Accessibility is part of how ZoikoSuite is designed, tested, and supported.
This statement explains the accessibility scope we assess, the standards we use, known limitations, available alternatives, and how to contact us if you encounter a barrier.
What "ZoikoSuite" covers in this statement
ZoikoSuite is committed to making its digital experiences usable by people with disabilities. We integrate accessibility into design, development, testing, content, and support, and use feedback and evaluation evidence to improve accessibility over time. The exact conformance status of each covered experience is stated below and published only for the scope that has been evaluated.
| Scope Field | Required Value / Behavior |
|---|---|
| Primary web property | [ Exact domain(s) / URI pattern(s) ] |
| Authenticated application | Included / excluded / separately assessed; version/build when relevant. |
| Mobile apps | Platform, app name/version, and whether covered. |
| Documents / reports | Included, partially included, or governed by a separate remediation process. |
| Embedded third-party content | Named categories and control limitations. |
| Locale / language scope | Locales assessed — translated content is not assumed to share identical accessibility. |
Publish only the status the evidence actually supports
| Public State | When Allowed | Required Copy Behavior |
|---|---|---|
| Target only / assessment in progress | WCAG 2.2 AA is the design/test target but full scope has not been evaluated. | State the target and assessment scope — never call the property conformant until evaluated. |
| Partially conformant | Approved review found some content does not fully conform. | Name the standard/level, scope, and known limitations in user terms. |
| Fully conformant | Approved evidence shows every page/process in the claimed scope satisfies all applicable A and AA success criteria. | Publish exact claim date, WCAG version, level, URI scope, and relied-upon technologies. |
| Non-conformant | Formal assessment determines the scoped property does not meet the stated standard. | Only with Accessibility/Legal approval, plus clear support/remediation context. |
| Status unavailable / stale | Evidence is missing, expired, contradicted, or beyond the review interval. | Remove/withhold conformance language; show review-in-progress or current known facts. |
Concrete and verifiable — not aspirational slogans
Design system
Accessible component patterns, focus states, semantics, contrast, responsive behavior, and motion settings.
Engineering standards
Semantic HTML, keyboard operability, programmatic names/states, accessible error handling, reflow, non-color-only indicators.
Quality assurance
Automated checks plus manual keyboard, screen-reader, zoom/reflow, and representative-journey testing.
Content operations
Plain language, heading structure, alternative text, descriptive links, accessible media/document production.
Accessibility review
Specialist review for material patterns/features and high-impact changes.
Issue management
Accessibility defects have severity, owner, remediation state, verification, and regression evidence.
Disclosed honestly, in plain language — never omitted for optics
[ Plain-language barrier — e.g. “Some exported PDF reports may have incomplete table tagging.” ]
Evidence, not a support warranty
| Area | Required Treatment |
|---|---|
| Browsers | Only the current tested browser/version policy — never "works in all modern browsers." |
| Screen readers | Tested combinations and date, e.g. NVDA/Chrome, JAWS/Edge, VoiceOver/Safari — only when verified. |
| Zoom / reflow | Assessed zoom/reflow thresholds if verified — never invented. |
| Technologies relied upon | HTML, CSS, JavaScript, ARIA, SVG, PDF, etc., matching the formal claim when one exists. |
A scan score is never reported as conformance
"We assess accessibility using a combination of automated checks, manual keyboard testing, assistive-technology testing, zoom and reflow review, and representative end-to-end journey testing. The exact method and scope for the current statement are recorded in the accessibility evidence used to prepare this statement."
| Assessment Layer | Minimum Method |
|---|---|
| Automated | Approved automated rules across representative templates and critical authenticated surfaces. |
| Keyboard | Complete all critical journeys without a pointer; verify focus order, visibility, no traps, skip links. |
| Screen reader | Representative desktop and mobile combinations; verify names, roles, states, relationships. |
| Critical-process testing | End-to-end processes, not isolated screens — WCAG conformance applies to complete processes. |
A route that works for people currently blocked by the product
"If you encounter an accessibility barrier, tell us what you were trying to do and where the problem occurred. You do not need to provide medical or disability information. We will use the information you provide to investigate the barrier and respond through your preferred contact method where possible."
Freshness is visible — staleness triggers review, not silence
| Metadata | Value |
|---|---|
| Prepared on | [ date ] |
| Last reviewed | [ date ] |
| Statement version | [ x.y ] |
| Approved by | [ Department/role ] |
| Change summary | [ Plain-language summary of material statement changes ] |
Never impersonates a formal conformance report
| Artifact | Public Treatment |
|---|---|
| Accessibility Conformance Report / VPAT | Availability status, version/date/scope, and request/download path — only if an approved artifact exists. |
| Independent assessment | Assessor/date/scope named only with publication permission. |
| Trust Accessibility page | Primary buyer-readable accessibility posture and evidence context. |
| Procurement contact | Accessibility/procurement support route — never a forced sales call for basic accessibility information. |