A review site that helps people choose furniture that fits their body should also work for the bodies and technologies that visit it. This statement sets out our accessibility commitment, the standards we aim to meet, and the honest limits of what we have achieved so far.
ChairGrade is committed to making its content and functionality accessible to as many people as possible, including readers who use screen readers, keyboard navigation, magnification, speech recognition, or other assistive technology. Accessibility is not a one-time task, and this statement is written to be accurate rather than flattering: it describes where we are, not just where we would like to be.
The standard we target
We aim to conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 at Level AA, the internationally recognised standard developed by the W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative. WCAG 2.2 organises accessibility into four principles — content should be perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust — and Level AA is the level most commonly required by law and adopted as good practice. Targeting a defined standard matters because it turns accessibility from a vague aspiration into something testable.
WCAG is also the basis of many national and regional requirements, which is why we adopt it as our reference regardless of where a reader is. It underpins the European Accessibility Act and the harmonised standard EN 301 549, is referenced by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the United States, the Rehabilitation Act Section 508 for federal technology, Canada's AODA in Ontario, and Australia's Disability Discrimination Act. By working to WCAG 2.2 AA, we aim to satisfy the substance of those frameworks for every reader rather than only the ones we are technically obliged to serve.
What we do to meet the standard
Meeting WCAG is a matter of concrete decisions rather than good intentions. The measures we have designed into ChairGrade include the following.
- Semantic structure. Pages use meaningful HTML — real headings in a logical order, landmarks, lists, tables, and buttons — so that assistive technology can understand and navigate the content rather than guess at it.
- Keyboard operability. Every interactive element can be reached and used with a keyboard alone, without requiring a mouse, and focus is visible so that a keyboard user can always tell where they are.
- Colour and contrast. Text is designed to meet or exceed the contrast ratios WCAG requires at Level AA, and colour is never the only means of conveying information — status is also shown by text, icon, or label.
- Text alternatives. Images that carry meaning have descriptive alternative text, and purely decorative elements are marked so assistive technology can ignore them. Charts and comparisons are accompanied by accessible text equivalents or tables.
- Resizable, reflowing text. Content remains readable when text is enlarged and reflows without requiring horizontal scrolling at standard zoom levels, so that magnification users are not forced to pan constantly.
- Reduced motion. Animated elements respect a visitor's preference for reduced motion, so that people sensitive to movement can browse without it.
- Form accessibility. Forms such as our contact form have properly associated labels, clear instructions, and error messages that identify the problem in text rather than by colour alone.
- Consistent navigation. Navigation and page structure are consistent across the site, so that a user can learn the layout once and rely on it everywhere.
- Plain language. We write to be understood, which serves everyone, and particularly people using screen readers who cannot skim visually.
Measures beyond the website
Accessibility is not only about the code. We aim to present information so that it works in alternative formats too. Our measured data is published in real tables rather than only in images, so it can be read and navigated by assistive technology. Our written reviews avoid relying on visual context that a non-sighted reader would miss, describing chairs in words as well as showing them. Where we publish a comparison, it is available as text with proper table headers, not as a picture of a table. Where we use video or audio in future content, we will provide captions and, where needed, transcripts. These choices recognise that a reader who cannot see the page still needs the substance of what we publish, not a degraded version of it.
How we assess accessibility
We evaluate accessibility in three complementary ways. First, automated checks catch a range of structural and contrast issues mechanically. Second, manual testing — including keyboard-only navigation and screen-reader review — catches the problems automation misses, because usability with assistive technology is not fully machine-testable. Third, we consider the experience of real users, and we rely heavily on the most valuable input of all: readers who tell us when something does not work. Accessibility testing is cyclical, not a single gate, and we revisit it as the site changes.
What the four WCAG principles mean here
WCAG is built on four principles, and it is worth translating each into what it means for a reader of ChairGrade.
Perceivable
Information must be present in a form a reader can perceive, whether through sight, sound, or touch. In practice this means text alternatives for images, sufficient contrast, content that does not rely on colour alone, and a layout that still works when enlarged or read aloud. A comparison that only makes sense as a coloured chart fails this principle; the same comparison presented as a labelled table satisfies it.
Operable
A reader must be able to use the interface. Everything must work by keyboard, not only by mouse or touch; focus must be visible and in a logical order; there must be no time limits that trap a user; and motion must be controllable for people who find it distracting or physically problematic. Operability is often where sites fail silently, because a mouse user never notices that a menu cannot be reached by keyboard.
