Built to WCAG 2.2 Level AA, including the parts we have not got right yet.
This statement names the standard this website targets, lists what was actually done to meet it, admits what is still weak, and gives you a route to report a barrier that reaches a person instead of a queue.
The target, and why this one
Last updated: 5 August 2026.
This website is designed and built to conform with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 at Level AA, the version the W3C published in October 2023.
We target 2.2 rather than 2.1 because the criteria 2.2 added are precisely the ones that break a site like this one. Minimum target size punishes a mobile layout with a sticky call button. Focus not obscured punishes a sticky header that parks itself over the element you just tabbed to. Consistent help punishes a site where the phone number moves around between pages. Redundant entry punishes a multi-step quote form that makes you type your address twice. Those are the real failures on a contractor’s website, and 2.1 does not catch any of them.
One honest note on the legal position, because a lot of what is currently being sold on this subject is wrong. There is no federal technical accessibility standard that applies to a private business. The Department of Justice web rule covers state and local government only, and its compliance dates were pushed back in April 2026. So this is not a deadline we are meeting. It is a decision about whether the site works for the people trying to use it. Given what we install for a living, that is not a decision we get to be casual about.
What has actually been done
| Success criterion | What was built | Where you notice it |
|---|---|---|
| 1.3.1 Info and Relationships | Semantic HTML with real landmarks: a single main, a header, a footer, and named nav regions for the main menu, breadcrumbs and legal links. One h1 per page and no skipped heading levels. | You can jump by landmark or by heading instead of listening to the same header on every page |
| 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks | A skip link is the first focusable element in the document on every single page. | Press Tab once on load and the first thing offered is “Skip to main content” |
| 2.4.7 and 2.4.11 Focus visible, not obscured | A 2 pixel gold focus ring with a 3 pixel offset on every focusable element, never removed. The gold measures 9.4:1 against the page background; the requirement for a focus indicator is 3:1. | You always know where you are, and the sticky header does not sit on top of the thing you just reached |
| 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) | Buttons, navigation links, form controls and accordion headers carry a 44 by 44 CSS pixel minimum. The criterion asks for 24 by 24. | Nothing on a phone needs a precise tap, including the call button |
| 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) | Every text color was measured against the surface it sits on before it shipped. Nothing falls below 4.5:1; headings run 14.4:1 to 18.3:1 and body text 9.7:1 to 12.4:1, which is Level AAA. The lowest ratio anywhere is 4.6:1, on small legal meta text. | Readable in a lit lobby, in a dark basement, and on a phone screen in direct sun |
| 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 Keyboard, no trap | The whole site operates from the keyboard. The desktop menu opens on Enter and closes on Escape. The mobile drawer traps focus while it is open, closes on Escape, and returns focus to the button that opened it. | Tab, Shift-Tab, Enter, Space and Escape are enough to get from the home page to a submitted quote request |
| 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 Labels and errors | Every input has a real label element tied to it. Placeholder text is never the only label. Errors are written in words, marked with aria-invalid, and focus moves to the first field that needs attention. | An error tells you which field and what is wrong, instead of turning a box red and leaving you to guess |
| 1.1.1 Non-text Content | Meaningful images carry alternative text describing what is in the picture (a riser cabinet, a lobby panel, a door closer, a cable route), and decorative artwork carries an empty alt so it is skipped rather than announced. | Photographs of real work are described, not read out as “image” |
| 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value | Icon-only controls (the menu button, the drawer close, back-to-top) carry accessible names, and the menu button reports its expanded state. | A screen reader says “Open menu, button, collapsed” rather than just “button” |
| 2.2.2 and 2.3.3 Motion | Reveal animations, transitions and smooth scrolling are switched off entirely when the operating system reports prefers-reduced-motion. Nothing auto-plays, nothing blinks, nothing moves that you did not start. | A vestibular condition does not cost you the ability to read the page |
| 1.4.4 and 1.4.10 Resize and reflow | The layout reflows to a 320 pixel viewport and survives 200 percent zoom with no horizontal scrollbar. Wide tables scroll inside their own container instead of pushing the whole page sideways. | Zoomed to double size the page still reads as one column |
| 3.2.6 Consistent Help | The phone number, the contact link and the quote button appear in the same place, in the same order, on every page of the site. | You never have to go hunting for how to reach a person |
| 1.4.12 and forced colors | No text sits in a fixed-height container, so increased line height, paragraph spacing or letter spacing reflows the page rather than clipping words. Windows High Contrast mode is honored: the site steps back and lets the operating system palette win. | Your own reading settings are not fought by ours |
This describes work done during the build and checked with automated tooling plus manual keyboard and screen-reader passes. It is not a third-party audit, and nobody has certified it. See the next section.
