This statement applies to the PEP research platform at www.pep-web.org. PEP is committed to making psychoanalytic literature accessible to the widest possible audience. The platform is tested against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 Level AA standard on a recurring basis; this report records the results of our September 2026 audit, which examined every Level A and Level AA success criterion. The audit combined automated testing with manual keyboard, screen-reader, magnification, text-spacing and contrast review of representative search, reading, navigation and research journeys. This report sets out the result against each criterion, together with the limitations we identified and the work under way to address them.
The application met practical accessibility standards based on WCAG and APCA across the tested search, reading, navigation, forms, and research journeys, including keyboard operation, screen-reader support and adaptable presentation. The exceptions we identified are individually recorded in the tables below.
Summary
| Summary area | Summary of findings |
|---|---|
| Search and navigation | Tested search, browsing and reading journeys provide clear page titles, descriptive links and consistent navigation. Users can find content through multiple routes, skip repeated navigation and reach familiar help options. |
| Keyboard and assistive-technology access | Reviewed controls support keyboard operation, visible focus, meaningful screen-reader labels and alternatives to complex gestures. Further checks cover focus visibility in constrained views and spoken announcements during changing interactions. |
| Forms and research tools | Tested sign-in, contact and research forms provide clear labels, autofill support and understandable error feedback. Reviewed tools for managing saved research include confirmation or undo safeguards for destructive actions. |
| Display and readability | Tested layouts support enlarged text, adjusted spacing, narrow screens and both orientations. Most tested colours meet or exceed WCAG contrast requirements; the detailed notes explain accepted WCAG text-colour exceptions that we are confident meet accessibility needs under newer APCA guidance. |
| Digitised articles and books | Most reviewed text, headings, lists and reading sequences are well supported. Ongoing improvements address missing image descriptions and clearer relationships in complex tables, including where original publisher material is incomplete. |
| Videos and media | The playable sample reviewed provided synchronised captions, transcripts and user-controlled playback. We will continue assessing caption availability and quality across the full video library. |
Scope and method
The review covers the user-facing PEP application and representative digitised articles, books and videos. PaDS / account management and internal tools are outside the assessment scope.
Assessment combines automated checks with manual keyboard, macOS VoiceOver / Windows JAWS, zoom, text-spacing, layout and contrast reviews. The findings bring together recorded audit results and targeted follow-up checks, and apply to the sampled journeys, content and tested configurations.
Detailed findings and notes
The tables cover all 55 Level A and AA criteria in WCAG 2.2.
Pass means the available evidence supports the criterion within the stated tested scope.
See notes identifies a known limitation, continuing verification, or an excluded service dependency.
Not applicable means the relevant content or functionality was not found in the reviewed experience.
1. Perceivable — information can be accessed in different ways
| WCAG criterion (level) | Outcome | Validation and notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1.1.1 Non-text Content (A) | See notes | Reviewed application controls have meaningful text alternatives. Some library images lack alternative text, particularly where original publishers supplied no description or suitable caption. We are exploring ways to provide meaningful descriptions where source material is incomplete, while distinguishing informative images from decoration. |
| 1.2.1 Audio-only and Video-only (Prerecorded) (A) | Not applicable | No standalone prerecorded audio-only or silent video-only material was identified in the reviewed inventory. This criterion was therefore not applicable to that sample; these formats would need separate assessment if introduced or identified. |
| 1.2.2 Captions (Prerecorded) (A) | Pass | Reviewed sample batch videos provided synchronised captions. Evaluation of the wider video library is ongoing. |
| 1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded) (A) | Pass | Manual review of the evaluated media found transcripts conveying the presented information. This supports an alternative way to access the material. The result applies to the reviewed media; evaluation of the wider collection continues. |
