Accessibility
This page says what was actually tested on this site, what standard it was tested against, and where it still falls short. It is a statement of fact, not a claim of certification.
What standard, and why
This site targets WCAG 2.1 Level AA, tested through the web requirements of ETSI EN 301 549 v2.1.2, clause 9. Clause 9 §9.5 is the provision that incorporates WCAG 2.1 at Level AA, so the two are the same bar stated in two ways.
EN 301 549 is the harmonised European standard for accessible ICT. It is the reference that Canadian accessibility guidance points organisations to, which is why it is named here rather than only WCAG. Nothing on this page depends on being read in a particular jurisdiction: the measured requirements are the WCAG 2.1 AA ones.
How it was tested
By automated probes against the rendered page in a real browser, measuring the document the way a user agent computes it rather than reading the source:
- Text and non-text contrast measured from computed styles, resolving
oklch()to sRGB through the browser’s own parser so modern colour syntax measures correctly instead of silently returning nothing. - Reflow at 320 CSS px and at 200 % text zoom, checking for horizontal scrolling rather than assuming it.
- Text-spacing overrides (line height, paragraph, letter and word spacing) applied to confirm no content is clipped.
- Keyboard reachability, focus visibility, heading order, language, duplicate ids, and accessible names for interactive elements.
Contrast was measured against the composited background — translucent colours flattened over what is actually behind them — so the numbers below reflect what renders, not what the stylesheet intends.
Results
Measured on this site’s pages. “Not applicable” means the page contains nothing for that requirement to apply to, which is how absence is treated under clause 9.0.
| Requirement | What it covers | Result |
|---|---|---|
9.1.1.1 | Non-text content has a text alternative | Pass |
9.1.4.3 | Contrast (minimum) — 4.5:1 text, 3:1 large | Pass — worst 4.64:1 |
9.1.4.4 | Resize text to 200 % without loss | Pass |
9.1.4.10 | Reflow at 320 CSS px, no two-dimensional scroll | Pass |
9.1.4.11 | Non-text contrast — 3:1 for meaningful graphics | Pass |
9.1.4.12 | Text spacing overrides do not clip content | Pass |
9.2.1.1 | Keyboard — everything operable is reachable | Pass |
9.2.3.1 | Three flashes — no flashing content | Pass |
9.2.4.1 | Bypass blocks — skip link past repeated content | Pass |
9.2.4.2 | Page titles are present and meaningful | Pass |
9.2.4.6 | Headings and labels describe their topic | Pass |
9.3.1.1 | Language of the page is set | Pass |
9.4.1.1 | Parsing — no duplicate ids | Pass |
9.4.1.2 | Name, role, value for interactive elements | Pass |
9.1.2.x | Time-based media alternatives | N/A — no media |
9.2.2.1 | Timing adjustable | N/A — no time limits |
9.2.2.2 | Pause, stop, hide moving content | N/A — nothing moves |
9.1.3.5 | Identify input purpose | N/A — no forms |
9.3.3.x | Input assistance, error identification | N/A — no data entry |
9.1.4.13 | Content on hover or focus | N/A — no overlays |
On the contrast margin. The tightest pair in the palette measures 4.64:1 against a 4.50:1 floor. That passes, and it passes honestly, but the headroom is small by design: the muted tone was lifted only on the lightness axis to get clear of the threshold. Anyone editing the palette should re-measure rather than assume the margin survives.
Where it falls short
These are real, and stated plainly rather than rounded off:
- No screen-reader pass. Everything above is machine-measured. No assistive-technology session — NVDA, JAWS, or VoiceOver — has been run against this site. That is the single largest gap in this statement: automated tools cannot judge whether a text alternative is accurate, whether reading order makes sense, or whether an interface is coherent when heard rather than seen.
- Not everything is machine-checkable. Clause 9 runs to fifty requirements at Level AA. The table covers a subset. Requirements that need human judgement — whether alt text is meaningful, whether link text is descriptive in context, whether content is understandable — are outside what these probes can assert.
- No conformance claim. A statement that this site “conforms to EN 301 549” would require a full audit, manual testing with assistive technology, and a documented evaluation. That has not happened, so no such claim is made here.
- One page, one browser. Measurements were taken in Chromium. Behaviour in other engines, and with browser extensions or user stylesheets or forced-colours modes applied, is not characterised.
Feedback
If something on this site does not work for you — an inaccessible control, a contrast problem, content that reads badly with a screen reader — tell me directly and I will fix it. Email noah@mechanima.tech.
If you need something on this site in a different form, ask. It is a static page; converting it is straightforward.
Details of this statement
- Prepared: 28 September 2026
- Standard applied: ETSI EN 301 549 v2.1.2, clause 9 (§9.5 → WCAG 2.1 Level AA)
- Method: automated browser measurement of the rendered document; no assistive-technology testing performed
- Reviewed by: the site owner, not an independent third party
This statement will be updated when a screen-reader pass is completed, or when the page changes enough to invalidate the measurements above.