Accessibility statement

This site is partially conformant with WCAG 2.2 Level AA, and the rest of this page explains exactly what that sentence is and is not claiming. We sell audits, so a statement of ours that claimed more than we have actually tested would be the precise failure we spend the whole site arguing against.

What this statement covers

It covers wcagrules.com, every page under it, and no subdomains, because there are not any. The standard is Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2 at Level AA. The site relies on HTML, CSS and JavaScript, and the typeface is served from this domain. Google Tag Manager loads analytics so we can understand how people use the site and improve it. Those third-party scripts do not replace accessibility testing, and their effect is included when we check releases. Browsers, frameworks, hosting and analytics tools still change underneath us like they do underneath everybody.

How the site was evaluated

Every release is checked with automated tooling, which catches the mechanical failures and nothing else. On top of that, the page templates have been through a manual keyboard pass and a screen reader pass, so the focus handling, the landmarks, the heading shell and the form patterns are verified. The site is built to work with a keyboard alone, to show a visible focus indicator on every interactive element, to meet contrast requirements, to explain form errors in text, and to respect a reduced-motion preference. Those are the things it is built to do, verified on the templates.

Why the status is partial and not full

Two reasons, and the second is the honest one. First, the conformance requirements define conformance for a web page rather than for a website. A full claim covers whole pages and whole processes, and what it records is the state of what was tested on the day it was tested. A release does not automatically make anything fail. It does mean the pages it touched need looking at again, and this site has more than a thousand pages and ships regularly.

Second, we test a sample rather than every page on every release. Templates carry the focus styles, the landmarks and the form patterns, and pages built from them inherit all of that. What templates do not carry is the content inside them. Alt text, link text, heading order, the tables and code samples in a guide, all of it is written per page, and a sample is exactly what would miss a bad one. So we are not going to tell you every page has been checked, because it has not.

One point of vocabulary, since we sell a guide to writing these and ought to be exact in our own. “Partially conformant” is not a status WCAG defines. WCAG offers a statement of partial conformance in two narrow situations, third-party content and language, and neither applies here. The phrase comes from the European model statement and from VPAT vocabulary, it is a perfectly reasonable thing to say, and it is not the standard speaking.

What is not there yet

• Not every page has been through a manual screen reader pass. The templates have, and the pages built from them inherit that, but the content inside each page is written per page and we check a sample of it rather than all of it.
• The site does not adapt to a system dark-mode preference. It renders light whatever your device is set to. That is not a WCAG 2.2 AA requirement, and we list it because some visitors reasonably expect it and because it matters for light sensitivity and migraine.
• We have not published an audit of this site by an independent party. We think you should ask for one from any firm selling you accessibility work, including this one, and we do not have one to show you yet.

Tell us, and what happens if we go quiet

If anything on this site gets in your way, tell us and we will fix it, because that is the business we are in and because a statement with no working route out of it is decoration. Email hello@wcagrules.com and you will hear back within one business day. Say which page and what happened, and if you know it, which browser and assistive technology you were using, though a plain description of what went wrong is plenty.

If you do not hear back within five business days, send it again with “no reply” in the subject line. That is not a formality either. We have one inbox and no support desk behind it, which is usually a feature and occasionally a single point of failure, so a second message is the escalation route.

Prepared August 30, 2026, by self-evaluation. Last reviewed: September 3, 2026.