Discover Apps Worth Using.

Review this HTML for accessibility problems. Code (HTML, plus CSS or JavaScript where it matters): {{code}} What the component does, and what the code doesn't show (colours, behaviour): {{context}} 1. List each problem with the element, what goes wrong and for whom (screen reader users, keyboard users, people with low vision, voice control users), and the WCAG 2.2 success criterion it fails, by number and name. 2. Order the list: first problems that stop someone finishing the task, then ones that make it harder, then minor ones. 3. For each problem give the corrected code. Prefer native HTML elements to ARIA; use ARIA only where no native element does the job. 4. Where colours are given, work out the contrast ratio and compare it with the required level. Say which checks still need a real browser or a person (focus order across the page, what a screen reader announces) and how to do them. 5. Finish with the full corrected snippet. Report only problems you can see in the code or the description, and don't add requirements it doesn't state (for example making a field required). If something depends on code I didn't include, say what you'd need to see instead of assuming it's broken.

Go through this draft and list every claim a careful editor would want a source for. Draft: {{draft}} Who will read it, and how careful it needs to be: {{context}} 1. Quote each claim exactly as written, in the order it appears. Include numbers, dates, firsts and superlatives ("the largest", "the first"), quotes attributed to people, cause-and-effect statements, and general statements presented as fact ("most people…", "studies show…"). 2. For each claim give the kind of source that would settle it (official statistics, the company's own filing, the original study, the person quoted) and how hard it will be to verify: easy, takes digging, or probably can't be verified as written. 3. Flag claims too vague to verify, and suggest a more precise wording to check instead. 4. Flag claims that contradict each other or may be out of date. 5. Skip opinions clearly marked as the author's, and say which you skipped. Don't tell me whether a claim is true: you're listing what to check, not checking it. If you know a claim is often misquoted or misattributed, say so, but still mark it as something to verify.

Help me understand why this metric changed. Data: {{data}} What else I know (releases, campaigns, tracking changes, seasons): {{context}} 1. Describe exactly what changed: which metric, how much, from when, and which segments moved and which did not. 2. Check measurement first: could tracking changes, bot traffic, definition changes, time zones or incomplete recent data explain it? 3. List up to four explanations, most likely first, each with the evidence for and against it from the data and context. 4. For each, the quickest check to confirm or rule it out, naming the cut of data or report to look at. 5. What I should do now, and what I should wait to decide until the checks are done. State as fact only what the data shows; label everything else as a hypothesis. Do not treat a correlation in timing as proof of cause, and do not assume figures, exchange rates, dates or user behaviour that the data and context do not give. Calculations from the data are fine if you show them.