Accessibility
We have adopted WCAG 2.2 Level AA as our design target. We have not been independently audited against it, so we do not claim conformance. This page says what we actually do, what we know is unfinished, and how to tell us when we get it wrong.
Current status
- Target standard
- WCAG 2.2, Level AA
- Conformance claimed
- None. No level is claimed — not full, not partial.
- Independent audit
- Not commissioned.
- Evaluation method
- Internal design practice only. No formal WCAG-EM evaluation has been performed or published.
- Statement date
- 28 July 2026
We publish this rather than a conformance badge because a conformance claim without an evaluation behind it is not a courtesy to disabled users — it is a false statement that discourages them from reporting the barrier they just hit.
What we practise today
These are construction practices we follow. They are not evaluated results, and none of them should be read as a success criterion having been tested and passed.
Keyboard-reachable navigation
Interactive surfaces are built from native button and anchor elements rather than click-handled generics, so tab order and activation follow the browser default. A skip-to-content target is present on page shells.
Responsive and zoom-tolerant layout
Layouts are fluid rather than fixed-width, and text scales with browser zoom and user font-size settings without a horizontal-scroll trap.
Semantic landmarks
Pages use real landmark elements — nav, main, footer — and a single labelled main region, so screen-reader rotor navigation works without custom ARIA scaffolding.
Motion respects user preference
Decorative animation is treated as non-essential. Where reduced-motion preferences are expressed by the operating system, animated decoration is intended to yield.
Known limitations
An accessibility statement with an empty limitations list is a statement nobody checked. Ours is not empty.
- No independent accessibility audit has been commissioned. Nothing on this site carries a third-party conformance opinion.
- No published automated sweep. We have not yet run and published a full-site axe or Lighthouse accessibility pass, so we do not know our real defect count.
- Decorative canvas and animated background layers have not been individually verified for contrast behaviour behind text at every breakpoint.
- Colour contrast has been designed toward, not measured across, the full palette and all component states (hover, focus, disabled, error).
- Complex data tables and comparison grids have not been verified for header-association semantics with a screen reader.
- Arabic (RTL) routes have received less accessibility review than the English routes.
- We have not tested with the full range of assistive technologies — notably not with JAWS, NVDA, and VoiceOver as a matrix.
Report a barrier
If any part of this site prevented you from doing something, we want the specific page and what failed. A report about a real barrier is worth more to us than an audit.
Please include the page URL, what you were trying to do, and the assistive technology and browser you were using, if any. We aim to acknowledge reports within five working days. We do not currently publish a guaranteed remediation timeline, because we would rather commit to nothing than miss a promise made to someone who could not use the site.
Related: Security · Privacy · AI transparency