What is checked, and how often
Every change to this site is scanned before it is published, by the same code we run for customers — the same rule set, the same browser engine, no separate “marketing mode”. It runs against WCAG 2.1 level A and AA rules.
| What | Result |
|---|---|
| Pages scanned | 13, including this one |
| Widths | 1280 px and 380 px, every page at both |
| Failures | 0 |
| Needs review | 0 elements |
| Last run | 29 August 2026 |
The scan runs with reduced motion switched on. That is not a detail: elements that fade in are invisible to a checker until they have finished animating, and a scan that skips them would report a clean page it never actually looked at.
A blind spot we found in our own checker
One element that had never been looked at
The optional “How did you hear about us?” field on the main page sits inside a collapsed block. Our own scanner did not open collapsed blocks, so for as long as that field has existed it was invisible to the check, and every “zero violations” line we published was measured without it. We changed the scanner on 22 August 2026 to open them first. Nothing was failing behind that block — but we did not know that, and we had been publishing a number that did not cover it.
For part of that day the field came back as needs review rather than a pass. The checker could not read its background colour: the colour was painted as a gradient with both ends set to the same colour as the page — an old defensive trick to stop other browsers drawing their own background over it. We left it alone at first, on the grounds that we could not test those other browsers.
Then we tested them. We installed Firefox and WebKit locally and photographed the field in all three engines with the gradient on, then off, then on again. Two engines were identical to the pixel; the third differed by seven pixels of corner smoothing out of seventy-one thousand. The gradient was doing nothing, so it is gone. The field is now read like every other element in that form, and it comes back as a pass. At the time that took the count above from fourteen down to twelve — the number went down because the thing the checker could not read was removed, not because we stopped looking at it. The remaining twelve are dealt with further down this page.
Later the same day we stopped guessing about Safari too. Nobody here owns an Apple device, so we rented one for three minutes: a hosted Mac runs Safari, opens this site, reads the field back and photographs it. Safari 26.5.2 draws it the same as every other browser we tested. That check is a file in our repository now, so it can be repeated rather than remembered. Two things are still untested: Safari on a phone or tablet, and Safari versions older than 15.4, which ignore the modern way of turning off a browser's own form styling — we added the older instruction for those the same day, but we have not watched it work.
The results a checker could not decide
The twelve we could not decide, and where they went
Until 26 August 2026 this row said twelve elements, on one page. On the research page, at 380 px, twelve table cells came back as needs review rather than pass or fail: the checker could not determine the background colour, because the cell was partly covered by the edge of the container the table scrolls inside.
On 26 August the site was redesigned and those tables moved into cards: a solid background of their own, and padding between the cell and the edge of the container. That was a visual change — nobody was thinking about the twelve — but it gave the checker the background colour it had been unable to work out, and it reads the result as a pass. We took the two halves apart to be sure which did the work: the card background accounts for eleven of the twelve, the padding for the last one. The row is a zero because there is nothing left it could not decide.
A zero here does not mean this site is accessible. It means the checks a machine can run came back with nothing to flag and nothing it had to leave open — and a machine still catches roughly a third of what a person would. We are leaving the story on the page rather than deleting the paragraph, because a number that quietly loses its history is a more comfortable number, and a less true one.
What the site is built out of
- No JavaScript. Not “progressive enhancement” — none at all. The security header this site sends blocks scripts outright, so there is no state where a failed script leaves you with a page you cannot use.
- No accessibility overlay, here or anywhere. We do not install a widget on anyone’s site, including our own.
- Nothing loads from anyone else. Fonts are served from this domain. No third party can change how this page behaves after we publish it.
- A visible focus ring on everything you can reach with a keyboard, including the scrolling table above, which can be focused and scrolled without a mouse.
- Reduced motion is respected. If your system asks for less movement, the page stops moving.
Headings, tables and landmarks are real HTML elements rather than styled containers, and every page declares its language. These are the same things our reports look for on your site.
What we have not done
No screen reader user has tested this site. No external auditor has looked at it. Automated checks find roughly a third of accessibility problems — that limit is the first thing we tell customers, and it applies to us in exactly the same way.
So: the checks we can run come back clean, and that is a smaller claim than it sounds. It is not proof that this site works for you.
If something here gets in your way
Write to hello@scandiary.com and describe what happened. A person reads it and answers — there is no ticket system to disappear into.
If you tell us something is broken, we will fix it and reply saying what changed, or explain plainly why we have not. We would rather have the report than the clean record.