Skip to main content
ABØ STUDIOS
Request a Pilot

Accessibility statement

An accessibility studio that fails its own site is finished before it starts.

So here is the honest state of this one, including what isn’t done yet.

Last reviewed: 15 August 2026.

Standard

WCAG 2.2 Level AA, as the floor

This site is built to conform to WCAG 2.2 Level AA. That is a target we hold ourselves to during development, not a certified, tested conformance statement — this page states exactly what has and hasn’t been verified, per the same claim doctrine we apply to every client engagement.

What was actually done

Built in, not bolted on

  • One h1 per page, real semantic headings in logical order, and semantic landmarks (banner, main, contentinfo).
  • A visible skip link as the first focusable element on every page.
  • A visible, high-contrast :focus-visible outline on every interactive element — no outline: none anywhere.
  • Logical DOM order that does not depend on the visual before/after split layout — the reading order matches the visual order and the narrative order.
  • Colour is never the only signal — the before/after system, refusal lists, and form errors all pair colour with text, icons, or shape.
  • All motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, including the GSAP-driven scroll moments — every animated state has a defined instant, no-motion equivalent.
  • Form fields have real associated labels; errors are announced as text, tied to their field, and move focus to a summary.
  • Automated axe-core checks run against the production build during development.

Known limitations

Said plainly, not buried in an appendix

  • This site has not yet had a full human assistive-technology test session across multiple screen readers (NVDA, JAWS, VoiceOver) and browsers. A short NVDA smoke-test script exists (web/NVDA-SMOKE-TEST.md in the project source) for the founder to run before any future public launch.
  • Automated axe-core scanning was run during development. Per our own claim doctrine, an axe pass alone is never treated as sufficient — automated tooling catches roughly 57% of issues by volume — but the additional manual AT pass this site deserves has not yet been recorded as a dated result the way the Cal.diy engagement's has.
  • This site has not been tested on real assistive-technology hardware/software combinations beyond what was available during development, and has not been tested with users who rely on assistive technology day to day.
  • The site has one primary interactive surface — the Request a Pilot form — and it has been built and manually keyboard-tested, but not yet AT-tested by a third party.

No overlay

Obviously.

This site does not run an accessibility overlay or widget. The absence is itself a statement — we are the alternative to that category, and installing one on our own site would be indefensible.

Report a barrier

Tell us what broke

If you hit an accessibility barrier anywhere on this site, use the Request a Pilot form and describe it in the flow field — a human reads every submission.