Accessibility Statement

Our commitment

Babbage, LLC is committed to making this client portal usable by everyone, including people who browse with screen readers, keyboard-only navigation, screen magnification, speech input, or other assistive technology.

We care about this for a specific reason beyond principle: this portal is where our clients read and sign binding agreements. A contract you cannot read is a contract you cannot meaningfully consent to. Accessibility here is part of the document being valid, not a finishing touch on it.

Conformance standard

We measure this portal against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 at conformance Level AA, published by the World Wide Web Consortium. WCAG 2.2 AA is the standard commonly referenced under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 508.

Current status

This portal is partially conformant with WCAG 2.2 Level AA. "Partially conformant" means most of the standard is met, but some content does not yet fully conform. The specific gaps we know about are listed in the next section. We are not claiming full conformance while those remain open.

What already works

The following have been checked and are in place across the portal:

• Every interactive element is reachable and operable by keyboard, and a visible focus ring — a 3px outline with a 3px offset — is drawn on any element that receives keyboard focus. The ring itself contrasts at better than 5.5:1 against every surface it appears on, in both light and dark themes.
• Body text, headings, and secondary text meet or exceed the 4.5:1 contrast minimum in both themes, most of it well above it.
• Buttons and other click targets are at least 44 by 44 pixels, comfortably above the 24-pixel minimum WCAG 2.2 introduced.
• Form fields are associated with real labels, related fields are grouped with fieldsets and legends, and status changes are announced to screen readers through live regions.
• All images carry alternative text.
• The page declares its language, and headings follow a logical order so screen-reader users can navigate by structure.
• Animation and transitions are reduced automatically for visitors whose system requests reduced motion.
• A light and dark theme are both provided, and the choice is remembered.
• Meaning is not conveyed by color alone — status is carried by text as well as color.

Known limitations

We would rather name these than let you discover them. As of the effective date above:

• Borders in the light theme are too faint. The outline on secondary buttons, input fields, and the theme toggle contrasts at roughly 1.4:1 against the page, below the 3:1 minimum for user-interface components (WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.4.11). The shape of these controls may be hard to make out for low-vision users in the light theme. The dark theme does not have this problem, so switching themes is a workable interim step.
• One accent color used for text falls slightly short. The purple used for completed step markers and the "signed" status badge contrasts at about 4.2:1 against the page and 3.9:1 inside the badge, under the 4.5:1 minimum for normal-size text (success criterion 1.4.3). The information it conveys is also given in words, so nothing is lost — but the text itself is harder to read than it should be. Light theme only.
• There is no skip-to-content link, so keyboard users must tab through the header navigation on every page before reaching the main content (success criterion 2.4.1). The header is short, but this is still a gap.
• The contract editor used by Babbage staff is a rich-text interface and has not been audited to the same depth as the client-facing pages. It is not part of the signing flow our clients use.

How we assessed this

The findings above come from a review of the portal's own stylesheet and components: contrast ratios were computed directly from the color values in the code rather than estimated by eye, and keyboard operability, labelling, alternative text, heading structure, and motion preferences were checked against the source. This is a self-assessment. It has not been evaluated by an independent third party, and an automated scanner alone would not have caught all of it. We expect that testing with real assistive technology and with disabled users will surface issues this review did not.

Compatibility

The portal is built to work with current versions of Chrome, Edge, Firefox, and Safari, on desktop and mobile, used together with the screen readers and assistive technology those platforms provide. It requires JavaScript for parts of the signing flow. Older browsers may work but are not tested.

If something is in your way

If any part of this portal is difficult or impossible for you to use — especially if it is blocking you from reading or signing a document — email [email protected] and tell us what happened. Describing the page, what you were trying to do, and the browser or assistive technology you were using helps us reproduce it, but send what you have; a sentence is enough to start.

We aim to respond within five business days. If an accessibility barrier is preventing you from completing a signature, tell us — at [email protected], or at [email protected] if it is easier — and we will provide the document and a means of signing it in an accessible alternative format at no cost to you, rather than making you wait on a fix.

Ongoing work

We treat the limitations above as defects, not as permanent characteristics of the portal. This statement is reviewed when the portal changes materially, and the list is updated as items are resolved. We will not upgrade the conformance claim on this page until the list is genuinely clear.