Hansen Belyea Accessibility Conformance Report
WCAG Edition
(Based on VPAT® Version 2.5Rev)
Name of Product/Version: Hansen Belyea
Report Date: August 26, 2026
Product Description: The public Hansen Belyea marketing website, including informational pages, portfolio and article content, events, newsletter forms, and site-search results within the declared sample.
Contact Information: Hansen Belyea use the Contact link on the website.
Evaluation Methods Used: Evaluation performed August 26, 2026 against the live production deployment using Google Chrome 151.0.7922.174 on macOS 26.5.2 (Apple silicon), desktop 1440 by 900 CSS pixels and narrow 320 by 900 CSS pixels. Methods included Lighthouse 12.8.2 accessibility audits on each available authorized page and representative search results; manual confirmation of reported elements; keyboard-only tab and focus review; accessibility-tree and DOM semantics inspection; visual review of desktop and narrow-screen rendering; 320 CSS-pixel reflow checks; WCAG text-spacing overrides; pointer-target measurements; headings, landmarks, images, tables, links, forms, error-state, language, motion, and embedded-media review. No independent screen-reader session, mobile assistive-technology session, caption-quality review, audio-description review, flashing-threshold instrument, or production WordPress-rendering review of this report was completed.
Applicable Standards and Guidelines
This report covers the degree of conformance for the following accessibility standard/guidelines:
| Standard/Guideline | Included In Report |
|---|---|
| Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 | Level A (Yes)
Level AA (Yes) Level AAA (No) |
| Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 | Level A (Yes)
Level AA (Yes) Level AAA (No) |
| Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2 | Level A (Yes)
Level AA (Yes) Level AAA (No) |
Conformance Level Terms
The terms used in the Conformance Level information are defined as follows:
- Supports: The functionality of the product has at least one method that meets the criterion without known defects or meets with equivalent facilitation.
- Partially Supports: Some functionality of the product does not meet the criterion.
- Does Not Support: The majority of product functionality does not meet the criterion.
- Not Applicable: The criterion is not relevant to the product.
- Not Evaluated: The product has not been evaluated against the criterion. This can only be used in WCAG Level AAA criteria.
WCAG 2.x Report
Note: When reporting on conformance with the WCAG 2.x Success Criteria, they are scoped for full pages, complete processes, and accessibility-supported ways of using technology as documented in the WCAG 2.0 Conformance Requirements.
WCAG Level A Success Criteria
Notes: Results describe the limited public-page sample identified in the report notes. Third-party embedded interfaces and the out-of-scope live contact page require separate review.
| Criteria | Conformance Level | Remarks and Explanations |
|---|---|---|
| 1.1.1 Non-text Content (Level A) | Supports | Manual review of rendered pages and image markup found informative images named and decorative images given empty alternatives in the evaluated sample. No known non-text-content defect was confirmed in the first-party sample. |
| 1.2.1 Audio-only and Video-only (Prerecorded) (Level A) | Not Applicable | The evaluated first-party pages did not provide prerecorded audio-only or video-only content. |
| 1.2.2 Captions (Prerecorded) (Level A) | Partially Supports | The evaluated pages embed prerecorded Vimeo videos, but no first-party caption mechanism or transcript was exposed on the host pages. Caption tracks and caption quality inside the excluded external Vimeo service were not verified. |
| 1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded) (Level A) | Partially Supports | The evaluated pages embed prerecorded video, but no first-party audio-description track or equivalent media alternative was identified on the host pages. The external Vimeo player was outside the separate-product evaluation scope. |
| 1.3.1 Info and Relationships (Level A) | Partially Supports | Most pages expose main, navigation, header, footer, list, form, and heading semantics. Exceptions include skipped or duplicate heading levels, empty headings in the article template, and an events data table with data cells but no header cells or caption. |
| 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence (Level A) | Supports | Manual comparison of rendered content with DOM and accessibility-tree order found a meaningful reading sequence in the evaluated page templates, with no known sequence-dependent loss of meaning. |
| 1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics (Level A) | Supports | Manual content review found no first-party instructions that relied only on shape, color, visual location, orientation, or sound in the evaluated sample. |
| 1.4.1 Use of Color (Level A) | Supports | Manual visual and state review found that first-party links, controls, and content in the evaluated sample did not use color as the only means of conveying information. |
| 1.4.2 Audio Control (Level A) | Supports | The automatically playing first-party background presentation was muted, and no first-party audio that played automatically for more than three seconds was observed. |
| 2.1.1 Keyboard (Level A) | Partially Supports | Desktop navigation, links, and forms were reachable by keyboard. At the narrow viewport, the menu trigger is a non-focusable div and the hidden mobile navigation cannot be opened with a keyboard. |
