Accessibility statement

How accessible this website is

We believe this website substantially conforms to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.2 AA standard. A July 2026 review found and fixed a small number of keyboard-operability and form-labelling issues; an independent re-test of the updated build, including a screen-reader pass, is in progress.

We reached that position by auditing every page against all Level A and AA success criteria, fixing what failed, and testing again. The known limitations below are deliberate decisions we judge to conform, not unfixed failures. We list them so you can hold us to that judgment.

Reporting a problem

If you find an accessibility problem, or need something in a different format, email hello@particlelabs.ai. Tell us the page address and what went wrong. We aim to reply within 5 working days.

If you are not happy with our response, you can contact the Equality Advisory and Support Service, which supports people with equality and human rights concerns in the UK.

Technical information

Particle AI Labs Ltd voluntarily conforms to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2 AA, in support of our duties under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments. This website substantially conforms to that standard; an independent re-test of recent fixes is in progress.

What we tested, and how

Tested on 27 July 2026 by the Blockout engineering team, on the live site. Every page was in scope: the home page, the redaction tool (upload, the choose what to redact step, the review editor and the completion screen), plans and checkout, the comparison page, help, history, settings, shared documents, the admin dashboard, the privacy policy, terms, account deletion, and the page a recipient sees when you send them a secure link.

Automated testing. axe-core across every page in both the light and dark themes, and across all four colour palettes, including 40 combinations of palette, theme and page for colour contrast alone.

Manual testing. Automated tools find only a minority of accessibility problems, so we also tested by hand: page reflow at 320 pixels wide under both motion preferences, text enlarged to 200%, the WCAG text-spacing overrides, keyboard-only operation of every control including the review editor and manual text selection, focus visibility in both themes, whether focus is ever hidden behind fixed interface, pointer target sizes, visible labels against accessible names, that password fields accept paste with no puzzle-style CAPTCHA, and heading, form-label, page-title and language markup.

Screen reader testing. A full pass with NVDA 2026.1.1 on Windows through the core task: arriving at the redaction page, signing in, uploading a document, reviewing what was detected, redacting and downloading the result.

Several problems we fixed were invisible to automated scanning and were found only by hand: a comparison page that scrolled sideways for people who had asked for reduced motion, a redaction flow that announced nothing at all to a screen reader, and dialogs that hid the page from a screen reader while still letting keyboard focus reach it.

Known limitations, and why we consider them conformant

Automated scanning reports two families of item on this site that we have assessed individually and judged to be false positives. We publish them rather than hide them.

• Navigation rail icons.The checker compares an element's full visible text against its accessible name. On larger screens these controls show only a decorative symbol, which is correctly hidden from assistive technology; the text label is not shown at that size, and the tooltip is hidden from both the screen and assistive technology until you hover or focus the control. The accessible name matches the label shown in that tooltip and the label shown on small screens, so voice control users saying “click Redact” reach the right control.
• Detection chips and step indicators.These pair a text label with a count or step number, such as “Name” with a badge showing “1”. The accessible name (“Name, 1 found”) contains the visible label, which is what the success criterion requires. The checker additionally wants the name to contain the run-together string “Name1”, which is stricter than the standard. We chose the name that reads correctly in a screen reader.

If you disagree with either assessment, please tell us. We would rather re-open it than defend it.

Non-accessible content

A July 2026 internal review found several keyboard-operability and form-labelling issues: ready-file selection in the redaction studio, and some password and confirmation fields. These have been fixed and deployed. An independent re-test to confirm conformance, including a screen-reader pass, is in progress.

How this statement was prepared

Prepared on 27 July 2026, following an audit of the whole site carried out between 24 and 27 July 2026. Last reviewed on 27 July 2026.