Accessibility
ForgeOS should be operable by everyone who owns software.
This page says what is tested, what is known to be true, and what has not been checked. An accessibility statement that lists only successes is not useful to the person who needs it.
The standard
WCAG 2.2 AA is the target.
Not a claim of full conformance. Below is what is actually verified on every change, and what is not.
Checked automatically, on every change
What is tested.
| Check | What it asserts |
|---|---|
| Skip link | The first Tab on every page reaches a visible skip link, and it moves focus into the main region. |
| Landmarks and headings | Every page has a labelled main region, and every region labelled by an id has that id. |
| Labels | Every form control has a label bound to it. No page repeats an id. |
| Focus visibility | A visible focus indicator is defined and not removed anywhere. |
| Reflow | No page scrolls horizontally at 390px. Wide tables and code scroll inside their own container. |
| Target size | Standalone controls are at least 44px. Links inside a sentence are exempt, as WCAG 2.5.8 allows. |
| Reduced motion | Animation is disabled under prefers-reduced-motion. |
| Forced colours | Borders and state indicators survive a forced-colours mode rather than disappearing. |
| Every page has a print layout that drops navigation and keeps content. | |
| Live regions | State changes — a decision arriving, a message recorded — are announced, and a background refresh never talks over them. |
Parity
A phone is not a reduced client.
The same six destinations exist at every width — the navigation becomes a bottom bar rather than losing entries. The complete owner journey is driven on a 390px viewport in the test suite: create a goal, discuss it, read its history, receive a decision and answer it.
No action in ForgeOS is desktop-only. If you find one, it is a defect — tell us and it will be treated as one.
Not verified
What has not been checked.
These are the honest gaps. They are listed because their absence from a statement is what misleads.
No screen reader testing with users
Semantics are asserted programmatically. Nobody has yet run the product with a screen reader and reported back, and automated checks cannot substitute for that.
No independent audit
No third party has assessed conformance. Everything on this page is our own testing.
No formal conformance claim
We do not publish a VPAT or an accessibility conformance report, because producing one honestly requires the audit above.
Cognitive and plain-language review
The product deliberately avoids internal jargon, but that has not been tested with people who would benefit most from it.
Something here blocked you?
An accessibility barrier is a defect, not a feature request. Tell us what you were trying to do and what stopped you, and we will fix it.