Accessibility Statement
What has been tested on this site, what has not, and how to report a barrier.
Accessibility is about equal access, which means removing the barriers that stop people from using something. This page says plainly what has been checked on this site, what has not, and how to tell us if something is wrong.
Current status
This site has not yet had a full manual accessibility audit. We are not going to claim a conformance level we have not verified by hand.
What has been done so far:
- Every text and interactive color pair was checked by hand against the WCAG 2.2 Level AA contrast minimums, in both light and dark mode. Body text measures about 13.8:1, links about 6.4:1, buttons about 12.6:1, and the focus indicator about 6.3:1, each against its own background. Decorative borders are the exception, and they are listed under known gaps below.
- Semantic landmarks, a skip link, a single H1 per page, and headings that descend without skipping a level.
- A visible focus indicator on every interactive element, drawn outside the control rather than on top of it.
- Animation is wrapped in
prefers-reduced-motion. Dark mode and high contrast have their own toggles in the header, and reduced motion is in the preferences menu opened from the button beside them. - Typography chosen for reading rather than for style. Details below.
That is a design review, not an audit. No automated test suite has been run against this site, and no assistive technology has been used on it by a person. Automated tools reach roughly a third of the WCAG success criteria anyway. The remaining two-thirds, such as whether alternative text conveys the right thing, whether the keyboard order makes sense, and whether an error message helps you recover, need a human being. That work is outstanding, and this page will be updated when it is done.
Typography and reading
The type on this site is chosen for legibility first. That is a deliberate constraint rather than a default, so it is worth stating what it costs and what it buys.
The typeface is Atkinson Hyperlegible Opens in a new tab , published by the Braille Institute and named after its founder, J. Robert Atkinson. It was designed specifically for readers with low vision. The letterforms most often confused with each other, such as capital I, lowercase l and the digit 1, or capital O and zero, or b, d, p and q, are drawn to be told apart rather than to match each other neatly. It is used for headings as well as body text. A second display face would have looked more current, but keeping one typeface means the largest text on the page is also the most legible text on the page.
Body text is 16 to 18 pixels depending on window width, at or above the browser default, and it scales with your browser's font size setting rather than overriding it.
Nothing here is conveyed by color alone.
If this typeface is harder for you to read than a system font, that is worth knowing and worth telling us. See below. Legibility research describes populations, and you are a person.
Known gaps
These are the things we already know are imperfect. Naming them is cheaper than being caught out by them.
- No manual screen reader pass has been completed yet, and no automated test suite runs against the site.
- Text reflows when the page finishes loading. Web fonts arrive after the first paint, and the browser then re-renders every line in the new face, shifting the text under you. If you have ever lost your place on a page because it jumped a moment after opening, that is what happened. It happens here, and it is fixable.
- Line length runs to roughly 85 characters on a wide screen. WCAG asks for no more than 80. Long lines make it harder to find the start of the next line, which costs low vision and dyslexic readers most.
- The site opens in light mode even if your system is set to dark. That was a deliberate choice and it is the wrong default for some people. The toggle in the menu is remembered once you use it, but you should not have to ask.
- Some content on the home page is hidden behind a click. The capabilities list is an accordion and the approach section is a set of tabs, so only part of each is readable at a time. That suits a reader who is scanning and works against a reader who wants the whole thing.
- Decorative borders fall below the 3:1 non-text contrast minimum, at roughly 1.4:1. These are the hairlines around cards and between sections. Nothing depends on seeing them, which is why WCAG does not count them as a failure, but they are faint and we would rather say so than lean on the exemption.
- Text zoom and reflow have not been formally tested. The layout is built to wrap on content width rather than on window width, which should survive text-only zoom, but "should" is not "verified" and this is exactly the kind of claim this page will not make until someone has checked it by hand.
Reporting a barrier
If something on this site blocks you, we want to know. It is the fastest way for us to fix it, and we would rather hear it than not.
Email a11y@delapractica.com with the page address and what happened. You do not need to know the technical term for it. A description in your own words is genuinely more useful.
We aim to respond within one week.
Last updated: September 15, 2026