ACCESSIBILITY
Accessibility in industrial software is not a compliance exercise: a technician may be wearing gloves, standing in bad light, or using a device nobody chose. This page states the target, what we verified on this site, and what we have not proved.
WHAT WE CHECKED
Measured in a real browser across every page and six viewport widths, not asserted.
Exactly one top-level heading per page and no skipped levels. Product mockups — the fake application screens — are drawn with non-heading elements on purpose, so a decorative interface never enters the document outline.
No image on the site is missing alternative text. Decorative background photography is marked as such rather than left to be read out as noise.
Every interactive element takes a visible focus ring when reached by keyboard, and mouse clicks do not trigger it. The mobile menu opens and closes from the keyboard and answers the Escape key.
Every text node is checked against its effective background against the WCAG contrast thresholds — 4.5:1 for body text, 3:1 for large text — including the small uppercase labels that are easiest to get wrong.
Real page copy has a hard minimum size: no text below 12.5 px on phones or 10 px on desktop. Text inside product mockups is excluded because it is a picture of an interface, not content.
No horizontal scrolling at any width from 320 px upward, and touch targets sized for a hand rather than a mouse.
Every field on the contact form is wrapped in a label, required fields are marked, validation is native rather than colour-only, and the result of a submission is announced through a live region instead of appearing silently.
The site honours the operating system's reduced-motion preference and drops its animations when it is set.
WHAT WE DO NOT CLAIM
An accessibility statement that claims conformance without an audit is worse than no statement.
WCAG 2.2 AA is the product target, and this website is built to it. No formal conformance audit has been carried out, so no level of conformance is claimed here — for the website or for the application.
Automated and structural checks are not the same as a person using a screen reader on a real maintenance screen. That testing has not happened yet, and it is the gap that matters most.
This page describes the website. The application's own screens share the target and the design tokens, but they have not been audited to the same standard, and this page is not evidence that they have.
A maintenance screen wants a lot of information visible at once; accessibility wants generous targets and unhurried reading. We resolve that in favour of the field user where the two conflict, and say so rather than pretending the tension does not exist.
FOUND A BARRIER?
If something on this site or in the product is hard to use, describe what you were trying to do — that is more useful to us than a rule number.
