Accessibility
We build this site to be usable with a keyboard, a screen reader, magnification, or none of those. Here is specifically what that means, including what we know isn’t perfect yet.
Last updated 1 September 2026
The standard we aim at
WCAG 2.2 Level AA. That is the level referenced by most accessibility legislation and it’s a real bar rather than an aspiration: it covers contrast, keyboard operation, focus visibility, text alternatives, and behavior under magnification.
We test against it as we build instead of auditing at the end, because retrofitting accessibility is how it ends up half done.
What’s built in
Everything works with a keyboard
Every link, button, form field, menu, and expandable section can be reached and operated by keyboard alone. The focus indicator is always visible and never removed. A design that hides focus is unusable without a mouse.
Contrast is measured, not eyeballed
The color system was built by calculating contrast ratios first and choosing colors second. Body text meets or exceeds the 4.5:1 requirement on every background used on the site, and large text meets 3:1. Our brand blue is too light to carry body text on white, so it isn’t used for that, which is a large part of why the site alternates dark and light sections.
Motion can be switched off
Every animation on the site respects the reduced-motion setting in your operating system. Turn it on and the animations stop rather than merely slowing down. Nothing on the site auto-plays, flashes, or moves without you asking it to.
Structure is real, not visual
Headings are in order and describe the content rather than being chosen for their size. Landmarks, lists, and form labels are real HTML, so a screen reader can navigate by them. Every form field has a label that’s properly associated with it, not placeholder text pretending to be one.
Form errors are announced
When a form is submitted with a problem, the error is announced to assistive technology, focus moves to it, and each field points at its own message. A red border alone tells a screen-reader user nothing.
Expandable content is in the page
FAQ answers and menu sections use native HTML disclosure elements, so their content exists in the page whether or not it’s visible. Accordions that build themselves in JavaScript are invisible to some assistive technology and to most automated readers.
It works at 200% zoom and on a phone
Text can be enlarged to 200% without content being lost or requiring horizontal scrolling, and the layout reflows instead of shrinking.
Images have real alternatives
Meaningful images carry descriptions; decorative ones are hidden from assistive technology instead of being announced as noise.
What we know isn’t perfect
Being specific here’s more useful than claiming full conformance, and more honest.
Third-party embeds
Our speed-test page embeds a tool run by Ookla. We control whether it loads, nothing loads until you click, but not its accessibility. If you can’t use it, call us and we will run the test with you and interpret the result.
The support portal is not ours
Our client support portal is operated by NinjaOne on a different site, and its accessibility is theirs. If it’s a barrier for you, email or call us instead, every route into support reaches the same place.
Formal audit outstanding
This statement is based on our own testing during the build (keyboard traversal, screen-reader checks, automated tooling, and contrast calculation) rather than on an independent third-party audit. We would rather say that plainly than imply a certification we don’t have.
If something does not work for you
Tell us and we’ll fix it. Email info@kittsit.com or call (843) 312-9493. Describe what you were trying to do, what happened, and what you were using, a screen reader, a keyboard, magnification, and we’ll get back to you.
If a barrier on this website is stopping you contacting us, that’s our failure, not yours. The phone number above always works, and we’re happy to take any enquiry, request, or invoice question by voice.
We would rather hear about a problem than not. Reports from people actually using assistive technology are worth more than any automated tool, and there’s no such thing as a report too small to be worth sending.