Accessibility statement
Last updated: 2026-09-15
We build to WCAG 2.2 level AA and we say so on this site. This page is how that claim is checked: what was measured, with what, when, and what is not covered by it. A statement that claims more than the measurement supports is worse than no statement, so this one stays narrow.
1. Conformance status
Partially conformant with WCAG 2.2 level AA. Partially conformant means that most of the standard is met, and that we do not claim full conformance because no full manual audit of every success criterion has been carried out. What has been measured is set out below.
2. How this was measured
| What | How | Result | When |
|---|---|---|---|
| The 19 core pages in English, Dutch and Arabic, desktop and mobile | axe-core 4.11.0 through Playwright, run against the built site | 57 of 57 pages with no violations, on both viewports | 2026-09-15 |
| Automated checks across the site, including every knowledge base article | axe-core 4.11.0, run against the built site in a real browser | 586 of 586 pages with no violations, no rules violated | 2026-09-13 |
| Colour contrast of body text, links and accent colours | Same run, plus a manual recheck of the accent colour on its background | Passing at 4.5:1 or better after a correction to one accent colour | 2026-09-13 |
| Keyboard access to wide tables in articles | Manual check after tables were made focusable regions with a label | Tables can be reached and scrolled with the keyboard | 2026-09-13 |
The Dutch and Arabic versions of the 19 core pages were added on 2026-09-15, after the run above, so they are not in that count. They are built from the same components and markup as the English pages, and the row above records the run that covers them. Two issues found while building and reviewing them were fixed rather than listed: the dropdowns in the quote form showed the question as text but did not pass it to assistive technology, so a screen reader announced them without a name; and secondary text on the service pages sat at 2.85:1 where 4.5:1 is required.
Automated tools find a part of what matters. They do not judge whether a heading makes sense, whether a link text is meaningful out of context, or whether a flow can be completed by someone using a screen reader. Those need people, and where we have not done that work, this page says so rather than implying otherwise.
3. What is not covered by the measurement above
- No full manual audit against every WCAG 2.2 AA success criterion. The automated run covers the criteria a tool can test. The rest has not been audited item by item.
- No assistive technology testing programme. We have not run a structured test pass with screen readers across the site, and we do not claim to have.
- Third-party content. Where a page embeds something from another provider, its accessibility is determined by that provider. We choose providers with that in mind and we cannot warrant their output.
4. Known issues
None outstanding from the checks described above as of 2026-09-13. Two issues found during that work were fixed rather than listed: an accent colour that reached 4.42:1 where 4.5:1 is required, and wide tables that could be scrolled with a mouse but not reached with a keyboard. If you find something else, the section below is how it reaches us.
5. Reporting a barrier
If any part of this site is hard or impossible to use, tell us and we will fix it or tell you honestly when we can. Email hello@civsecsmart.com with the page address and what happened. We answer within the response time in our terms, and a barrier that stops you using the site is treated as urgent.
If our answer does not resolve it, you can escalate to the relevant supervisory body in your country. In the Netherlands, complaints about accessibility of private-sector websites are handled through the ordinary consumer and equal-treatment routes rather than a website-specific regulator.
6. Why this page exists
Our knowledge base tells readers to ask any supplier for an accessibility statement with a method, a date and named issues, and warns that a blanket claim of full conformance that fails a five-minute keyboard test is not credible. Publishing this page is the cheapest way to be judged by the standard we set for others. It is also the reason the wording above is careful: the point of a statement is that it can be checked.