read the loop before touching the controls. The first beat frames the work, the second uses Cursor, the third checks the result and the fourth leaves a handoff someone else can inspect.
Interactive diagram. Tab through its regions; each focused region shows its detail in the panel below.
Run this loop in a real repo.
- Entry point
- Browser interaction, screenshots, keyboard checks and inspector evidence
- Source
- Browser docs and app accessibility conventions
Use the source as the product reference.
Ask Cursor for an output you can inspect.
If the output cannot be checked, narrow the task before you continue.
A good run leaves a file, setting, screenshot, command result or written claim you can verify.
Takeaway. Done means you can add accessibility and regression evidence to the handoff.
Self-check
QWhen should you reach for Browser verification?
Run it
After this you can do the task with clear scope and one proof point.
Treat this as a short practice loop, not a product tour. The task should be small enough that you can inspect the result without trusting the summary.
- 1Identify the controls or regions affected by the change.
- 2Check keyboard access and visible focus.
- 3Inspect contrast, labels and screen-reader names where relevant.
- 4Capture before/after or desktop/mobile evidence.
The exercise is complete only when the proof matches the requested outcome. If the proof is weak, reduce the scope or fix the context instead of adding more instructions.
Keep the task small enough to review.
Focus order matches the visual workflow.
Takeaway. Stop when you have proof: Interactive elements have accessible names..
Self-check
QWhich habit makes this workflow safe to use on a real project?
Check it
After this you can find the first failed check before changing tools.
Verification decides the next move.
Interactive diagram. Tab through its regions; each focused region shows its detail in the panel below.
Pick a row to see what to look for.
Use the first failure signal as the next prompt. Broad retries usually make the run noisier; a narrow retry gives Cursor a concrete repair target.
No proof means more checking.
Use a real repo or admin setting. Save the prompt, context and proof.
Takeaway. If it fails, find the first failed check.
Self-check
QThe workflow failed. What is the best first move?