| 1.2.4 Captions (Live) (AA) | Not applicable | No live video or live synchronised media was identified in the reviewed experience. Live captioning was therefore not applicable to this assessment and would require review for any future live service. |
| 1.2.5 Audio Description (Prerecorded) (AA) | Pass | In the manually reviewed media, speakers conveyed the meaningful visual information through speech. Additional audio description was therefore unnecessary for those recordings. Further collection review will consider description needs where essential information is presented visually without being spoken. |
| 1.3.1 Info and Relationships (A) | See notes | Reviewed headings, lists, labels and most document structures communicate their relationships to assistive technology. Some complex tables need clearer associations between headings, rows and columns. We are continuing to improve these structures, including where publisher-supplied material lacks sufficient information. |
| 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence (A) | Pass | Visual and screen-reader checks found a coherent reading order through reviewed pages and documents. Content remained understandable when presentation styles were removed, supporting access to the intended sequence independently of the visual layout. |
| 1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics (A) | Pass | Reviewed application instructions identify actions without relying solely on colour, shape, position, orientation or sound. This finding covers application instructions and controls; the wording of long-form editorial / article content was outside this particular review. |
| 1.3.4 Orientation (AA) | Pass | Tested journeys worked in portrait and landscape without requiring users to rotate their device. Usability in especially short viewing areas with high magnification will be refined further. |
| 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose (AA) | Pass | Reviewed personal-information fields identify their purpose to browsers and assistive technology. Manual autofill checks confirmed support for entering recognised account and contact information with less typing. |
| 1.4.1 Use of Colour (A) | Pass | Monochrome and colour-filter reviews confirmed that tested links, search matches and highlights remain distinguishable through additional visual cues. Essential information in the reviewed application does not depend on colour alone. |
| 1.4.2 Audio Control (A) | Pass | Reviewed media loads paused and requires user action to begin playback. No automatically starting audio lasting more than three seconds was identified in the tested experience. |
| 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) (AA) | See notes | Most tested text colours meet or exceed WCAG contrast requirements. A small number remain below the applicable WCAG ratio and are accepted under an APCA-informed perceptual design assessment. APCA is supplementary guidance; it does not replace WCAG's ratio-based criteria but instead gives us confidence the colours are accessible in their practical usage. |
| 1.4.4 Resize Text (AA) | Pass | Manual testing at 200% browser zoom found that text could be enlarged without meaningful loss of content or functionality in reviewed journeys. Checks included both application pages and reading content. |
| 1.4.5 Images of Text (AA) | Pass | Reviewed content primarily uses selectable, resizable text. Images containing text were limited to material whose visual appearance is intrinsic to its purpose, within the criterion's exceptions. The finding is based on the reviewed collection sample. |
| 1.4.10 Reflow (AA) | Pass | Tested pages adapted to a width of 320 CSS pixels without page-wide horizontal scrolling or loss of ordinary reading and navigation functions. Particularly constrained viewing areas remain part of the focused follow-up noted under 2.4.11. |
| 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast (AA) | Pass | Contrast measurements across tested light and dark presentations confirmed that required control boundaries, states and focus indicators meet the applicable WCAG contrast threshold. This result uses WCAG contrast ratios. |
| 1.4.12 Text Spacing (AA) | Pass | Increasing line, paragraph, letter and word spacing to the WCAG test settings preserved content and functionality on the reviewed pages. Text and controls accommodated the changes without meaningful clipping. |
| 1.4.13 Content on Hover or Focus (AA) | Pass | Reviewed supplementary content shown on hover or keyboard focus could be reached and kept open while being used. Dismissal checks confirmed that users could close it without losing access to the underlying task. |
2. Operable — people can navigate and use the service
| WCAG criterion (level) | Outcome | Validation and notes |
|---|---|---|
| 2.1.1 Keyboard (A) | Pass | Keyboard checks covered core search, reading, forms and research journeys, including image viewing. Reviewed functions could be reached and operated without a mouse, with keyboard access to scrolling and image navigation. |
