Accessibility
This is written as a statement of what is true, including what is not yet good enough. A page claiming full conformance is usually a page nobody tested.
Accurate as of 23 September 2026
What is done
- Reading needs no JavaScript. Navigation, reading and the donation links work without it. Three forms need it, because each is checked for automated use: the contact form, registration and password reset. Each says so when JavaScript is off.
- Text scales. Type is set in relative units and the layout reflows; nothing is fixed to a pixel size that a browser zoom breaks.
- Colour is not the only signal. Links, headings and emphasis are distinguishable without relying on hue.
- Motion respects your setting. If your system asks for reduced motion, the scroll animation and the video do not play; a still image is shown instead.
- Dark and light both work, following your system rather than overriding it.
- Disclosures use the browser's own controls rather than a worse copy, so keyboard and screen-reader behaviour is what you already expect.
- These are checked on every change, not asserted. A step in the build measures every text colour against its background in both light and dark, and refuses the build below the 4.5:1 that WCAG 2.2 AA requires for body text. It also checks that every page declares a language and a title, every image carries alt text, headings descend without skipping a level, every form control has a label, no identifier is used twice, and no link reads only “here”.
- It found something the first time it ran. The quiet grey used for captions was 2.80:1 against the page in light mode and 3.29:1 in dark — below the threshold in both, on text that had already shipped. Both were corrected. That is the argument for measuring rather than asserting, and it is left written here rather than quietly fixed.
What is not done
- No formal audit has been carried out, and no overall WCAG conformance level is claimed. What is checked above is checked; a conformance claim covers far more than a script can decide, and the gap between “these things are measured” and “this site conforms” is exactly where such claims usually go wrong.
- No screen-reader testing on real assistive technology yet. The markup is written for it; that is not the same as having tried it.
- The canvas is unbuilt, and a zoomable visual surface is the hard case. How someone who cannot see it reaches the same information is an open design question, not an afterthought to be bolted on — the underlying data is structured text, which is the part that makes a good answer possible.
If something blocks you
Tell us. Describe what you were trying to do and what happened, and name the assistive technology if you use one. Reports of barriers are treated as defects, not requests — they go to the front, because a page nobody can read is broken whatever else is right about it.