What we have not done, and where this is still weak
An accessibility statement that lists only successes is a marketing page. Here is the other half.
Nobody independent has audited this site
There is no certification for web accessibility: no body issues one, and any vendor selling you a compliance badge is selling you a sticker. What has actually happened here is an automated scan across every page, plus manual passes with a keyboard alone and with a screen reader on the pages that carry the most weight: the home page, the service pages and the quote form. That is a real process and it is not the same as an independent audit by someone who does this full time. If we commission one, this page will say so and give the date.
Automated tools catch roughly a third of the problems people actually run into. The rest is judgment: whether an alt text is genuinely useful, whether a heading structure matches how the page reads, whether an error message makes sense to somebody who cannot see the field it belongs to. Our judgment is fallible.
The site has one color scheme, and it is dark
There is no light theme. Contrast within the dark scheme was measured and most of it exceeds Level AAA, but if light text on a dark background is difficult for you (and for some people with astigmatism it genuinely is), the honest answer today is that a light option does not exist yet. Browser reader mode works on every page here, and Windows High Contrast is respected. A light theme is on the list; it is not a promise with a date on it.
Manufacturer documents are not ours
Where we link out to a datasheet, an installation manual or a code excerpt, that PDF was produced by a manufacturer or a standards body and we have no control over whether it is tagged for a screen reader. Many are not. If one is unusable, call or email and we will read you the figures you need or send the relevant part as plain text in an email. That is a real offer, not a formality.
Dense technical tables are hard work no matter how correct the markup is
Some pages carry six-column comparison tables: cable types, retention math, mounting heights, code requirements by building age. They are marked up properly with row and column headers, and they scroll inside their own container. A table like that read one cell at a time is still slow going. If you want the same content as prose, ask and we will write it out.
Third parties in the quote path
The quote form is delivered by an outside form service. The page around it is ours and it is built to the standard above; the delivery service is not under our control, and if it ever introduces a check that blocks you, the phone number reaches exactly the same people and produces exactly the same outcome.
Video, and what happens when we add it
There is no video on this site, which is why there are no captions. If we publish video (and a walkthrough of a riser survey is genuinely useful), it will be captioned and described before it goes live, not afterward when someone complains.
We have not tested every combination
Nobody has. The pages have been driven with a keyboard and with a screen reader, on desktop and on a phone, but there are combinations of browser, operating system and assistive technology we have not touched. A bug that only appears in one of them is invisible to us until somebody tells us. That is what the next section is for.
Why there is no accessibility widget on this page
You have seen the button: a small circle in the corner that opens a panel of toggles for contrast, font size and “screen reader mode.” We did not install one, deliberately.
An overlay sits on top of a finished page and tries to guess at runtime what the underlying markup should have said. When the markup is already right, the overlay is redundant. When the markup is wrong, guessing is not a fix, and the guess frequently collides with the screen reader the visitor is already running, which is worse than doing nothing at all. Through 2025, lawsuits filed against sites that had an overlay installed ran at roughly 95 to 155 a month, with no measurable reduction in exposure for the sites running them. The widget is a purchase, not a remedy.
So the markup was fixed instead: real labels, real landmarks, real focus management, contrast measured before a color shipped. It is slower, it is less visible, and it is the only approach that changes what actually happens when someone tries to use the page.
If something here blocks you, tell us
This is the part of an accessibility statement that most sites make deliberately vague. Here is the specific route and the specific timescale.
What to send
- The address of the page: copy it from the address bar if you can.
- What you were trying to do, and what happened instead.
- What you are using: browser, operating system, and the screen reader or other assistive technology with its version if you know it.
That last item is not gatekeeping and you are not obliged to supply it. It is asked for because a bug that only shows up in one combination of browser and screen reader is effectively invisible from our side, and without it we can spend a week failing to reproduce something you hit in ten seconds.
Where to send it
Email info@gothamaccesscontrolny.com with “Accessibility” in the subject line, or call (917) 353-9599.
What we commit to
- Acknowledged within 2 business days, by a person, not an autoresponder, saying what we understood the problem to be.
- Answered within 5 business days: what we found, whether we can reproduce it, and whether it is fixable.
- Fixed within 15 business days for anything that stops you using the site. If a fix genuinely takes longer, we will say so in writing, say why, give an expected date, and give you a way to do the same thing without the website in the meantime.
