Accessibility

This site targets WCAG 2.2 Level AA. That is the current W3C Recommendation and a superset of WCAG 2.1 AA, which is the standard the European Accessibility Act and EN 301 549 currently cite.

What has been verified

Each of these was measured by an automated audit run at 375, 768 and 1440 pixels, or computed directly from the stylesheet.

• Colour contrast — all 26 semantic token pairs computed against WCAG 2.2, truncated rather than rounded, in both light and dark themes.
• No horizontal scrolling at 375, 768 or 1440 pixels wide.
• Reflow at 320 CSS pixels (WCAG 1.4.10) with no sideways scrolling, checked on all eight public pages.
• Text spacing overrides (WCAG 1.4.12 — line height 1.5, letter spacing 0.12em, word spacing 0.16em, paragraph spacing 2em) applied to all eight pages: nothing clipped, nothing overflowed.
• Every interactive control meets the 24 by 24 CSS pixel minimum (WCAG 2.2 AA, 2.5.8), measured on all eight public pages. Most are 44 by 44. The exceptions are text links whose height is set by the type they sit in — a heading link on a property card is 30 pixels tall, a licence name 25 wide — which is what the standard’s inline-text exception covers. The stronger 44-pixel target is level AAA, and this site does not claim it.
• One h1 per page, headings in order, and main, nav and footer landmarks present.
• A visible focus indicator on every focusable stop, checked by tabbing the full cycle of every page rather than by sampling.
• Tab order follows visual reading order, and there are no keyboard traps.
• The skip link is the first stop on every page, is visible when focused, and MOVES FOCUS into the content — it did not until this was tested, and was fixed.
• Every image conveying meaning has alternative text written from looking at the photograph; decorative icons are hidden from assistive technology.
• Availability is never signalled by colour alone. A date already taken is struck through and says so in its accessible name; a date already in the past is faded, disabled, and says “already passed” — deliberately not struck through, because a strike would imply somebody else had taken it.
• Motion respects prefers-reduced-motion: with it enabled, nothing on the page animates or transitions.

What has not been verified

Stated plainly, because a statement that lists only successes is marketing rather than a statement.

• No testing with real screen-reader users has been carried out. This is the largest remaining gap and no automated check substitutes for it.
• The keyboard pass was driven programmatically rather than by a person working through each flow by hand. It proves every stop is reachable and visibly focused; it does not prove the experience makes sense.
• Whether the alternative text is GOOD is a judgement no check can make. Each photograph was looked at and described, but only a reader can say whether the description is useful.
• Automated tooling catches roughly a third of accessibility failures. A clean automated pass is necessary and never sufficient — the skip-link defect above passed every automated gate.