| 2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap (A) | Pass | Keyboard and VoiceOver checks found that users could leave reviewed controls and close temporary panels. Dialogs kept focus within the active interaction while open and provided a way to return to the page. |
| 2.1.4 Character Key Shortcuts (A) | Pass | Reviewed application-wide shortcuts require modifier keys, reducing accidental activation when typing or using assistive technology. No unmodified global character shortcut requiring an additional safeguard was identified in that review. |
| 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable (A) | See notes | The reviewed login session had approximately 16 hours 40 minutes remaining before automatic sign-out, with no advance warning or extension option. WCAG’s exception requires a time limit longer than 20 hours. No other timing defects were identified. |
| 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide (A) | Pass | The reviewed experience did not contain automatically moving or updating content that required additional pause, stop or hide controls. Tested media playback was initiated by the user. |
| 2.3.1 Three Flashes or Below Threshold (A) | See notes | Review of application effects and animations found no flashing above the criterion's threshold. This finding covers the application interface; individual frames throughout the video archive were not assessed for flashing. |
| 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks (A) | Pass | Desktop and mobile keyboard checks confirmed that users can skip repeated navigation and move directly to the main content. This supports efficient access across reviewed page types. |
| 2.4.2 Page Titled (A) | Pass | Automated and manual checks found descriptive page titles that identify the topic or purpose of reviewed pages. Sampled localised pages also provided meaningful titles. |
| 2.4.3 Focus Order (A) | Pass | Keyboard traversal followed a logical sequence through reviewed tasks. Opening and closing dialogs and panels placed focus within the active task and returned it appropriately afterwards. |
| 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context) (A) | Pass | Manual review found that the purpose of tested navigation and content links could be understood from their text and surrounding context. Continued editorial review can further improve descriptive wording across the library. |
| 2.4.5 Multiple Ways (AA) | Pass | Reviewed page groups could be found through complementary routes, including navigation, search and browsing. Maintaining these routes as the service grows remains part of content organisation. |
| 2.4.6 Headings and Labels (AA) | Pass | Visual and VoiceOver reviews found that tested headings and labels describe their topic or purpose. Page organisation and form wording support scanning, navigation and understanding. |
| 2.4.7 Focus Visible (AA) | Pass | Reviewed interactive controls show a visible indicator when operated by keyboard. Checks covered application and reading controls; visibility within particularly constrained panels is considered separately under 2.4.11. |
| 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) (AA) | Pass | Focused controls remained visible during keyboard navigation in the views tested. Additional testing across layouts and reading journeys is ongoing. |
| 2.5.1 Pointer Gestures (A) | Pass | Reviewed functions that support complex gestures also provide simpler pointer alternatives. Users can access the tested image-viewing functions without relying on multi-finger or path-based gestures. |
| 2.5.2 Pointer Cancellation (A) | Pass | Reviewed consequential pointer actions could be cancelled before completion. Temporary disclosures could be dismissed, helping users recover from accidental presses without committing an unintended action. |
| 2.5.3 Label in Name (A) | Pass | Checks confirmed that reviewed controls include their visible wording in the name presented to assistive technology. This supports speech input using the labels users can see. |
| 2.5.4 Motion Actuation (A) | Not applicable | No functionality requiring device movement, shaking or tilting was identified in the reviewed application. Motion actuation was therefore not applicable to this assessment. |
| 2.5.7 Dragging Movements (AA) | Pass | Reviewed dragging interactions had alternatives using discrete pointer actions. Users could access the tested image-viewing functions without needing to hold and drag accurately. |
| 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) (AA) | Pass | Reviewed pointer targets met the applicable size or spacing requirements, with permitted exceptions for links within running text. Checks included compact layouts and signed-in research controls. |
3. Understandable — information and interactions are clear
| WCAG criterion (level) | Outcome | Validation and notes |
|---|---|---|
| 3.1.1 Language of Page (A) | Pass | Reviewed pages identify their language to browsers and assistive technology. Checks included the default language and sampled translated pages, supporting appropriate pronunciation and language handling. |
