Accessibility

1. The standard we work to

1.1

We build this site to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) version 2.2, Level AA. That is the standard our design tokens, components and test gates are written against.

1.2

It is the standard we work to, not a claim that we have met it. We publish no conformance claim today, because no surface has been through a manual audit with assistive technology and the failures in section 4 are open against the shipped site. Nothing here is a certification: no third party has assessed this site and we hold no accessibility accreditation. That rule applies to a favourable finding as much as to an unfavourable one, so where something appears to us to meet a criterion we say what we measured and leave it at that, rather than record it as met. Clause 2.5 says what a published status will have to carry.

1.3

What this covers: the public pages of this website, including the sample reports published on them.

What our own checks do not reach, and what that does not excuse. Our payment provider serves the card form from its own domain. We cannot change that code, so we do not test it as though we could. That divides who can fix a barrier; it does not divide who is answerable to you for one, because we chose that provider and we send you to it. Clause 6.3 says what we do about a barrier there. This is not an exclusion and we do not rely on it as one. What we must put in front of you before you are bound – who you are contracting with, what the report is, the total including tax, and the confirmations you action yourself – is content we specify, wherever it is displayed.

What does not exist yet, named rather than left implied. There is no delivered report reader and no account area, and the product sends no automated or transactional email today. Nothing here is a claim about any of them, and 4.12 says what we will hold them to before they are built. None of that reaches our correspondence with you: we read and answer email at the address in 5.1 today, which is how sections 5 and 6 work.

1.4

This statement asserts no legal deadline, no applicability finding and no national implementation of any accessibility law, because we are not in a position to assert one. It describes what we do.

2. How it is tested

2.1

An automated rule sweep, when it is run. Routes on a list we maintain by hand are walked with axe-core against the WCAG 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2 rule sets at Levels A and AA. Anything rated serious or critical is a failure; anything rated moderate is recorded rather than ignored. Because the list is maintained by hand, a page can be published before it is on the list, and until it is on the list nothing sweeps it. Adding a page to that list is part of publishing it, including this page. If you find a route that looks as though it has been missed, telling us under section 5 is the fastest way it gets added.

2.2

Four gates that measure the rendered page. A rule checker reads the styles a page declares, so it will read white text on a transparent background, find no colour behind it, and pass a label that is in fact unreadable. Four further gates measure what is actually painted, at every screen width we support: contrast of text and control edges, sampled from the pixels behind them; sideways scrolling of the page; whether anything is clipped when a reader applies their own text spacing; and the real size of the area a control responds to, rather than the size we drew it.

2.3

Where those checks run. By hand, against a local build, when someone runs them. They do not run in our continuous integration and do not block a deployment today. Making them block a deployment is the gap recorded at 4.11, and until it is done a regression can reach this site with nothing catching it.

2.4

What has not been done at all. No pass with a screen reader on any surface. No recorded keyboard-only walkthrough of every route. No test by anyone who depends on assistive technology. No independent audit. That is why 1.2 reads as it does.

2.5

When we publish a conformance status it will carry the date it was measured, the version measured, the method, and the assistive technologies actually tested, named and versioned. Nothing untested will appear on it.

3. What was measured, and when

3.1

What this section is, and what it is not. Everything below describes this site as built and deployed at [Build reference – set at publication] and measured on [Measurement date – set at publication, and no earlier than the last change to a page in scope] by the checks in 2.2. It is a dated observation of that build, not a conformance claim, and it does not become one by being long. Those checks do not block a deployment (2.3, 4.11), so a change made after that date can make any line below untrue with nothing catching it.

We re-measure and re-date this section when we change a page in scope. If the date above is older than the site in front of you, read the section as unverified rather than as current. If you find a line untrue, that is a defect and 5.1 is the route: we will measure again and republish this section with the new date.

Structural, and readable in the code rather than resting on a measurement:

• Every page declares its language, has one main heading and keeps heading levels in order, so the headings list works as an outline.
• A skip link to the main content is the first thing keyboard focus reaches.
• Controls are ordinary buttons and links. Everything reachable with a pointer is reachable with a keyboard, in the order the page reads, and focus carries a visible outline that switches to white on dark surfaces. Two exceptions, both open and both below: focus can travel off the visible area on the sample panel at 4.6, so the outline is drawn where you cannot see it, and following an in-page link can put the target under the fixed header at 4.4. Read this bullet with 4.4 and 4.6, not instead of them.
• Reduced motion, increased contrast and reduced transparency are all honoured. Under reduced motion, animation stops rather than merely shortens and the moving background paints one still frame.
• Where colour marks a state, it is paired with words. Score bands print their name and the status dot is paired with its label. The score dial is a picture of an average, and the number and band beside it are text. Backgrounds, progress tracks and bullet dots are hidden from screen readers and carry no information.
• There is no audio, no video, no autoplay, no countdown, no session timeout and no time limit anywhere on the site.
• Controls are built to a 44 pixel hit area without changing the size the control is drawn at. The one case below that floor is at 4.9.

