[accesswatch]

Summary

Two commits.

1. Site template (scripts/build-html.js, regenerated html/)

• Quick Jumps focus outline (Show the focus outline on the Quick Jumps links of the published site #265): removed outline: none from .quick-jumps-list a:focus, so the site-wide a:focus-visible outline (2px solid #0969da; #58a6ff in dark mode, white in high contrast) applies again. Hover still underlines the link. The dark-mode and high-contrast rules for Quick Jumps change only colors, so nothing removes the outline again. html/styles/custom.css loses that one line.
• Search box name (Make the site search box's accessible name match its visible text #266): removed aria-label="Search documentation" from the site-search input in both templates (every page, and the search page). The field now takes its name from <label for="site-search">Search docs</label>, which matches the start of its visible placeholder, "Search docs…". 217 pages regenerate with only that line removed.

Not yet checked in a browser or with a screen reader. This environment could not download a browser, so the changes were checked against the CSS cascade and the generated markup only. #265 and #266 stay open until someone confirms them by hand: Tab to a Quick Jumps link in light and dark mode and look for the blue outline, and Tab to the search box with a screen reader and listen for "Search docs".

2. Documentation accessibility findings (Markdown, regenerated html/, baseline)

• Emoji (Remove emoji from the facilitator guide headings and fix the links to them #264 and the rest of Known findings from the documentation accessibility check #267): removed all of them from admin/FACILITATOR_GUIDE.md, admin/FACILITATOR_RESOURCES.md, admin/FACILITATOR_OPERATIONS.md and admin/CURRICULUM_2.0_ORGANIZATION.md, covering headings, running text and the Section-Level Source Maps. Where an emoji meant something, a word replaces it: the check marks became "Complete" or "Yes", and the pencil emoji became the button's name, "Edit this file". Every link to a changed anchor is updated in the two guides and in admin/README.md (14 cross-file and 5 in-page links). One in-page link that was already broken, to a heading "Troubleshooting GitHub Classroom Setup" that does not exist, now points to "Known Gotchas", the section directly below it. All 230 anchor links in the five regenerated admin pages resolve.
• Code block languages (Add language identifiers to the code blocks in three reference solutions #268 and the rest of Known findings from the documentation accessibility check #267): added a language to all 88 unlabeled fenced blocks in 34 files: bash for shell commands, bat for the Windows batch files, markdown for Markdown source and text for output, file trees, conflict examples, sample messages and keystroke steps. Only the opening fence lines changed; the contents of the blocks did not.
• Single H1: admin/classroom admin access.md now has a title and one sentence of context.

Checks

• node scripts/check-docs-accessibility.js: 264 findings before, 3 after. The baseline shrinks to match. The 3 left are the deliberate "bad example" links in the link-text table of docs/appendix-c-markdown-reference.md.
• The Remove emoji from the facilitator guide headings and fix the links to them #264 and Add language identifiers to the code blocks in three reference solutions #268 report commands list 0 findings for their files.
• npm run validate:authoritative-sources: passes (174 files).
• npm run test:automation: 105 passing.
• html/register.html from the Linux build is not committed.

Not in scope, found along the way

admin/FACILITATOR_CLASSROOM_TROUBLESHOOTING.md is linked from four admin guides, but it is not in the repository. Only a stale html/admin/FACILITATOR_CLASSROOM_TROUBLESHOOTING.html exists, so those links work on the site only through that leftover page.

Fixes #264
Fixes #267
Fixes #268
Refs #265
Refs #266

https://claude.ai/code/session_01PmRBrUTuhzYnQBFxUCN6Vr

---

Generated by Claude Code

[github-actions]

Peer Review Assigned

Hi @accesswatch! Your PR has been automatically paired with @taylorarndt for peer review.

For @taylorarndt:

This is a great opportunity to practice code review skills! Here's what to look for:

Content Quality:

• Does the change accomplish what the issue describes?
• Is the writing clear and helpful?
• Are there any typos or grammar issues?

Accessibility:

• Proper heading hierarchy (H1 → H2 → H3, no skips)?
• Descriptive link text (not "click here")?
• Alt text on images?
• [TODO] markers removed?

Documentation:

• Code blocks are properly formatted?
• Tables have headers?
• References/links work correctly?

Review Guidelines:

• Be kind and constructive
• Suggest improvements, don't just point out problems
• Ask questions if something is unclear
• Approve when ready or request changes with explanation

Resources:

• How to Review PRs
• Writing Good Review Comments

---

Pairing by Learning Room Grouping Engine