Accessibility statement

We sell accessibility testing, so this page has a lower tolerance for vagueness than most. Here is what we have actually tested on this website, what we have not, and what that leaves unknown.

What we are aiming at

WCAG 2.2 Level AA, which is the standard the European Accessibility Act, the UK public sector regulations and Section 508 all point at.

What we have tested

Every page on this site is scanned with our own engine — axe-core, unmodified — on every change, under both WCAG 2.2 AA and the full rule set including axe's best-practice rules. All 28 pages currently report no violations under either. The scan runs from worker/scripts/selfscan.js in our repository, and pages are discovered from the filesystem rather than listed, so a new page cannot be added without being checked.

Beyond that, and by hand rather than by tool:

• The keyboard path is checked on every page, automatically. A second script tabs through each page in a real browser and asserts that every interactive element is reachable by Tab, that the focused element always has a visible focus indicator, that focus is never trapped, and that the skip link is the first stop and moves focus into the main region rather than only scrolling. All 28 pages pass. On three signed-in pages — the dashboard, and the two email-verification pages — the skip link cannot be exercised without a live session, so that one check is reported as unverified rather than assumed.
• Focus is visible by design, not by accident: the site's whole visual language is built out of the focus ring, so an invisible one would be conspicuous.
• Headings are in order — the scanner enforces that — and were written to describe their sections. Every table has a caption, and data tables use row and column headers.
• With JavaScript disabled every page is still readable and navigable. Two things do not appear: the Sign in and Sign up links, which are shown by script depending on whether you are already signed in, and the free scanner, which needs script to work at all. If you need an account without JavaScript, email us.
• Text contrast is checked against the 4.5:1 minimum on every page by the scanner, which is one of the things automation genuinely does well.

What we have not done

This matters more than the list above, and most accessibility statements leave it out.

• No formal audit by a qualified external reviewer. This is a self-assessment. It has not been checked by anyone independent of us.
• No systematic testing with screen readers. We have not worked through this site with NVDA, JAWS or VoiceOver in the disciplined way a real audit would.
• No testing with users who rely on assistive technology. Which is the test that actually matters, and the one we have not run.
• No testing with voice control, switch access or screen magnification.
• Nothing has been checked at 200% zoom or 320 CSS pixels wide by hand. The layout is built to reflow and appears to, but "appears to" is not a test.

So the honest summary is: this site passes every check a machine can perform, and 32 of the 55 Level A and AA success criteria cannot be checked by a machine at all. We have covered several of those by hand. We have not covered all of them, and we are not going to claim conformance on the strength of a clean scan — that is precisely the claim this product exists to argue against.

Known problems

Nothing outstanding that we are aware of. If that changes, or if you find something, it goes here with a date and a plan rather than being quietly fixed and forgotten.

Two things worth naming as limitations rather than defects:

• The free scanner reports results in a live region as they arrive. It has been checked for correct roles and announcements in markup, but not with a screen reader under real conditions.
• Generated PDF reports inherit whatever branding an agency configures, including their colours. We validate that a brand colour is a colour, not that it has adequate contrast — so a report can be less accessible than this site is. We will not pretend otherwise, and it is on the list to fix.

Telling us about a problem

Email hi@skiplink.dev. If something on this site stops you doing what you came to do, that is a bug of the same rank as the site being down, and we would rather hear about it than not.

We aim to reply within two working days. If a fix is going to take longer than that, we will say what the workaround is in the meantime.

How this statement was prepared

Self-assessed by ThirteenTabs Ltd, using automated testing with axe-core under WCAG 2.2 AA plus the manual keyboard and structural checks listed above. Last reviewed 29 July 2026.

It will be reviewed whenever the site changes materially. The automated parts re-run on every change — npm run selfscan for the rule checks and npm run keyboard:check for the keyboard path — and both fail the build rather than reporting a warning nobody reads. Those two are the only parts of this statement that maintain themselves; the rest is a person's word, including the list of what we have not done.