| 3.1.2 Language of Parts (AA) | Pass | Reviewed document content identifies its source language where it differs from the surrounding interface. This supports appropriate screen-reader language selection. Coverage depends on the language information available in source material, which remains an editorial review area. |
| 3.2.1 On Focus (A) | Pass | Moving keyboard focus through reviewed controls did not unexpectedly submit information, navigate away or open a new window. Users could explore the interface before choosing an action. |
| 3.2.2 On Input (A) | Pass | Entering information did not unexpectedly submit reviewed forms. Tested selection controls behaved predictably, and controls that change the presentation or language communicated their purpose. |
| 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation (AA) | Pass | Cross-page review found repeated navigation presented in a consistent order and manner. Account-related changes reflected whether a user was signed in while retaining a recognisable navigation structure. |
| 3.2.4 Consistent Identification (AA) | Pass | Repeated functions and controls used consistent terminology and identification across reviewed journeys. This helps users transfer familiarity from one part of the service to another. |
| 3.2.6 Consistent Help (A) | Pass | Help and feedback routes appeared in consistent relative locations across reviewed pages. Users could return to familiar support options while navigating the service. |
| 3.3.1 Error Identification (A) | Pass | Reviewed form errors were identified in text and associated with the relevant field or task. Manual screen-reader checks confirmed accessible error feedback in the tested form interactions. |
| 3.3.2 Labels or Instructions (A) | Pass | Reviewed forms provided visible labels and a clear required/optional convention. Instructions helped users understand what information to enter before submitting it. |
| 3.3.3 Error Suggestion (AA) | Pass | Where a correction was known, reviewed validation messages offered a useful correction or recovery route. Authentication feedback preserved account privacy while providing a way to try again. |
| 3.3.4 Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data) (AA) | Pass | Reviewed actions affecting saved research data provided confirmation or an opportunity to undo removal. These safeguards reduce the risk of accidental data loss. External registration and transaction processes are outside this result. |
| 3.3.7 Redundant Entry (A) | Pass | Reviewed application flows avoided unnecessary repeated entry and reused known account or contact information where available. The result covers the application's own forms and sign-in experience. |
| 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) (AA) | Pass | Tested application sign-in supported password managers, autofill and clipboard paste. No additional memory puzzle or cognitive-function test was required in the reviewed sign-in flow; external registration was outside scope. |
4. Robust — the service works with assistive technology
| WCAG criterion (level) | Outcome | Validation and notes |
|---|---|---|
| 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value (A) | Pass | Automated and manual checks confirmed meaningful names, control types and states for reviewed interactive elements. This allows assistive technology to identify controls and communicate their purpose and current state. |
| 4.1.3 Status Messages (AA) | See notes | Accessible status messages support search and research updates without requiring focus to move. Further listening checks are planned to confirm spoken announcements across dynamic interactions and additional screen-reader combinations. |
Continuing improvement
Six criteria are recorded as “see notes” in this report, and each is being addressed: session-timeout notice and extension, verification of status-message announcements, alternative text and complex-table structure across the digitised library, and caption and flash review of the wider video archive. Where the original publisher supplied no description or caption, remediation depends on source material we did not create — a constraint shared across digitised scholarly archives. Each change is re-tested against the relevant criterion before it is recorded as resolved.
If you encounter a barrier using www.pep-web.org, please contact PEP support, support@pep-web.org. It helps us to know the page you were on, what you were trying to do and the assistive technology or settings you were using. We investigate every report, respond directly, and will arrange an alternative means of access to the material you need while any fix is in progress. Reports from readers and institutional partners feed directly into the priorities above.
We work to meet our obligations under the Equality Act 2010 (UK), the European Accessibility Act (EU) and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (US). This statement was prepared in September 2026 and is reviewed after each audit cycle.