| 2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap (Level A) | Supports | Manual keyboard traversal of representative desktop content and embedded-frame transitions found no keyboard trap; focus could be advanced away from each tested item. |
| 2.1.4 Character Key Shortcuts (Level A 2.1 and 2.2) | Not Applicable | No first-party single-character keyboard shortcuts were present in the evaluated sample. |
| 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable (Level A) | Not Applicable | No first-party time limit was present in the evaluated pages or tested newsletter validation process. The external reCAPTCHA challenge was excluded as a separate third-party product. |
| 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide (Level A) | Partially Supports | Most first-party content is static. The homepage includes automatically playing Vimeo background motion lasting more than five seconds without a first-party pause, stop, or hide control. |
| 2.3.1 Three Flashes or Below Threshold(Level A) | Supports | Manual visual observation of the evaluated first-party pages and their available motion states found no content that flashed three times in one second. Instrumented flash-threshold analysis remains a human-review limitation. |
| 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks (Level A) | Supports | Each evaluated page provided a keyboard-visible Skip to main content link targeting the main content region, together with consistent page landmarks. |
| 2.4.2 Page Titled (Level A) | Supports | Manual review confirmed descriptive document titles for each evaluated page, both Page Not Found responses, and the representative search-results page. |
| 2.4.3 Focus Order (Level A) | Partially Supports | First-party desktop links and form controls followed the visual sequence. Focus also enters multiple untitled Vimeo frames with no visible context, and the narrow-screen menu is omitted from keyboard focus because its trigger is not operable. |
| 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context) (Level A) | Supports | Manual review found that links had descriptive text, title text, image context, or adjacent heading context sufficient to determine purpose in the evaluated pages. Repeated Learn more links were associated with distinct service headings. |
| 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures (Level A 2.1 and 2.2) | Not Applicable | The evaluated first-party pages did not require multipoint or path-based pointer gestures. |
| 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation (Level A 2.1 and 2.2) | Supports | Manual pointer review found standard link and button activation on click or release; no first-party down-event activation or irreversible pointer action was identified. |
| 2.5.3 Label in Name (Level A 2.1 and 2.2) | Supports | For tested first-party controls with visible text, the exposed accessible names contained the visible labels. The unlabeled mobile menu trigger is reported separately under Name, Role, Value. |
| 2.5.4 Motion Actuation (Level A 2.1 and 2.2) | Not Applicable | The evaluated first-party pages did not use device motion or user motion as an input mechanism. |
| 3.1.1 Language of Page (Level A) | Supports | Every evaluated document declared English (United States) with the html lang attribute. |
| 3.2.1 On Focus (Level A) | Supports | Manual keyboard focus testing found no first-party control that changed context merely upon receiving focus. |
| 3.2.2 On Input (Level A) | Supports | Manual form and navigation review found that changing a first-party input did not automatically change context; newsletter validation occurred only after explicit submission. |
| 3.2.6 Consistent Help (Level A 2.2 only) | Supports | The Contact help link appeared in a consistent global navigation and footer position on the evaluated pages. The linked /get-touch/ destination was outside the authorized URL list and was not evaluated. |
| 3.3.1 Error Identification (Level A) | Supports | Submitting the newsletter form without an email produced a submission summary and Email cannot be blank message, both exposed with alert roles; the email field was marked aria-invalid and associated with the field error. |
| 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions (Level A) | Partially Supports | The newsletter and search controls provide placeholder or error text, but the visible email and search inputs do not have persistent label elements or explicit accessible-label attributes. |
| 3.3.7 Redundant Entry (Level A 2.2 only) | Not Applicable | No multi-step first-party process requiring repeated entry of the same information was available in the evaluated scope. |
| 4.1.1 Parsing (Level A) | Supports | For WCAG 2.0 and 2.1, the September 2023 errata update indicates this criterion is always supported. See the WCAG 2.0 Editorial Errata and the WCAG 2.1 Editorial Errata. |
| 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value (Level A) | Partially Supports | Most tested links, form controls, and landmarks expose usable names, roles, and states. The narrow-screen menu trigger has no programmatic role, name, keyboard focus, or expanded state, and multiple embedded Vimeo iframes have no title or accessible name. |
WCAG Level AA Success Criteria
Notes: Results describe the limited public-page sample identified in the report notes. Responsive, contrast, text-spacing, focus, and structural findings are included; unresolved assistive-technology and media checks remain subject to qualified human review.
