This site is built to be usable by as many people as possible, including anyone using a keyboard, a screen reader, magnification, or a browser set to larger text. This page says what has been done, what is known to fall short, and how to tell me when something does not work.
I write these guides so people can use them to actually go somewhere. That falls apart if the guide itself is the obstacle. So this is not a compliance exercise for me — I want the writing, the photographs and the practical detail to be available to everyone who wants them, and I would rather know when they are not.
What I am aiming for
The target is WCAG 2.1 Level AA. That is the standard most accessibility law refers to, and it is a reasonable bar for a site that is mostly words and photographs.
I am not claiming the site meets it perfectly. Automated testing catches perhaps a third of the things that standard covers, and the rest needs a person. What follows is honest about which is which.
What has been checked
- Colour contrast. All text on the site meets or exceeds the 4.5:1 ratio AA asks for, including the smaller grey text on dates, captions and the footer.
- Images. Every image carries alternative text, and images that are purely decorative are marked as such so screen readers skip them.
- Headings. One main heading per page, in order, with no levels skipped, so the structure works for anyone navigating by headings.
- Keyboard. Everything you can click, you can reach with the Tab key, and whatever has focus is outlined clearly. There is a “Skip to content” link as the first thing on every page.
- Forms. Every field has a visible label attached to it, not just placeholder text.
- Small screens and zoom. Pages reflow to a 320px window without sideways scrolling, and nothing is lost if you increase text spacing in your browser.
- Links. Every link has text that says where it goes.
Where it falls short
The cookie banner. It comes from a third party and several of its buttons and links do not meet the contrast standard. I cannot restyle it freely, so the choice is to live with it or find a different tool. I am looking at the second.
Some alternative text is machine-written. Where I have not written a description myself, one has been generated. It is usually accurate and occasionally bland. If you hit one that is wrong or useless, tell me and I will rewrite it.
Older posts. The writing here goes back further than the current design. Posts published before the site was rebuilt may have inconsistent heading structure or thinner image descriptions.
Nobody has tested this with a screen reader in anger. The checks above are mine, and I am not a daily screen reader user. Automated tests and my own keyboard testing are not the same thing as real use.
Please tell me if something does not work
This is a genuine invitation, not a formality. I cannot fix what I do not know about, and one person telling me “this page is unusable with my screen reader” is worth more than any audit tool I can run.
Get in touch through the contact form if a guide is hard to read, if the text will not resize the way you need it to, if a colour combination defeats you, if something cannot be reached with a keyboard, or if anything simply does not behave the way you expect. You do not need to know the technical name for it, and you do not need to be sure it is my fault. Describe what happened and which page you were on, and that is plenty.
I will reply. If it is something I can fix, I will fix it rather than explain why it is difficult. If it is something I cannot fix on my own — a third-party tool, say — I will tell you that honestly and tell you what I am doing about it instead.
Last reviewed: 20 August 2026.