A statement worth reading names the things that are still broken.
Most accessibility statements are a paragraph claiming conformance and an email address. This one lists what we tested, what passed, and what we know is not right yet.
Last reviewed 30 July 2026.
WCAG 2.1 Level AA, heading toward 2.2.
We build to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, version 2.1, Level AA. That is the benchmark United States courts and the Department of Justice have used for private businesses under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which has no regulation of its own for commercial websites. Version 2.2 is the current release and adds criteria 2.1 does not have; conforming to 2.2 would satisfy 2.1 as well, and moving to it is on the list rather than done.
We do not claim full conformance. A conformance claim means every page meets every applicable criterion, verified, with nothing outstanding — and the section below names things that are outstanding. Partial and honest beats complete and untrue, particularly on a site whose entire argument is that we tell you the uncomfortable part.
Tested, on this site.
- Keyboard. Every link, button and form field is reachable and operable with a keyboard alone, in an order that matches the visual one. A skip link jumps past the navigation to the content, and it is the first thing focus lands on.
- Structure. One
h1per page, headings in order, real landmarks, and lists marked up as lists — so a screen reader can navigate by heading rather than reading from the top. - Forms. Every field on the join form has a real label attached to it, not a placeholder standing in for one. Required fields are marked in text as well as by colour.
- Colour contrast. All body and caption text meets the 4.5:1 minimum against the surface it sits on, and large text meets 3:1. Our muted grey used to fail this at 4.03:1; it was darkened rather than defended.
- Colour is never the only signal. Nothing on the site is distinguished by colour alone. The gold accent is decorative and never carries meaning by itself.
- Motion. Nothing autoplays, nothing moves without being asked to, and the site honours the operating system’s “reduce motion” setting.
- Zoom and reflow. The site works to 200% zoom and down to a 375px screen without horizontal scrolling or lost content, because it is laid out in relative units rather than fixed ones.
- Images. The diagrams are inline SVG with text alternatives where they carry meaning, and hidden from assistive technology where they are decorative.
Five things we know about and have not fixed.
Generated documents are not accessible
The PDFs the app produces — agreements, lien waivers, closeout packages — are written by our own code and carry no structure tags, so a screen reader gets a stream of text without headings, tables or reading order. This is the most serious item on the page, because those documents are the ones that matter years later. The mitigation today is that the same content is rendered as ordinary web content in the app, which is accessible; the file you download is not. Tagged output is a real piece of work and it is not scheduled yet.
The app has not been audited to this standard
This statement covers this website. The application is a demonstration built to the same conventions — semantic markup, keyboard operability, labelled controls — but it has not been tested criterion by criterion the way these pages have. It will be before anyone moves real money through it.
No independent audit
Everything here is our own testing. We have not commissioned an external accessibility audit or usability testing with people who use assistive technology, and our own testing is the weakest kind of evidence there is. An external review is on the pre-launch list.
Footer heading levels skip
The site footer uses fourth-level headings directly under second-level page headings, so a screen reader user navigating by heading meets a gap. Cosmetic in effect, real in principle, and fixed in the next pass over the shared chrome.
No accessible alternative to the flow diagram’s layout
The money-flow graphic on the home page has a text alternative describing what it shows, but the spatial relationship it draws — three sources, one gate, three destinations — is carried better by the picture than by the sentence. The surrounding copy says the same thing in prose, which is the current answer rather than an ideal one.
So you can judge how much the claims above are worth.
- Keyboard-only navigation of every page, checking focus order and that focus is always visible.
- Contrast ratios calculated from the stylesheet for every text and surface colour pair in the palette, rather than spot-checked by eye.
- Markup checked for heading order, landmark structure, form label association, and text alternatives on every image and SVG.
- Layout checked at 375px, at desktop width, and at 200% zoom.
- Not done: testing with actual screen readers by people who use them daily, and testing with voice control, switch access or magnification software. We know the difference between markup that should work and a product someone can actually use, and we have only evidence of the first.
Tell us and we will answer.
Write to accessibility@projectcomplete.app. Tell us the page, what you were trying to do, and what got in the way — and what you are using, if you are willing to say, because it usually shortens the diagnosis.
We will acknowledge within two business days and tell you either when it will be fixed or why it will not be. If something here is blocking you from a project that is already running, say so and it goes to the front — and in the meantime we will do the thing you were trying to do, with you, by phone or email. Nobody should lose a milestone approval to a markup problem that is ours.