Accessibility
We want this site to work for everyone. It's built with semantic HTML, keyboard-navigable menus, and readable contrast throughout — but we haven't done a formal accessibility audit yet. If you run into a barrier using this site, tell us and we'll fix it.
We deliberately don't claim WCAG conformance here, at any level. Claiming a specific standard without an independent audit to back it up is worse than not claiming one at all — it tells you we've checked a box we haven't actually checked, and it's exactly the kind of gap an accessibility complaint would test first. What we can say honestly is what's actually true: the site is built with the practices above, it hasn't been audited against a formal standard, and any real barrier you report gets fixed rather than argued about.
What's actually built in
- Semantic HTML throughout — headings, landmarks, and lists that are structured as what they are, not styled `div`s standing in for them, so screen readers get real structure to navigate by.
- Every interactive control — navigation, forms, the cookie preference dialog — is reachable and operable by keyboard alone, with visible focus states rather than a focus outline stripped out for looks.
- Colour is not the only signal used to communicate anything on this site — status, required fields, and links carry a second cue (text, an icon, an underline) alongside colour.
- Text and background colours are chosen for contrast, checked by eye against the dark theme rather than assumed safe because it looks fine.
None of this is a substitute for a real audit against WCAG success criteria, and we say so rather than imply the list above already adds up to one.