Business days means Sunday to Thursday, plus Friday morning. We are not a 24-hour operation and we are not going to claim we are.
You never have to use this website
Every single thing this site does can be done on the phone. Booking a survey, describing a fault, receiving a written scope, asking what a job costs, asking what the code says about your building. All of it works by voice, and the person who answers is the person who does the work. If the website is a barrier for you, it is a barrier you can go around entirely, today, at no disadvantage.
Why a low-voltage contractor takes this seriously
New York files more website accessibility claims than any other state (trackers counted more than 1,100 filings in 2025, roughly 28 percent of the national total), and the claims concentrate on the same short list of barriers every time: missing alternative text, buttons with no accessible name, and forms that cannot be completed without a mouse. Every one of those is on the checklist above, and none of them is expensive to get right at build time.
Two honest qualifications. Conformance with WCAG is evidence that a site does not shut people out; it is not a legal safe harbor, because WCAG is not written into the Americans with Disabilities Act or into New York’s human rights laws. And a statement like this one is a statement of intent, not proof: the proof is whether the page works when you try to use it.
But the commercial argument is not really the point. Our customers are buildings, and buildings are full of people. The 2010 ADA Standards require door hardware that is operable without tight grasping, pinching or twisting of the wrist (§404.2.7 and §309.4), and cap the side reach to a card reader at 48 inches above the floor (§308.3). Those numbers exist because a lever handle at the right height is the difference between a resident getting into their own lobby and a resident waiting outside for somebody to pass. We argue about that reach dimension on job after job. A company that argues about a 48-inch reach on a Monday and ships a website nobody can drive with a keyboard on a Tuesday has not understood its own trade.
Common questions
Has this site been audited or certified by anyone?
No. And it is worth saying clearly that no such certification exists: there is no official body that issues a web accessibility certificate, and any badge sold as one is a graphic, not a finding.
What has happened is an automated scan across the whole site plus manual keyboard and screen-reader passes on the pages that matter most. That is a genuine process and it is still our own work, checked by us. If we commission an independent audit, this page will name who did it and when, and it will list what they found, including the parts we had not noticed.
Which screen readers and browsers does the site work with?
It is built on standard HTML with correct landmarks, headings, labels and states, which is the thing that makes assistive technology work rather than any particular vendor integration. It has been driven with a keyboard alone and with a screen reader on both desktop and mobile.
What we cannot claim is exhaustive testing across every browser, operating system and assistive technology version, because we have not done it and nobody realistically does. If your combination behaves badly, that is a bug and we want it. Send the browser, the operating system and the screen reader version to info@gothamaccesscontrolny.com and it goes to the top of the list.
Can I do everything by phone instead of using this website?
Yes, all of it. Describe the fault, book a survey, get a written scope emailed or posted, ask what a job runs, ask what the code requires for your building. None of that needs the website and none of it costs more without it.
If reading long technical pages is difficult, say so on the call and we will go through the relevant part out loud. If you want a scope in a specific format (larger type, plain text rather than PDF, a version that reads cleanly in a screen reader), ask and you will get it. Nobody is going to be asked why.
Why is the site dark? Can I get a light version?
The site was designed dark and the contrast within it was measured rather than eyeballed: body text runs between 9.7:1 and 12.4:1 against the surfaces it sits on, well past the 4.5:1 the standard requires and past the 7:1 that Level AAA asks for. So it is high-contrast; it just runs light-on-dark.
There is no light theme today, and for some readers (particularly with astigmatism, where light text on dark can smear), that is a genuine problem rather than a preference. Two things work in the meantime: your browser’s reader mode renders every page here cleanly, and Windows High Contrast mode is honored so your own palette takes over. A light theme is on the list of work, without a date attached to it, because a date we might miss is worse than no date.
I found a barrier. What actually happens after I report it?
A person reads it, within 2 business days, and replies saying what they understood the problem to be so you can correct us if we have it wrong. Within 5 business days you get the finding: whether we reproduced it, what is causing it, and whether it is fixable. Anything that stops you using the site is fixed within 15 business days, or you get a written explanation of why not, an expected date, and a way to do the same task without the site.
Every report is logged with its date, what was reported, what was changed and when it shipped. That log exists partly so we can see whether the same thing keeps coming back, and partly because a commitment nobody records is a commitment nobody keeps.
Something here not working for you?
Email with “Accessibility” in the subject line, or call. A person answers within two business days, and the website is never the only way to reach us.
Sun to Thu 9am to 5pm · Fri 9am to 12pm · Sat closed