No conformance claim
This site has not been audited against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines by anyone, automated or human. It therefore does not claim to conform to WCAG 2.1 at Level A, AA, or any other level.
The previous version of this page claimed AA conformance. That claim had no audit behind it, and a conformance claim without an audit is a false statement about the thing disabled users most need to be able to trust. It has been removed rather than softened.
What was actually built
These were designed in deliberately, and can be checked:
- Semantic landmarks — header, nav, main, section, footer — and a skip link to the main content.
- One h1 per page and a heading outline that does not skip levels.
- Visible focus rings on every interactive element, never removed.
- Every form field has a real label; errors are announced through role="alert".
- Custom widgets carry aria-expanded, aria-checked, aria-current and role, and the panels are focus-trapped and close on Escape.
- Tap targets are at least 44 by 44 pixels.
- Text colour was measured against the surface it is painted on, in both themes and under all four colourways, and every pair passes 4.5:1 for body text.
- An accessibility panel offers four text sizes, a high-contrast mode, link underlining, and a motion switch that genuinely stops the animation rather than hiding it.
- The motion switch defaults to whatever your operating system asks for.
- Charts never carry meaning in colour alone — every series has its own dash pattern and a text description.
- Every page works with JavaScript switched off, including the calculators, which render a full default scenario at build time.
What has not been verified
No screen-reader testing has been done with JAWS, NVDA or VoiceOver. No testing has been done with speech input or a switch device. No user with a disability has been asked to try it. Those are the tests that would justify a conformance claim, and none of them has happened.
If something here does not work for you
On a real site this is where a monitored contact route and a response commitment would go. This is a demonstration and has neither. What it does have is the statement that it has not been audited, which is the part a real site most often gets wrong.