Legal
Accessibility
What has been done, what has not been tested, and how to tell us something is broken. A statement that only lists the good half is not a statement, it is marketing about disability.
In plain language — true today
- Body type is Atkinson Hyperlegible, a face designed for low-vision readers; text is ink on chalk at 7:1 contrast or better, never grey.
- Touch targets are 44px or larger everywhere a child can tap; reduced motion is honoured on every page.
- No third-party scripts; fonts are self-hosted in production.
Accessibility statement — formal text, pending counsel — written by counsel, not designed
Below: the same facts at length — a description of what the system does, written from the architecture. It is not the notice.
The standard we build to
WCAG 2.2 AA as a floor, with two places we deliberately exceed it.
Contrast. Body text is at least 7:1 against its background rather than AA’s 4.5:1. A meaningful share of our readers are on a shared school device with a scratched screen in a bright room, and AA is calibrated for better conditions than that.
Target size. 44 pixels minimum on this site, and 48 anywhere a child touches. AA asks for 24.
Specific decisions
The body typeface is Atkinson Hyperlegible, designed by the Braille Institute with letterforms that are deliberately hard to confuse with one another. It was chosen for that and not for how it looks.
Grey text does not appear anywhere. Where text needs to recede it is the same ink at reduced strength, and the two levels that are allowed to carry words were picked because they still clear the contrast floor — not by eye.
Pinch-zoom is available on every page. It is switched off by default in a lot of mobile-first work, which is a WCAG failure that is easy to ship and hard to notice.
Every animation stops under prefers-reduced-motion, and the reduced version is a designed state rather than a switched-off one: the typing effect becomes complete text, the loading indicator becomes a static rule, and the margin rail still tracks progress because that is information rather than decoration.
The horizontal walkthrough on the home page scrolls with a real scrollbar and reachable arrow keys. Hijacking the page scroll to move it sideways would have looked better and would have broken keyboard use, find-in-page and reduced motion at once.
What has not been tested
Stated plainly, because a statement that omits this is not worth reading.
No screen reader pass has been run. The semantics were written carefully — landmarks, labelled regions, a focus order that follows the visual order — but written carefully and tested are different claims. The consent flow and the course player need this before either ships, and that is scheduled rather than assumed.
No automated audit has been run against the built pages, and no manual testing with magnification, voice control or a switch device.
The reading level of the copy has not been measured. §5.4 sets grade 3 to 5 for anything a child reads and grade 8 for adult copy; that has been written toward and not checked.
Telling us something is broken
Email accessibility@architectedu.com. It reaches the people who can change the code rather than a support queue.
Useful things to include if you have them: the page, what you were trying to do, and what you are using to read it. None of them are required — “the schools page is unusable with a screen reader” is a perfectly good report and we would rather have it than nothing.