How this site is tested, and what it gets wrong.
A studio that sells engineering rigour should be willing to say what standard its own site meets and where it falls short. This is that statement.
Last updated August 2026. Written to describe what this site actually does, and checked against the code rather than adapted from a template.
The standard we are aiming at
WCAG 2.1 Level AA. That is the level referenced by the UK public sector regulations and the European Accessibility Act, and it is the level this site is built and tested against.
What we test, and how
Every route is checked with axe-core against WCAG 2.1 A and AA plus best-practice rules, in both the light and dark themes, at mobile and desktop widths.
Automated testing catches roughly half of what matters, so the rest is checked by hand: keyboard navigation through every interactive element with a visible focus indicator, the mobile navigation dialog's focus trap and Escape handling, screen-reader behaviour on the architecture diagrams and the contact form, rendering under reduced motion, and that every page is readable with JavaScript disabled.
Colour contrast is measured against the actual composited values rather than assumed. Two failures found this way were invisible to automated tooling, because an ancestor opacity prevents it from resolving the real colour — those are fixed, and the rule that caused them is now written down so it cannot recur.
What we know is not perfect
The oversized wordmark in the footer sits deliberately below normal contrast. It is decorative, hidden from assistive technology, and covered by WCAG's exemption for incidental text — raising its contrast would destroy the effect it exists for. We have accepted this one knowingly rather than overlooked it.
This is the complete list of known issues at the date below. If it is out of date, that is a fault worth telling us about.
If something does not work for you
Tell us and we will fix it. Email the address below with the page and what went wrong — a rough description is fine, you do not need to know the technical term for it.
We treat accessibility defects the same as any other defect, which is to say we do not close them as working-as-intended.