Accessibility Statement
Last updated: 23 September 2026
This statement explains how accessible intellagentic.io is. It is based on an audit we carried out ourselves, and it names the places where the site currently falls short of the standard rather than claiming a level of conformance we have not reached.
1. How we tested
We audited intellagentic.io ourselves on 23 September 2026 against WCAG 2.2 at level AA. The audit was automated and covered the home page and a sector page at 1440×900 and 420×900: computed colour-contrast ratios for every text element against its actual rendered background, heading order, landmark structure, image alternative text, accessible names on every link and button, keyboard tab order and focus visibility, and behaviour under reduced-motion preferences.
It has not yet been audited by an external specialist, and it has not been tested with screen readers or by disabled users. Those are the two most important gaps in what we know, and we say so rather than imply a level of assurance we do not have.
2. Our conformance status
This website is partially conformant with WCAG 2.2 level AA. Partially conformant means some parts of the content do not fully conform to the standard.
3. What does conform
- Every page can be operated by keyboard alone, with a visible focus indicator on every interactive element and no keyboard traps.
- A “skip to content” link is the first thing a keyboard or screen-reader user reaches.
- Pages declare their language, use one level-one heading, and follow a logical heading order without skipped levels.
- Content is structured with proper landmark regions (navigation, main, footer).
- Every link and button has an accessible name; every image has alternative text.
- Animation and motion are suppressed for anyone whose system requests reduced motion.
- Layouts reflow to narrow screens without horizontal scrolling and without loss of content.
4. What does not conform, and why
The site fails WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) in several places. Our audit found contrast ratios below the required 4.5:1 for normal text in the following cases:
| Element | Measured | Required |
|---|---|---|
| Primary call-to-action button — light text on the vermilion background | 3.45:1 | 4.5:1 |
| Small uppercase section labels in vermilion on the dark background | 2.26–2.77:1 | 4.5:1 |
| Supporting and source text in grey on the dark background | 4.23:1 | 4.5:1 |
These come from our brand palette rather than from an oversight in any one page, which is why they recur. Correcting them means adjusting the palette itself, and we would rather do that properly than patch individual pages and leave the underlying problem in place.
5. What we are doing about it
- Darkening the accent used behind light text so the primary button and seal meet 4.5:1. The brand already contains a deeper vermilion that measures 4.65:1.
- Reviewing every small label and secondary text colour against its actual background, and raising those that fall short.
- Commissioning an external accessibility audit, including testing with assistive technology, once the palette work is done.
We have not set a date we cannot keep. We will update this statement when each item is complete, and record the date here.
6. Non-accessible content outside our control
Some content on this site is delivered by third parties — web fonts, and documents supplied by partner organisations. Where we link to a third-party service, its accessibility is that provider’s responsibility, though we will always try to help you get what you need.
7. Feedback, and how to reach us
If you find something on this site you cannot use, or you need information from it in a different format — larger text, plain text, an accessible document — email privacy@intellagentic.io and tell us what you need. We will reply within five working days.
If you are not happy with how we respond, you can contact the Equality Advisory and Support Service.
8. About this statement
This statement was prepared on 23 September 2026. It reflects an audit carried out on the same date, against the site as it then stood. It is not a legal requirement for a company of our size; we publish it because our clients’ own accessibility duties are real, and because we would rather be straight about where we are.