Built to be usable by everyone.

What we design for

• Large touch targets and generous text sizing.
• High color contrast, and status that's never shown by color alone.
• Full keyboard navigation with a visible focus indicator.
• Clear labels, plain language, and forgiving error handling.
• Support for screen readers and larger system text.
• Respect for reduced-motion preferences.

What we have actually measured

The list above is what we design for. This is what was measured on 8 August 2026, on the live site, at a real 390 pixel phone viewport. Numbers age, so it carries a date.

• 132 of 132 images carry alternative text. Every image on all 35 pages.
• Every page declares its language, has one main landmark, and starts with a skip link. 35 of 35, no exceptions.
• Interactive controls are at least 44 by 44 pixels, the WCAG 2.2 target size. Links inside a sentence are the deliberate exception: the standard exempts them, and padding text links would damage readability to satisfy a count.
• Reduced motion is honored. If your system asks for less animation, animation is switched off rather than shortened.
• Keyboard focus is visible on every control, using focus-visible so it appears for keyboard users without adding a ring for mouse users.
• No page needs horizontal scrolling on a phone. Verified by asserting the viewport width, not by looking at a screenshot.

What we got wrong, and when we fixed it

An accessibility statement that only lists successes is a marketing page. These were real, they were live, and they were found by measuring rather than by anybody reporting them.

• The whole site was rendering about 13 percent smaller than intended on a phone, for months. The header was 57 pixels wider than a 390 pixel screen, so the browser silently shrank every page to fit. On a site built for older adults, that made the text smaller for exactly the readers who need it larger. Fixed 8 August 2026.
• The menu button was off-screen on phones. Same cause. It was tappable only because of the shrinking.
• Twenty-two controls in the footer were under 44 pixels, on a page that promised large touch targets. Fixed the same day.
• The address on this page could not receive mail. The domain had no MX record, so anybody who wrote in about a barrier reached nobody, and believed they had told us. That is the worst one on this list. Fixed 8 August 2026, and there is now a working mailbox and a form.

We would rather publish that list than not. A page claiming everything works, on a site where a barrier report went into a void for months, is worth less than nothing.

Our standard

We are building toward the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 Level AA as a design target. We have not been independently audited and we do not claim conformance. Where something has been measured, it is above with the date; everything else is intent.

What is not tested yet

Being exact about the edge of what we know:

• No independent audit, and no automated testing running on a schedule. Today's numbers were measured by hand.
• Color contrast is designed to the standard and has not been machine-verified page by page.
• Screen reader behavior has been designed for and not tested with a real user of one, which is the test that actually counts.
• The signed-in product is newer than this marketing site and has had less of this attention.

Found a barrier?

If anything is hard to use, we want to fix it. Tell us what got in your way through the contact form, which reaches a person rather than a queue. If a form is itself the barrier, write to [email protected], which is a monitored mailbox at the company that operates this service.

This statement describes our goals and ongoing work. It is not a certification or a claim of full conformance.