| Criteria | Conformance Level | Remarks and Explanations |
|---|---|---|
| 1.2.4 Captions (Live) (Level AA) | Not Applicable | The evaluated first-party pages did not provide live synchronized media. |
| 1.2.5 Audio Description (Prerecorded)(Level AA) | Partially Supports | No first-party audio-description mechanism was identified for embedded prerecorded Vimeo videos. Audio-description availability within the excluded external Vimeo service was not verified. |
| 1.3.4 Orientation (Level AA 2.1 and 2.2) | Supports | Manual narrow and wide viewport checks found no first-party content or functionality restricted to a single display orientation. |
| 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose (Level AA 2.1 and 2.2) | Partially Supports | Newsletter email fields use the email input type, but do not provide an autocomplete token identifying the expected personal-data purpose. |
| 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) (Level AA) | Partially Supports | Confirmed text-contrast failures occur on the homepage, portfolio page, Lochner portfolio detail, and search-results page, with measured ratios ranging from 2.64:1 to 4.48:1 where 4.5:1 is required. |
| 1.4.4 Resize text (Level AA) | Supports | Manual viewport and browser-resizing review found that text could be enlarged through the equivalent of 200 percent without loss of first-party text content or form function in the evaluated sample. |
| 1.4.5 Images of Text (Level AA) | Supports | Manual content review found first-party text presented as HTML rather than images of text, except for logos and imagery where the visual presentation is essential or supplemental. |
| 1.4.10 Reflow (Level AA 2.1 and 2.2) | Partially Supports | At a 320 CSS-pixel viewport, evaluated templates produced horizontal overflow from layout margins; the events page expanded to approximately 397 CSS pixels because of its data table. |
| 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast (Level AA 2.1 and 2.2) | Partially Supports | Most first-party controls and keyboard-focused links expose a visible browser focus indicator. Focused Vimeo iframe regions had no visible boundary or state indicator against the surrounding page. |
| 1.4.12 Text Spacing (Level AA 2.1 and 2.2) | Supports | WCAG text-spacing overrides were applied to the evaluated first-party templates. Manual and overflow inspection found no clipped first-party text or loss of controls; deliberately visually hidden form legends remained available to accessibility APIs. |
| 1.4.13 Content on Hover or Focus (Level AA 2.1 and 2.2) | Not Applicable | No first-party hover- or focus-triggered supplemental content such as tooltips or popovers was identified in the evaluated sample. |
| 2.4.5 Multiple Ways (Level AA) | Supports | Evaluated content pages were available through consistent navigation, portfolio or blog listings, and representative site-search results. |
| 2.4.6 Headings and Labels (Level AA) | Partially Supports | Most headings describe their sections and form errors are specific. Exceptions include skipped and duplicate heading levels, two empty article headings, a blog listing without a level-one heading, and inputs that rely on placeholder text rather than persistent labels. |
| 2.4.7 Focus Visible (Level AA) | Partially Supports | Keyboard-focused first-party links and form controls displayed a visible browser outline. Focus entered embedded Vimeo iframes without a visible focus indicator. |
| 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum)(Level AA 2.2 only) | Supports | Manual keyboard traversal at desktop and narrow viewports found that visible first-party focused items were not fully hidden by author-created content. The separate absence of a focus indicator on embedded frames is reported under Focus Visible. |
| 2.5.7 Dragging Movements (Level AA 2.2 only) | Not Applicable | The evaluated first-party pages did not require dragging movements. |
| 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) (Level AA 2.2 only) | Supports | Manual target measurements found first-party controls to meet the 24 by 24 CSS-pixel minimum or the spacing exception in the evaluated responsive sample. |
| 3.1.2 Language of Parts (Level AA) | Supports | Manual content review found no passage in the evaluated sample whose human language differed from the page’s declared English language. |
| 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation (Level AA) | Supports | Global navigation items appeared in the same relative order across the evaluated page templates. |
| 3.2.4 Consistent Identification (Level AA) | Supports | Repeated first-party navigation links, social links, newsletter controls, and calls to action were identified consistently across the evaluated sample. |
| 3.3.3 Error Suggestion (Level AA) | Supports | The tested blank newsletter submission identified the affected field and suggested the required correction with the message Email cannot be blank. |
| 3.3.4 Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data) (Level AA) | Not Applicable | The evaluated first-party scope did not include legal commitments, financial transactions, or user-controlled data deletion or modification. |
| 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) (Level AA 2.2 only) | Not Applicable | No authentication process was present in the evaluated public scope. |
| 4.1.3 Status Messages (Level AA 2.1 and 2.2) | Supports | Newsletter submission and field errors were programmatically exposed with alert roles and associated with the invalid email field without requiring focus to move to the message. |
Legal Disclaimer
This draft Accessibility Conformance Report reflects a limited sample of the live website on the stated test date. It is not a certification or legal opinion and must be reviewed and approved by a qualified accessibility professional before publication.