Measured, and therefore only as good as the date above:

• On that build, on every route then on the list in 2.1, the page reflowed at 200% zoom and at a 320 pixel width and survived the reader text-spacing overrides.

3.2

Body and display type sitting directly on the brand gradient is dark ink and never white. That is a measurement rather than a preference: white was measured against the gradient and failed. We publish no ratio, because the gradient has been changed since those figures were taken and we will not republish a number we have not measured again. The one place a white label still sits on a gradient is the button at 4.2, and that is recorded there as a defect rather than defended here as a design.

3.3

A disclosure is content, never decoration. Some sentences on this site are not commentary. They are what makes the thing beside them safe to read: that a sample report is an illustrative demonstration whose measurements are synthetic and is not an assessment of the person or company named, and that reports are produced by automated systems without a person reviewing them before delivery. Wherever a page carries a disclosure of that kind we hold it to four things, ahead of everything in section 4.

• It is real text in the reading order, not an image, an icon, a tooltip or a caption you have to go looking for.
• It is never hidden from assistive technology and never sits inside anything we hide from it. The exclusions in 3.1 for backgrounds, progress tracks and bullet dots do not reach it and must not be extended to it.
• It does not depend on colour, contrast, a graphic or a gradient to be perceived, and it survives the reader's own colour, forced-colours and text-spacing settings. The gap at 4.5 must not be capable of removing it.
• It comes before the score, name or number it qualifies, in the reading order as well as on the screen, so that nobody meets the figure first.

A page that renders a score without rendering that disclosure to the same reader, by whatever route that reader is using, is the most severe defect we recognise and is fixed before anything else on this list.

4. Known gaps

4.1

This section is the point of the document. A statement with nothing in it here has not been tested, only written. What follows is the position at the measurement date in 3.1, and where something fails the standard in 1.1 it says so.

4.1a

Whether any of this touches the point of purchase. A defect on a page you are reading and a defect on the control that takes your money are not the same thing, and you are entitled to know which this list contains. None of the gaps below sits on a screen you must use to place an order, or on the information we must show you before you are bound, because ordering is not built and no such screen exists. When it does, no defect on the ordering path will appear on this list without a fix date beside it.

4.2

A white label on a gradient-filled button. Contrast falls below the minimum across the whole gradient, so the text is hard to read wherever it sits. Fails 1.4.3. The label becomes dark ink.

4.3

White-filled controls on the gradient hero. The edge that tells you a thing is a control does not stand out enough from the surface behind it. Fails 1.4.11. Those controls take a dark boundary or a dark fill.

4.4

A fixed header can cover what you just jumped to. Following an in-page link, or moving focus to a section, can land the target under the bar at the top of the page, so you have to scroll up to find it. Fails 2.4.11.

4.5

Forced-colours mode is not handled. Where the system replaces our palette with your own, gradient surfaces and meter fills can disappear entirely. Not a Level AA criterion, and listed because it is a real barrier rather than because a criterion made us. Read it with 3.3: a disclosure must not be capable of vanishing this way.

4.6

Keyboard focus can move off-screen on the sample panel. On large screens that panel is moved by scroll position, so focus can land on a card that has travelled off the edge with no visible indicator anywhere.

4.7

A live region on the homepage announces too often, several times per run and again on replay, which is noise for anyone listening to the page. It should announce completion only.

4.8

Decorative icons are not uniformly hidden, so a screen reader may read out a name that adds nothing to the sentence around it.

4.9

Links in the contents list on legal pages are small, around 22 pixels tall, which is below the 44 pixel floor we set ourselves in 3.1. Our reading is that the standard's spacing exception is satisfied, but nobody outside the team has checked that reading and we do not present it as settled: treat it as an open gap rather than a met criterion, which is why it is here and not in section 3. It matters more than its size suggests, because these are the links by which every document in this set is reached, including this one.

4.10

No manual audit with assistive technology has been done. This is the gap that holds every conformance claim shut. It and 4.11 come before the presentational items above; the disclosure defect described at 3.3 comes before both.

4.11

The gates in 2.2 do not block a deployment, so a fix on this list can be undone without anything catching it, and section 3 can go stale without anything catching that either.

