Updated 3 September 2026
Accessibility statement
What we have built for, what we know is imperfect, and how to tell us about a barrier.
Our aim
This site is built to meet WCAG 2.2 level AA. Researchers use assistive technology like everyone else, and a supplier that publishes technical documentation has no excuse for making it hard to read.
What we have done
- Semantic HTML with landmarks, headings in order, and a skip-to-content link.
- Every interactive element reachable and operable by keyboard, with a visible focus indicator on both light and dark sections.
- Text contrast meeting AA against every background used, including the amber accent, which is darkened wherever it carries text.
- Text that reflows without loss of function to 320 pixels and at 200% zoom.
- Descriptive alternative text on photography; decorative graphics, including the chromatogram traces, hidden from assistive technology.
- Data tables with proper header cells, and wide tables scrollable within their own container rather than forcing the page sideways.
- Animation limited, and fully disabled when the operating system requests reduced motion.
- Form fields with persistent visible labels, and errors reported in text next to the control rather than by colour alone.
Known limitations
- Amino acid sequences and molecular formulae are read character by character by some screen readers. This is inherent to the notation, and the full compound data is also available on the batch certificate.
- The chromatogram graphics convey purity visually. The figure they represent is always stated as text nearby, so no information is available only in the graphic.
- Long compound data tables require horizontal scrolling on narrow screens.
Tell us about a barrier
If something on this site is hard or impossible to use, tell us what you were trying to do and what got in the way. We will fix what we can and tell you honestly where a fix will take time. Accessibility problems are treated as defects rather than feature requests.
This is a working draft. It describes accurately how the site and the business operate, but it has not been reviewed by a solicitor and is not legal advice. Have it reviewed before relying on it commercially.