Understandable
Content and behaviour must be understandable. Text should be readable and in plain language; the site should behave predictably; forms should have clear labels and errors that explain what went wrong in words. Understandability is where plain writing and accessibility overlap — simple language serves everyone, and it is essential for people who rely on assistive technology to parse content aurally.
Robust
Content must work reliably with a wide range of current and future technologies, including assistive technology. Robustness comes largely from standards-compliant, semantic code: when a page uses real headings, real lists, and real buttons, software can interpret it correctly. When it uses visual tricks, that meaning is often lost. Robust markup is the foundation that lets everything above remain true even as browsers and assistive tools change.
Accessibility features you can use today
Several accessibility features are built into ChairGrade right now, and knowing about them may help you browse more comfortably. Keyboard users can navigate the entire site without a mouse, moving through links and controls with the Tab key and activating them with Enter or Space, with a clear focus outline showing the current position. Readers who prefer reduced motion will find that animations respond to their operating-system setting and are minimised accordingly. Text can be enlarged through browser zoom without breaking the layout or forcing sideways scrolling. The measured specifications we publish are real text in accessible tables, so they can be read by screen readers and copied like any other text. And every meaningful image has alternative text that conveys its content.
If a feature you rely on is missing, that is exactly the kind of gap we want reported. Accessibility features that no one can find are only half-built, so we would also welcome feedback on whether these are discoverable and easy to use.
Our commitment over time
Accessibility on a website is never finished, because content changes, components are replaced, and the standard itself is updated. Our commitment is to keep working toward WCAG 2.2 AA as the site evolves, to review new pages and features against it as we build them rather than after the fact, and to treat accessibility reports from readers with the same seriousness as a reported factual error. Where we fall short, we would rather fix it and say so than quietly leave a barrier in place, and this statement is the record we keep.
Known limitations
We would rather name our limitations than imply we have none. The honest position is that we aim for WCAG 2.2 AA conformance and work to maintain it, but we cannot yet claim formal, audited certification, and some content may fall short in ways we have not found. Areas we watch most closely include third-party components we do not fully control — such as advertising or embedded services — which may introduce their own accessibility gaps; older articles published before our current standards, which we are progressively reviewing and updating; and complex data visualisations, where a text equivalent is provided but the visual experience cannot be perfectly replicated. Where we know of a specific gap, we either fix it, provide an accessible alternative, or describe the limitation here.
How we test with assistive technology
Automated tools are useful but limited: they can confirm that an image has alternative text, but not that the text is meaningful, and they cannot tell whether a flow makes sense to a keyboard user. So our testing pairs automated checks with human review. We navigate the site using only a keyboard to confirm that every menu, form, and control is reachable and usable, and that focus follows a logical order. We test with screen readers on desktop and mobile to check that content is announced sensibly and that headings, tables, and forms are interpreted correctly. We zoom to the levels magnification users depend on and check that reading remains comfortable. And we review colour contrast deliberately rather than relying on taste, since a design that looks elegant can still fail a reader with low vision. Where these methods disagree — a page that passes automation but feels wrong to navigate — we trust the human experience, because accessibility standards exist to serve people, not checklists.
Compatibility
ChairGrade is designed to work with current versions of the major browsers — Chrome, Safari, Firefox, and Edge — across desktop and mobile, and to be compatible with common assistive technologies including screen readers, screen magnifiers, and speech-recognition software. As with any website, using an up-to-date browser and assistive technology gives the best experience, because both continue to improve in how they support the standard. If a combination you use does not work, we would like to know, so that we can investigate it rather than assume it is beyond our reach.
If you encounter a barrier
If any part of ChairGrade is difficult or impossible for you to use, please tell us through the contact page. When you report an issue, it helps if you describe the page, the problem, the assistive technology and browser you were using, and what you were trying to do — but you do not need to diagnose the technical cause; that is our job. We treat accessibility reports as a priority, will acknowledge them, and will tell you what we have done or plan to do. Where a barrier blocks your access to a specific piece of content, we will, where feasible, provide the information in an accessible alternative format on request.
Accessibility is part of the same accountability that runs through everything we publish at ChairGrade: we state our standard, we do the work to meet it, we name the limits, and we invite you to hold us to it. This statement is reviewed as the site evolves, and it will change as our practice does. If it ever claims more than we have achieved, the report we would most welcome is the one that tells us so.
For convenience, the substance of this statement is aligned with recognised accessibility frameworks, so a reader or an assessor can compare it against the standard they use: WCAG 2.2 Level AA as our target, EN 301 549 as the harmonised European reference, and the disability-access principles behind the ADA, Section 508, and the AODA. Where those frameworks differ, we aim to meet the most demanding of them, because a site that is accessible in the strictest sense is accessible everywhere.