4.12

What this statement has not measured. Section 4 measures this website. It does not measure the account area, our email, or the file a buyer exports, and none of those has been tested against the standard in 1.1. The requirements are stated here before they are built rather than retrofitted.

• The file a buyer exports is a document rather than a page, and nobody has tested one. Every page of it carries the report's version, the time it was made, a confidentiality mark, the line saying the report must not be used to screen anyone, and a link to the notice written for report subjects. What we do not claim is that its reading order, its tags or its text layer work for somebody using a screen reader, because that has not been checked. The report in the account is the surface we measure first and the file after it. Until then, 5.1 is the route: tell us you cannot read one and we will get you the content another way, at no cost and with no effect on your order or any right in it.

• The order confirmation we will send you is the record of what you agreed and of the rights that go with it, so it will carry a plain-text alternative in every message, no information in an image alone, real headings, and links that are links rather than pictures of them. If you cannot read it, 5.1 is the route: we send it another way, at no cost and with no effect on your order or on any right in it.

• Where a buyer shares a report, we send the link and a confirmation code to a person the buyer names. That message goes to someone who did not ask to hear from us and may have an access need we know nothing about, so it is held to the same standard as everything else in this section, and 5.1 is open to them on the same terms. They have to read the message and act on it before they can read anything at all, so a message they cannot read is a report they cannot open. If that happens, write to us and we will get the content to you another way, at no cost, and we will tell the buyer nothing about you beyond the fact that the link was not opened.

4.13

What this list does not contain. It contains what our tests can find. It does not contain what a screen-reader audit would find, because we have not run one, or what someone who uses assistive technology every day would find in an hour. Please do not read the absence of a screen-reader entry as the absence of screen-reader defects.

5. Telling us about a barrier

5.1

Write to [email protected]. That address is monitored today. If email does not work for you, post reaches us at the registered address in the closing note, and nothing turns on which you use. It helps if you tell us the page, what you were trying to do and what happened instead, but none of it is required: you do not have to name a success criterion, use any particular form of words, run any test, or describe the problem in our vocabulary.

If you tell us what you were using. Knowing your browser, and any assistive technology you use, makes a barrier much easier to reproduce, so we ask. You do not have to answer, we will not ask twice, and nothing turns on it: we will not close a report or refuse to look into it because you did not say. If you do tell us, we use it to reproduce and fix the barrier and to reply to you, and for nothing else. It is not used to profile you, it never goes into a report, it is not sold or shared, and we train nothing on it. It is kept no longer than the period our Data Retention notice sets for correspondence of this kind, and our Privacy Policy is the full account of what we do with anything you send us and of your rights over it. The controller is the company named in the closing note.

5.2

There is no account, no purchase, no form and no fee. Anyone may use this route, including someone who has never bought anything from us and someone a report names. If a report names you, the notice written for you is the better place to start, but you do not have to use the address given there in order to reach us. A message counts as received on the day it arrives at any address we publish, and we will not treat a request as late, or as not made, because it reached one of our own addresses rather than another.

5.3

A person reads it. We treat what you send as a defect rather than as feedback, we reply, and we say what we found and what we intend to do. Where you have hit something already in section 4 we will say so plainly rather than present it as news. We will not ask you to prove a barrier, to switch browser, or to turn off your assistive technology as a condition of being helped.

5.4

We acknowledge within two business days and give a substantive answer within fourteen days. That is the period our Terms of Service publish for the same mailbox, and nothing about a barrier makes it longer. It applies whether or not you have ever bought anything from us and whether or not a report names you. If we need longer we tell you why and when to expect the answer, before the fourteen days are up.

Answering you and fixing the defect are two different clocks and we will not merge them to look faster. The answer inside fourteen days is what we found, whether it is already in section 4, what we intend to do and when we will next write to you. Where a fix has a date we give it; where it does not, we say so rather than invent one; where a fix is not coming, we say that too. If we miss a period, tell us: missing it makes nothing you sent stale and uses up no deadline of yours. We publish no shorter accessibility-specific target, because one period we keep across everything is worth more than a faster one advertised here alone.

5.5

If our answer does not satisfy you, you do not have to stop with us. Which route is open depends on what you are to us, so we set out all of them.

If you have bought something from us. The complaints section of our Terms of Service names the out-of-court body for consumer disputes with a trader established in Estonia and how to reach it. You may also approach the consumer body in the country where you live; tell us which one and we will respond to it.

If you have bought nothing from us. That route is not open to you, because it resolves disputes arising from a purchase and you have not made one. We say so rather than send you to a door that will not open.

If a report names you. The routes written for you, including your right to complain to a data protection supervisory authority, are in If a Report Names You, and they are open to you whether or not your complaint is about accessibility.

