Accessibility readiness report

Summary

We read 10 pages of allthepossibles.com on 24 October 2026 (/, /guides, /notes and others). The automated checks reported 1 confirmed problem across 1 WCAG criterion: 0 high, 1 medium and 0 low. They also raised 1 item marked estimate or to verify, which are listed separately because the checks could not settle them.

None of the problems rose to the fix-first list.

Of the 55 Level A and AA criteria in WCAG 2.2, the conformance table marks 1 as Supports, 1 as Partially Supports, 0 as Does Not Support and 53 as Not Evaluated. The Not Evaluated rows are the majority because most of WCAG can only be judged by a person using the site. Treat them as open questions, not as passes.

Next steps: fix the items marked Fix first, work through the manual checklist, then edit the accessibility statement draft to say what you actually found.

Findings by WCAG 2.2 criterion

Each row is one kind of problem, grouped across the pages where it appears. Found means the check saw it in the markup or stylesheet. Estimate means the size or position was worked out from CSS and should be measured in a browser. To verify means the check could not settle it and a person should look.

Conformance table, laid out like a VPAT 2.5 report

This follows the WCAG layout of the Accessibility Conformance Report in the ITI VPAT 2.5 template: each success criterion with a conformance level and remarks. It is a draft from software, not a completed VPAT, and it is not a conformance claim. A row is marked Supports only where markup alone settles the criterion. Where a check found a problem, the row says Partially Supports or Does Not Support and cites it. Everything else is Not Evaluated, with how to test it by hand.

European Accessibility Act and EN 301 549

The European Accessibility Act (Directive (EU) 2019/882) has applied since 28 June 2025 to a defined list of products and services, among them e-commerce, consumer banking services, e-books, passenger transport ticketing and electronic communications. Whether it reaches your site depends on what you sell, who you sell it to, how large your business is (service providers that are microenterprises are exempt) and how your member state wrote the Directive into national law.

EN 301 549 is the European standard that gives a presumption of conformity with the Act's web requirements. Its web clause (clause 9) is built on WCAG 2.1 Levels A and AA in version 3.2.1. The clause number is simple to derive: WCAG success criterion 1.4.3 sits in clause 9.1.4.3, and 2.4.7 in 9.2.4.7. The conformance table below carries that clause in each row.

Six criteria in the table are new in WCAG 2.2 and have no clause in version 3.2.1 of the standard: 2.4.11, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 3.2.6, 3.3.7 and 3.3.8. They are listed because WCAG 2.2 is the current guideline and newer revisions of the standard are expected to follow it; check which version your national rules name. In the other direction, 4.1.1 Parsing was retired in WCAG 2.2 but is still clause 9.4.1.1 of EN 301 549 v3.2.1, so duplicate ids are reported here against 4.1.1 as a best-practice note.

EN 301 549 also has requirements this report does not touch: generic ICT requirements, documents, software, support services and documentation. Meeting the web clause does not by itself satisfy the Act, which also has requirements for information about the service and for how you handle complaints.

Nothing in this report establishes compliance with the Act, with EN 301 549, or with any other law. Ask a qualified adviser what applies to you.

Prioritised fix list

Ranked by severity first, then by how many pages the problem reaches. Problems marked estimate or to verify come last because they need checking before you spend time on them.

Fix next

1. Target a.wordmark "All the Possibles" estimated at 19.5 px high, under 24 px with too little space around it

   Add padding or a minimum height and width so the target reaches 24 by 24 CSS pixels. Measure in a browser to confirm, because this is an estimate from the CSS.

   WCAG 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum). On 5 pages. Estimate.

2. Text colour #0a0a0a on #0068e9 measures 3.92 to 1; 4.5 to 1 is needed (rule button.kit-cta)

   Change one of the two colours until the pair reaches the ratio shown. Fix it in the stylesheet or design token that sets it so every page gets it.

   WCAG 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum). On 1 page.

Accessibility statement draft

Edit the text in the box, replace everything in brackets, then copy it to your site. The draft claims no conformance level; you choose the wording after your own testing. It is a starting point, not legal advice.

Copy statement text

Manual testing checklist

Tick boxes are for working through this on screen or on paper. They are not saved if you leave the page.

How this report was made

The crawler started at https://allthepossibles.com/, followed same-origin links and the sitemap, respected robots.txt, and chose up to 10 pages from different sections of the site. It read static HTML and the stylesheets each page links. It did not run script, render the page, log in or fill forms.

Checks run on each page: the page markup audit (text alternatives, names, labels, headings, landmarks, language, titles, zoom lock, autoplay), the CSS contrast pair check, the alt text quality check, the CSS target size estimate. The conformance table comes from the conformance report generator in the Designers tool set, which re-reads the same pages. The crawl found 15 pages in all; only the 10 listed were read.

If a page builds its content with script, the HTML may be nearly empty and the result for that page says little about what visitors see. Pages behind sign-in were not reached.