Legal
Accessibility, with the findings attached.
A statement is worth something only if it names what is still wrong. This one lists the standard, the scripts that test against it, and the four things we have not proven.
Last audited 18 August 2026 · WCAG 2.2 Level AA
01 · The standard
WCAG 2.2What this site is held to
WCAG 2.2 Level AA. That is the level EN 301 549 points at, the harmonised European standard the European Accessibility Act is measured against, and it is the target we build to on this site and on the sites we build for other people. The same work covers WCAG 2.1 Level AA, which is the benchmark United States courts and settlements apply under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, because no technical standard has been written into that law. One standard, two jurisdictions, no separate effort.
02 · Status
Partially conformant, self-assessed
Every page of this site passes the automated WCAG 2.2 A and AA rules we can run, at a 320-pixel viewport and at a desktop one, including the 404. Keyboard routes, reduced motion, reflow, and focus visibility were checked by hand. Nobody outside fyzno has audited it, and it has not been tested by a person who uses a screen reader daily. Section 04 lists what that leaves open. We say partially conformant because that is what a self-assessment can honestly claim.
03 · Method
How it was checked, and with what
Two scripts in this repository, run against a live build. The first drives axe-core over every route at 390 and 1440 pixels wide with every WCAG 2.2 A and AA rule enabled, including the 2.5.8 target-size rule that axe leaves off by default. The second checks the things this codebase can break invisibly: content stranded behind an animation under prefers-reduced-motion, the keyboard route through the brief, one h1 per page, and the skip link as the first tab stop. By hand on top of that: tab order against the fixed header, reflow at 320 pixels, text at 200 per cent, and the accessibility tree read back on each page. Automated rules cover about a third of the success criteria. The rest is judgement, and judgement is fallible.
04 · Known limits
What we have not proven
No third-party audit and no VPAT. No test session with someone who uses assistive technology as their daily means of access; we read the accessibility tree, which is not the same thing. The lattice diagram on the index page is decorative and hidden from assistive technology; the plate around it says in text what it shows, but the diagram itself has no long description. The site publishes no video, audio, or PDF, so captions, transcripts, and tagged documents are untested ground here rather than solved problems. If you hit something this page does not mention, section 06 is the point of it.
05 · Motion
Movement is information, not decoration
Every entrance animation has a prefers-reduced-motion path that reveals the content outright, and a script asserts on each route that nothing stays hidden when that preference is set. There is no preloader, no autoplaying video, and nothing that flashes. The line that runs through the site is still while every service is operational. It moves only when something is wrong, so a reader is never asked to ignore movement that means nothing. On a narrow screen or a coarse pointer the index-page diagram renders as a static image and the WebGL code is never fetched.
06 · Report a barrier
Tell us and we will tell you when
Write to info@fyzno.com with the word Accessibility in the subject line, or use the phone number or WhatsApp thread in the footer if mail is the barrier. A signed reply comes back within 48 hours: what we found, whether we can fix it, and by when. If the fix will take longer than that, we send you the content another way in the meantime. That is the part of this that actually matters. Tell us what you were trying to do, on which page, and with what browser and assistive technology if you know it.
07 · Legal position
Directive (EU) 2019/882Which law applies, and why we published anyway
The European Accessibility Act has applied since 28 June 2025, carried into Dutch law by the Implementatiewet toegankelijkheidsvoorschriften producten en diensten. Enforcement is split by sector; for websites and electronic communications the supervisory authority in the Netherlands is the ACM. Whether this particular site falls inside the Act is arguable, because it sells nothing to consumers and fyzno is small enough for the microenterprise exemption to be in play. We would rather not have that argument. We build sites for organisations that are squarely in scope, so publishing a statement with real findings in it is the only version of this that is worth anything.
08 · No overlay
There is no accessibility widget on this site
Deliberately. Overlay products that promise conformance from one script tag are widely reported to break the assistive technology they claim to help, and they are the subject of a large share of the accessibility litigation filed each year. They also cannot be installed here without a third-party script, which our Content-Security-Policy blocks and our privacy page says we do not run. The accessible version of this site is this site.
09 · When this changes
Reviewed with the code, not annually
The audit runs in the same pass as any change that touches layout, motion, or a form, and this page is rewritten when a finding changes. The date at the top of the page is the date of the last audit, not the date of the last edit to the wording. If a claim here is no longer true, that is a defect and we would like to hear about it on the address in section 06.
Something on this site blocked you? Write to info@fyzno.com, or call +31 9700 859 9562. A signed reply comes back within 48 hours, and the content reaches you another way while the fix is being made.
What the site stores about you is in privacy. What we owe you under an engagement is in the terms.