Accessibility statement

The short version: we build accessible websites for public bodies, so this one is held to the same standard we sell. Target is WCAG 2.1 Level AA. Everything below is something we have actually run, and where automated testing runs out we say so instead of rounding up.

What we are aiming at

WCAG 2.1 Level AA. That is the standard the Department of Justice's ADA Title II rule adopts for public entities, and it is the standard we design our clients' sites to, so it is the one this site should meet too.

How we test, and what that found

Testing is automated where a machine is reliable, and done by hand where it is not.

• Automated, every route. A committed script (npm run a11y) drives a real browser over every URL in our sitemap at two screen widths, checking each against the axe rules tagged WCAG 2.1 A and AA. Routes come from the sitemap rather than a hand-kept list, so a new page is covered the day it ships. As of the date above it reports no violations across 69 routes at two widths.
• The things the tool declined to judge. A checker returns three answers, not two: pass, fail, and could not tell. Reporting only the first two is how a site gets a green tick over pages nothing actually examined, so our script prints the third list as loudly as the others, on clean runs too.
• And that list is where we caught ourselves. The first clean run was not clean. Our dark sections carry a faint blueprint grid, and a background pattern stops the checker sampling what is behind the text — so it had quietly skipped most of the dark-section text on the site, including every page's main heading, while still reporting no failures. We now switch that pattern off for the duration of the test, which changes the background by about one percent and lets those elements be properly checked rather than skipped. What is left in the “could not tell” list is 69 elements: decorative check marks that are hidden from screen readers, and tiny labels inside the illustrated app mockups on the homepage. We went through both by hand.
• By hand, because axe cannot see these. Keyboard navigation from the first tab stop, with a visible focus indicator confirmed on every interactive element; the skip link; reflow at 320px with no sideways scrolling; and heading structure, oneh1 per page with no skipped levels.

The audit was not a formality. Before the fixes, every page on the site failed contrast somewhere. White on our brand orange measured 3.08:1 against a 4.5:1 requirement, which is every button on the site, and the orange was also too light for small text on pale backgrounds. Buttons now put near-black text on that same orange (6.10:1), so the brand colour is unchanged and the label carries the contrast; accent text on light pages uses a deeper shade. Alongside that: scroll animations were breaking list semantics, a scrollable table could not be reached by keyboard, form fields had their focus outline suppressed, and the focus ring animated in late. All fixed.

What we have not done

Three things, stated plainly, because a statement that only lists strengths is not worth reading.

• No third-party audit. This is our own testing. We have not commissioned an independent accessibility assessment of this site, and we do not publish a VPAT for it.
• Automated testing catches a minority of WCAG. Roughly a third of the success criteria can be checked by a tool at all. The rest is judgment: whether alt text is useful, whether a heading describes what follows, whether an interaction makes sense without sight. We have used our judgment on those, and judgment is not proof.
• Limited assistive-technology testing. We have not tested this site against every screen reader and browser combination in use. If yours is giving you trouble, that is information we want.

Tell us if something is in your way

If any part of this site is difficult or impossible for you to use, email sales@gobuildlabs.ai. Tell us the page, what you were trying to do, and what got in the way. What you use to browse (screen reader, magnification, keyboard only, voice) helps but is not required.

We aim to acknowledge within two business days and to tell you either when it is fixed or why it is going to take longer. If the answer is that we cannot fix something, we will say so and offer another way to get whatever you were after.

A note on the sites we build for clients

This statement covers this website only. Work we do for a client is governed by that client's agreement, which is where the accessibility commitments for their site are written down. What we warrant there is the same thing we say on our park district page: we design and test the pages and components we build to WCAG 2.1 AA, while documents and content a client publishes after handover, and third-party tools embedded in their pages, remain the client's to keep conformant. We would rather scope that honestly than promise a conformance we do not control.