# Accessible Name Validator

## Objective

Find every control a screen reader announces as nothing useful.

An audit of the computed accessible name of each interactive element in the rendered interface.

## Before You Begin

This feature is being added to an application that already exists and already
works. Do not scaffold a new project, and do not assume a blank slate.

Inspect the codebase first and establish:

- The existing application structure and where code of this kind already lives.
- The framework and version in use.
- The existing design system — colours, spacing, typography, and component conventions.
- Existing UI components you can reuse instead of writing new ones.
- The existing database structure, if this feature needs to persist anything.
- The existing authentication and authorization system, if this feature is user-scoped.
- Dependencies already installed, so you don't add a library that duplicates one.
- The existing test setup and conventions.

Only start writing code once you understand the above. If the application
already implements part of this feature, extend it rather than replacing it.

## Implementation Instructions

1. Compute the name the way assistive technology does — following the resolution order through labels, referenced elements, attributes, and text content — rather than reading the source markup and guessing.
2. Report three separate failures: an empty name, a generic name such as button, link, or here, and duplicate names within the same context where several controls announce identically.
3. Prefer a fix that adds a visible label. A control given a hidden name is announced but still mysterious to the sighted user who cannot tell two identical icons apart.
4. Handle icon-only buttons and composite controls explicitly: a control built from an icon, a count, and a status dot must resolve to one coherent phrase, not a run-on of three fragments.
5. Do not fix a missing name by stacking attributes. Overlapping naming and description attributes produce double announcements, and the validator should flag that as its own failure rather than only the absence of a name.

## UI and UX Requirements

Match the application's existing design system exactly. Reuse its components,
spacing, and typography. This feature should look like it was always there.

## Responsive Requirements

Works on mobile, tablet, and desktop. Touch targets are large enough to hit on a
phone, and nothing overflows horizontally at 320px.

## Accessibility Requirements

- Fully keyboard navigable.
- Correct semantic elements and ARIA roles.
- Visible focus states.
- Meets WCAG AA contrast.
- Dynamic changes are announced to screen readers.
- Respects prefers-reduced-motion.

## Edge Cases

- Empty names, generic names, and names duplicated across sibling controls are three distinct failures with three different fixes, and a validator reporting only emptiness misses most real cases.
- A visible label is preferable to a hidden one wherever the layout allows it, because the hidden name helps only some users and leaves the ambiguity in place for everyone else.
- Icon-only controls and composite controls need a deliberate name; letting the name fall through to the concatenated text of the children produces announcements like edit 3 overdue.
- Conflicting naming and description attributes cause the same phrase to be read twice, which the audit must catch rather than treating any non-empty name as a pass.
- Names generated from record data must be checked with real values, since a row action named after an empty or untitled record announces as nothing at all.
- In a translated interface the name must come from the same translation source as the visible text, or the two drift and the spoken label stops matching the screen.
- Controls rendered only in an open menu, dialog, or drawer must be included, which means the audit has to open them rather than scanning the initial page.

## Testing

Exercise the feature end to end in the running application. Cover every edge case
above, then run the existing test suite and confirm nothing regressed.

## Acceptance Criteria

- [ ] Every interactive element in the app resolves to a non-empty accessible name.
- [ ] The validator computes names through the standard resolution order rather than reading markup.
- [ ] Empty, generic, and duplicated names are reported as separate categories.
- [ ] No control produces a doubled announcement from conflicting attributes.
- [ ] Icon-only and composite controls each resolve to a single coherent phrase.
- [ ] Controls inside menus, dialogs, and drawers are covered by the audit.
- [ ] Names derived from record data hold up when the underlying record is untitled.
- [ ] The feature matches the existing design system.
- [ ] No existing functionality is broken.

## Adaptation Rules

- Match the existing design system. Do not introduce a new colour palette,
  spacing scale, or component library.
- Reuse existing components and utilities wherever they fit.
- Follow the naming, file layout, and code style already present.
- Do not upgrade, replace, or remove existing dependencies to make this
  feature fit. Adapt the feature to the app, not the app to the feature.
- Do not break existing functionality. If a change is genuinely required in
  existing code, make the smallest one that works and say so.
- If something in these instructions conflicts with how the application is
  built, follow the application and explain the deviation.

## Final Verification

Before you report the work as done:

1. Re-read the acceptance criteria above and check each one against what you
   actually built.
2. Run the application and exercise the feature end to end.
3. Run the existing test suite and confirm you have broken nothing.
4. Check the feature on mobile, tablet, and desktop widths.
5. Check keyboard navigation and focus handling.
6. Summarize what changed: files added, files modified, and anything you
   deliberately did differently because of how this application is built.

If any acceptance criterion is unmet, fix it before reporting completion.