We sell disability compliance, so this page has to be true
EECly helps employers meet their obligations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. It would be difficult to take that seriously from a product that was not itself accessible. We target WCAG 2.2 Level AA, and below is what we have actually done, what we have measured, and what we have not done yet.
Last reviewed 2026-08-06
What we have done
- Every page declares its language, and content sits inside a labelled main landmark with a skip link as the first focusable element.
- Focus is always visible. We never remove focus outlines — a three-pixel Cobalt ring, offset so it is legible against every surface.
- All text meets the WCAG 2.2 AA contrast minimum of 4.5:1, including secondary text, which is where most sites fail.
- Data tables use real header cells, and the compliance calendar carries a caption describing what the table contains.
- Animation and smooth scrolling are switched off for anyone whose system asks for reduced motion.
- The site is server-rendered and works without JavaScript, so it does not depend on scripting to be readable.
- Status is never communicated by colour alone — colour always accompanies a text label.
Measured contrast
These are computed from the actual colour values the site ships, not estimated. WCAG 2.2 AA requires 4.5:1 for normal text and 3:1 for large text.
| Where | Colours | Ratio | AA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Body text | Control Slate on Warm Chalk | 5.44:1 | Passes |
| Body text on cards | Control Slate on Paper White | 5.98:1 | Passes |
| Headings | Ink Indigo on Warm Chalk | 14.34:1 | Passes |
| Links | Cobalt on Warm Chalk | 8.42:1 | Passes |
| Inverted sections | Warm Chalk on Ink Indigo | 14.34:1 | Passes |
| Attention notices | Ink Indigo on Amber tint | 14.09:1 | Passes |
| Protected-data panel | Ink Indigo on Protection Teal tint | 13.44:1 | Passes |
| Protected-data panel, secondary | Ink Indigo at 75% on Protection Teal tint | 6.45:1 | Passes |
| Protected-data panel, metadata | Ink Indigo at 70% on Protection Teal tint | 5.49:1 | Passes |
One deliberate constraint follows from this: our attention colour is only ever used behind dark text, and never as a button. White text on that amber would fail, so the design system forbids it rather than relying on anyone remembering.
What we have not done
Stating this plainly is the point. An accessibility claim is checkable in about ninety seconds, so overclaiming costs more than admitting a gap.
- We have not commissioned an independent accessibility audit. The assessment below is our own.
- We have not yet tested with screen readers across the full range of assistive technology and browser combinations.
- We have not published a VPAT. If your procurement process needs one, ask and we will tell you honestly where we are.
Found a barrier?
If any part of this site or the EECly product is difficult or impossible for you to use, tell us and we will fix it. Describe what you were trying to do and what got in the way — and if you use assistive technology, which one, because that helps us reproduce it.
Write to legal@annotatory.com . We treat accessibility reports as defects, not feedback.
The product, not just this site
The same standard applies to the EECly application itself — the employee app and the administrative console. If your procurement process includes an accessibility review, ask us for it during the demonstration rather than after signature, and we will walk it with you.