Our own accessibility statement.
We sell accessibility work, so this page holds us to the same standard we'd hold a client to: name the standard, say what's been tested, disclose what we know is imperfect, and give people a real way to tell us when we've got it wrong.
The standard we build to
This website is built to conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA, with new components built to WCAG 2.2 Level AA. That's the same standard we recommend to clients and the one most regulations cite.
What we've done
- Built the site with semantic HTML and native controls rather than scripted substitutes
- Verified color contrast across the design system at Level AA thresholds
- Provided a visible keyboard focus indicator and a skip link to main content
- Tested keyboard-only operation of navigation, the interactive assessments, and the checklists
- Honored the operating system's reduced-motion preference
- Built the interactive tools to work without depending on JavaScript for access to content
- Run our own accessibility checker across the site, and fixed what it found
What our own tool found, and what we did
We built the checker on this site and then ran it against this site. It reported four real defects, which is the point of building it:
- Contrast failure on the process step numbers. Our lime accent on white measured 2.04:1 where 4.5:1 was required. Changed to Deep Forest, which measures 9.7:1.
- Navigation links below the minimum target size. They rendered 18px tall against the 24px WCAG 2.2 requires. Now 24px and up.
- Heading levels skipped. Footer section headings sat at h4 under an h2, and card grids jumped from h1 to h3. Both corrected — the skip we disclosed in an earlier version of this statement is fixed.
- An empty heading in the assessment results. Hidden until the quiz is scored, but present in the markup. This also turned out to be a bug in our own tool's visibility detection, which we fixed.
- Contrast failures inside a dark panel. Our accent green and muted body grey measured 1.84:1 and 2.64:1 against the graphite background on one page. Both recolored.
- Horizontal scrolling at 320px. Eight pages forced sideways scrolling at the width WCAG 1.4.10 specifies — a long button label set to never wrap, and grid columns that wouldn't shrink below a long word. All 117 pages now reflow cleanly at 320px.
Running the checker across every page now returns no automated failures. The remaining advisories are text over gradient backgrounds, where contrast can't be computed automatically; we checked those by hand and the worst case measures 6.12:1 against a 4.5:1 requirement.
We're documenting this in detail for a reason. Every site has findings like these, including the sites of firms that sell accessibility. What matters is whether anyone is looking.
What we know is imperfect
Every accessibility statement that claims full conformance with no exceptions should be read skeptically. Here is ours, honestly:
- No independent third-party audit has been published for this site yet. The testing behind this statement is our own. We'd rather say that plainly than imply an external review that hasn't happened.
- The contact form is a third-party service. We're responsible for the experience regardless, and we're evaluating the form backend against the same standard.
- Fonts load from a third-party CDN. If that request fails, the site falls back to system fonts — readable, but not the intended presentation.
If you find something not on this list, that's genuinely useful to us. See below.
Telling us about a barrier
If any part of this site prevents you from doing something, email hello@limitedlimeconsulting.com with the page address and what happened. You don't need to know what the technical problem is, or use any particular terminology — "I couldn't submit the form with my screen reader" is a complete and useful report.
We aim to acknowledge reports within two business days and to tell you either when it's fixed or what our timeline is. If something blocks you from reaching us, call it out in whatever channel does work and we'll find another way to get you the information you needed.
Assessment approach
This statement is based on a self-evaluation combining our own automated checks, manual code review, keyboard-only testing, and screen reader testing. It is reviewed when the site changes materially and at least annually.
Statement last reviewed: September 2026.
You can verify much of this yourself rather than taking our word for it — the checker runs against any page, including ours.
An accessibility statement is evidence, not marketing.
A statement that claims perfection and lists no limitations is a liability, not a defense — it's a public claim you can be measured against. A statement that names the standard, describes the testing, discloses known gaps, and provides a working feedback path is one of the more useful things an organization can publish.
That's what we help clients write, and it seemed reasonable to publish our own first.
Our WCAG Compliance Practice