Accessibility statement.

Our commitment

An operations practice that argues for work being legible to everyone has no business publishing a site that is not. Accessibility here is treated the same way we treat a client workflow: measured against a written standard, reviewed on a cadence, and honest about the current state rather than the intended one.

This statement describes theintentional.co as it exists today. It will change as the site does, and the review date at the top will change with it.

The standard we work to

The target is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, version 2.2, at Level AA. That is the level referenced by the Americans with Disabilities Act in practice, by Section 508 for federal procurement, and by the European Accessibility Act. We aim at AA rather than A because AA is where colour contrast, focus visibility, and reflow live, and those are the criteria that decide whether a page is genuinely usable.

What is in place

These are built and verified, not aspirational.

• Keyboard operation throughout. Every menu, accordion, and form control can be reached and operated without a mouse. The navigation menus open and close from the keyboard, Escape closes them and returns focus to the button that opened them, and the FAQ accordions support arrow key movement between questions.
• A visible focus indicator on everything. Focus is drawn with a two pixel outline offset from the element, in a colour chosen for contrast against whichever background it sits on. It is never removed.
• A skip link. The first thing a keyboard user reaches on every page is a link that jumps past the navigation to the main content.
• Colour contrast above the requirement. Body text runs well above the 4.5 to 1 minimum. The accent colours have separate light and dark variants specifically so small text never uses a value that fails: the gold used on cream measures 5.3 to 1, and the three accent colours on navy measure between 7.9 and 8.6 to 1. Accent colour is never used for body text.
• Reduced motion is respected. If your system asks for reduced motion, the scroll reveals, the counters, the smooth scrolling, and the progress bar all switch off, and content appears immediately in its final position.
• Semantic structure. Real landmarks, one h1 per page, headings in order, lists marked up as lists, and navigation regions labelled so a screen reader can distinguish the primary menu from the mobile one.
• Descriptive alt text. Images that carry meaning have written descriptions. Decorative marks are hidden from assistive technology rather than announced.
• Forms that explain themselves. Every field has a real label. Errors appear next to the field, are announced, and move focus to the first field that needs attention. Success and failure messages are announced rather than only shown.
• Reflow and zoom. The layout responds down to small screens and holds at 200 percent zoom without horizontal scrolling or lost content.
• Text that stays readable. Body copy is set at 17 pixels with generous line height and a measure capped near 68 characters, and no text is rendered as an image.

Known gaps

The following do not currently meet the standard. Each is listed with the criterion it touches and what is planned.

• The named frameworks have no pages of their own. They are listed on the Insights index, but each one is a line of text rather than a destination. Nothing in the navigation currently promises otherwise, so this is a content gap rather than a link failure, and it is recorded here so the position is not lost.
• The site has not been audited with assistive technology by an external reviewer. Testing so far has been our own, described below. An external audit is planned before the next significant expansion of the site.
• No captions or transcripts policy is in force yet. There is no audio or video on the site today, so nothing currently fails. When video is added, it will ship with captions and a transcript, and this statement will be updated to say so.

If you find something not on this list, it is an oversight rather than a decision. Please tell us.

How this was tested

The site was built to the standard rather than retrofitted to it, and checked with keyboard only navigation on every page, browser accessibility inspection of the rendered structure, contrast measurement of every text and background pairing in the palette, testing at 200 percent zoom and at mobile widths, and verification that the reduced motion preference is honoured.

What has not been done is a formal screen reader audit across multiple assistive technologies, or a review by someone who uses that technology daily. That distinction matters, and it is why the conformance claim above says partially conformant rather than fully conformant. We would rather understate a claim than publish one we cannot defend.

If the site does not work for you

Nothing on this site is behind a login, and no information here is available only in a visual form. If any page is unusable for you, email sal@theintentional.co and we will send the same content as plain text, read it to you on a call, or answer the question directly. A first conversation can happen entirely by email or by phone. There is no form you are required to complete in order to reach us.

Feedback and response times

Accessibility problems are treated as defects, not suggestions. Email sal@theintentional.co with the page address, what you were trying to do, and the browser or assistive technology you were using if you know it.

• Acknowledgement within two working days.
• An assessment and a plan within ten working days, including a fix date or an explanation of why it will take longer.
• An alternative route to the content immediately, in the same reply, whenever the fix itself will take time.

This statement was prepared on 13 August 2026 and is reviewed at least once a year, and after any significant change to the site.