Here is a good resource for card accessibility https://inclusive-components.design/cards/

I don't think vision deficiencies were taken into account in this example. Accessibility isn't just about screeen readers but about making the content accessible to everyone.

The problem I see with the card links in your exmaple is that there is no clear signifier even for people with 20/20 eyesight and no vision deficiencies. To me they just look like a different way to present static content (with a mild exception for A, because it has an arrow pointing to the right, which might signify a link).

In addition, reliance on :hover and :focus states is a one-way street, as not all people will use them, especially on touchscreens. Adding a bit of colour to the link might a be a good first step to signify a link on a base level, then go a step further and add something like an arrow to the anchor text itsels that will signify going to another page (→, etc).

Also, if you rely on box-shadow alone, make sure to add an outline of some sort to the :focus state.

These aren't rules, but just guidelines from a few years of testing different content types and presentation for links with users, where accessibility was paramount to the end-experience. WCAG AA won't tell you everything, but it's a great start.

I don't think you need a visual link indicator to validate...at least I have yet to see that come up in an audit. In either case, an icon which may be arbitrary or not even visible to some customers is not necessarily going to be an indicator of WCAG validation.

Screen readers will identify it as a link if you've got it marked up correctly, and you've got your focus/hover states. The question for you would be if the copy is clear and good, and if you're following or breaking established patterns that customers may rely on for this kind of behavior.

1) The colours themselves do not pass. The small font on each card (#7B7C80 or so which I pulled from a quick eyedrop) only has a 4.2 contrast ratio. You can use this tool to check it (http://contrast-ratio.com/#%237B7C80-on-white) so you need to either darken that or increase the font size to 18pt.

2) This design may simply have general usability problems – improving this benefits every user. Context is important though—if the entire site is a repo of websites you're providing for inspiration then a user may assume each card is a link... but maybe including a link action on the bottom right would make that association stronger. Can someone using it anticipate what an action will do? In this case you can simply measure that with a user test asking them to explain your website, followed by a task analysis usability test.

I would assume this current design is not accessible. I say this because of what you said about focus and hover states...

3) Cards generally shouldn't have focus states associated with them. This is not for just for blind users, it's for those with motor function impairments. The general rule of thumb is that only interactive elements should be in the tab order—so the link title should be the thing highlighting when a user hits TAB. It's highly unusual for someone to tab to a block-level parent. You'd also need to use aria-labeling to provide additional context.

Lastly, ensure you're using semantics properly too. That's proper HTML. Links should always be anchors like Link with any additional aria label or aria-labelledby tags put in there for screen readers.

Good luck! Honestly once you start designing with accessibility at the forefront your designs will improve from the outset, since half the battle of accessible digital experiences is simply good usability.