Accessibility
Our target, what we have checked, and what we have not.
This statement is a draft. It is not in force. We do not claim that the site conforms to any standard yet.
Our target
We aim for WCAG 2.2 level AA. That is a target. It is not a statement that we meet it.
What this covers
This statement covers the static website and the example search on the home page. The app itself is not built yet, so it is not covered. The example search uses a fictional project.
How it was checked so far
- A script computed the contrast of the colour pairs the site uses, in three tables. The first table has 34 pairs (17 in each of the light and dark themes): 29 of 34 colour pairs pass AA. The second table adds 22 pairs: 22 of 22 pass. The third table adds 86 pairs for the tour, tables, notices, tags, brand page, header name and focus rings: 86 of 86 pass. In all, 137 of 142 colour pairs pass AA. The 5 that do not are decorative or background-only uses: the divider lines (4 pairs) and the yellow highlighter against the page background in the light theme (1 pair). Text on the highlighter is dark and passes. A further 6 rows are table lines and a highlighter bar, shown but not relied on; 5 of them are below the threshold. The 6 colour pairs in the email templates, which use the light colours only, also pass: 6 of 6. All of this was computed from the colour values, not seen in a browser.
- The pages are built with headings, landmarks, a skip link and system fonts. Those are in the markup. They have not been tested with assistive tools.
- A second script read the markup of the 38 web pages and the 6 email templates. It checked the page language and page titles. It also checked for one main heading per page, the skip link and its target, labels on form fields and checkboxes, captions and header cells on tables, a name on every drawing, and links to other pages. It reads the source only. It is not a browser test and not an assistive-tool test.
- The tour script and the style sheets were read for the keyboard path, focus order, layout at 400 pixels wide and reduced motion. That too was a reading of the source, not a test in a browser.
Known gaps
- The site has not been tested by people using screen readers, other assistive tools or only a keyboard yet.
- The visual layout has not been seen in a browser yet. That includes focus outlines, text resizing and narrow screens.
- The app is not built, so none of it has been checked.
- No browser-based automated checker and no keyboard-only walkthrough in a browser has been run on the finished pages.
Contact
If something on the site is hard to use, tell us what and where: [accessibility contact address to be added]
Draft for lawyer review, not in force. [for lawyer] Whether a statement like this needs regional wording or a formal feedback process.