In every case you may go to a court, and you may do so without coming to us first. Using the route in 5.1 takes nothing away from any of the above and uses up no time limit. If a page of ours that this clause points at does not resolve, that is itself a defect and 5.1 is the route.

6. If a page is unusable

6.1

Write to the address in 5.1 and we will give you the same thing by another means, free of charge and on the same terms as anyone else.

What we will always do. Send you the content of any page on this site – these legal statements, the product pages, the prices, the sample reports, and anything we require you to read before you buy – as plain text in the body of an email or as a plain text file, and answer questions about it.

What we will do wherever we reasonably can. Supply it in another format you name, and tell you within the period in 5.4 either that we are doing it or that we cannot and why. We do not promise every format on request, because a format we cannot produce is not made available by our saying that it is. Where we cannot produce what you asked for we will offer the nearest thing we can, and if that does not work we will go through the content with you directly. Nothing in this clause is the outer limit of what we owe you: it takes nothing away from any right you have to an adjustment that goes further.

6.2

Ordering is not built. This clause is a condition of the checkout shipping rather than a description of one that runs, which is why it is in the future tense. Nobody will be required to use a route they cannot use in order to buy.

When checkout opens, if a barrier stops you completing an order, write to the address in 5.1 and a person will help you finish it: by working through the barrier with you on the checkout itself, or by sending you a payment link issued by our payment provider carrying the same pre-contract information, the same total including tax and the same confirmations. The price is the one shown for your region, which is the price you pay, with nothing added for taking this route.

Three things this route does not do.

• It does not take confirmations for you. The confirmations our Terms require you to action personally cannot be given by email and cannot be given on your behalf; if we recorded them for you we would be taking away your own right to withdraw. Where a confirmation cannot be taken in a form you can use, we do not treat it as given and we will not take your money until it can be. And if an order is ever taken by this route without one of those confirmations having been properly given and recorded, we do not treat it as given afterwards either: every right of yours that depends on it, including any right to change your mind after delivery, is unaffected, and we will not argue that you gave up something we cannot show you were asked about.
• It does not change who a report may be about, or where we sell. The eligibility rules in our Terms apply unchanged, including the step where we write to a named person and wait for their confirmation before anything is generated. There are no countries a product is not sold into.
• It does not move payment onto email. We will never ask you to send card or payment details by email, by telephone or in any message to us. Payment is always made by you, on the payment provider's own page or by a link it issues.

If we cannot get you through, we will say so plainly and promptly rather than sell to you another way.

6.3

If a payment page served by our payment provider on its own domain stops you, write to us. We will not pretend we can edit that page, and we will not pretend it is not our problem either. We do the two things open to us: we raise it with the provider as a defect and tell you what they say, or that they have not answered, and 6.1 and 6.2 apply in the meantime, so you get the same information and the same purchase by another means at the same price. Neither the hosting arrangement nor anything in 1.3 puts a barrier at the point of sale outside our responsibility to you.

6.4

Nothing in this statement excludes, limits or qualifies any right you have under consumer, equality or data protection law, and nothing in it asks you to give a right up. Where this statement and those rights point in different directions, those rights apply. The standard in 1.1 is one we set for ourselves: it is not a ceiling on what the law requires of us, and naming a surface as outside our own testing does not put our responsibility for that surface outside it.

Two things follow, and they are different things.

We do not use this statement as a term against you. No sentence here is offered as an exclusion of our liability, a limitation of a remedy, a condition on your rights, or a term you are taken to have agreed, and this statement is not part of any contract of sale. If we are ever asked to defend a claim by pointing at a sentence in it as a term, we will not do it.

Where this statement says what we built, measured or tested, it is describing, not excluding. Sections 1 to 4 are statements of fact about what we found and when. They are as available to you as to us, and they are read with the dates, exceptions and gaps written into them: a bullet in section 3 is read with the entries in section 4 that it names, not on its own. You may rely on the commitments in sections 5 and 6, and we will keep them.

---

This statement is made by LeMans Labs OÜ, a private limited company registered in Estonia under commercial register code 16872044 at Valukoja 8/1, 11415 Tallinn, Estonia, trading as LeMans Labs. It is part of the LeMans Labs legal set and should be read with the Terms of Service, which identify the company you are dealing with and give the address for formal notices and the complaints route; the Privacy Policy, which is the full account of what we do with anything you send us under section 5; the Cookie Policy, which covers what this site stores on your device; and the Security statement, which follows the same rule as this one in describing what we do and certifying nothing. If a report names you, If a Report Names You is the document written for you, and the address in 5.1 is open to you on the same terms.