# Accessibility Commitment (ACCESSIBILITY.md)

## 1. Scope and Commitment
This repository treats accessibility as a foundational quality requirement for all standards content.

Current commitment for this docs-first project:
- Use clear, plain language and predictable heading structure.
- Keep Markdown content readable by humans and AI agents.
- Prefer explicit, testable guidance over vague statements.
- Target WCAG 2.2 AA principles for documentation and examples where applicable.

## 2. Relationship to Other Pillars (Overlap Management)
This file is the accessibility baseline. To reduce duplication:
- [STYLES.md](./STYLES.md) defines writing/design standards and implementation patterns.
- [AGENTS.md](./AGENTS.md) defines operational behavior for coding agents.
- [SUSTAINABILITY.md](./SUSTAINABILITY.md) defines environmental and efficiency constraints.
- [ACCESSIBILITY.md](./ACCESSIBILITY.md) defines non-negotiable accessibility intent, guardrails, and issue policy.

When guidance overlaps, use this precedence:
1. Explicit user instructions.
2. ACCESSIBILITY.md for accessibility requirements.
3. SUSTAINABILITY.md for efficiency and environmental constraints.
4. AGENTS.md for agent workflow behavior.
5. STYLES.md for style and design conventions.

## 3. Practical Adoption Options
Teams adopting this repository can choose one of these modes:

### Option A: Minimal (fastest)
- Keep this ACCESSIBILITY.md in repo root.
- Reference it from README and AGENTS instructions.
- Use manual review for headings, links, and language clarity.

### Option B: Balanced (recommended)
- Option A, plus:
- Track accessibility-related issues with a dedicated `accessibility` label.
- Add a pull request checklist item for accessibility review.
- Record known documentation barriers and their status.

### Option C: Strict (highest rigor)
- Option B, plus:
- Add automated Markdown/link/accessibility checks in CI.
- Define release-blocking accessibility criteria.
- Maintain a living accessibility metrics table updated on each release cycle.

## 4. Contributor Requirements (Guardrails)
All contributions should:
- Preserve heading hierarchy and link clarity.
- Avoid ambiguous or exclusionary phrasing.
- Keep guidance actionable and verifiable.
- Include accessibility implications when introducing new standards content.

For larger changes, contributors should also:
- Note any accessibility tradeoffs made.
- Explain why alternatives were rejected.

## 5. Reporting and Severity Taxonomy
Report issues through the repository issue tracker and include reproduction context.

Severity model for this repository:
- Critical: A guideline that could directly cause inaccessible implementations for core user paths.
- High: Significant ambiguity or missing requirement likely to introduce accessibility regressions.
- Medium: Clarity or completeness gap that can mislead contributors.
- Low: Minor wording, formatting, or reference improvements.

## 6. Validation Approach
Current repository state is documentation-only with no dedicated accessibility CI pipeline.

Validated checks currently available:
- Manual review of Markdown structure and links.
- Repository consistency checks across README, STYLE, AGENTS, and ACCESSIBILITY files.
- Git diff inspection before merge.

If automation is added later, document it here with exact commands and pass/fail criteria.

## 7. Known Limitations
Current limitations:
- No automated accessibility test suite is configured.
- No formal browser/assistive technology support matrix is maintained in this repository.
- Guidance quality depends on contributor review and iterative updates.

## 8. Continuous Improvement
This file is living documentation and should evolve with project maturity.

Planned improvement path:
- Add measurable accessibility metrics when baseline data exists.
- Add CI checks once tooling is selected.
- Add a project-specific assistive technology test matrix when the repository includes executable UI artifacts.

Last updated: 2026-03-18