For compliance reviewers
A curated twenty-minute path through the evidence, written to be printed and to be honest about what has not been evaluated.
What we guarantee
You have twenty minutes and a stack of vendor documentation that is mostly marketing. This page is the opposite of that: a fixed route through the evidence, with the conclusion stated first so that you can stop reading whenever you have what you need.
The conclusion, first. opsinjs is a design system in early build. Every one of the sixty catalogue rows is implemented and installable, and every one has been audited against WCAG 2.2 AA by the authors of the components, in a static source pass and a rendered pass, with the findings fixed in the same change. That audit is author-run, so it is not an independent review, and no clinical review has taken place. Nothing in this documentation should be read as a conformance claim: an author auditing their own work raises a floor, it does not deliver a verdict, and until a clinician signs a component it is not for a production health surface. See ADR 0025 for the record. The accessibility statement says the same thing in the form your file probably needs, and the conformance report is an ACR skeleton in which every criterion is still marked Not Evaluated, because a formal conformance evaluation is exactly the independent assessment that has not happened.
What we do guarantee is the shape of the evidence you will be given when there is some:
- Every measured number is generated by a named, committed script and is dated. No accessibility figure on this site is typed by a human.
- Every published claim has a page that states its scope, its check and its failure mode.
- Known gaps are published on the page that would otherwise imply they do not exist, not collected in an appendix.
This page and everything it links to is designed to print. The site carries a
real @media print stylesheet: navigation is removed, translucency and shadow
collapse, external link targets are resolved into the text, and tables and safety
callouts are prevented from splitting across a page break. See
Print and export.
What you own
The determination. We can tell you what was measured, by what, and when; we cannot tell you whether that satisfies your obligation, because that depends on the procurement standard you are working to (EN 301 549, Section 508, a national public-sector regulation, or an internal policy) and on the product built with this system rather than on the system itself.
Two things are specifically outside our scope and inside yours:
- The conformance of the shipping product. A design system is a set of parts. A product assembled from accessible parts can still be inaccessible; the reverse is also true.
- Clinical safety. opsinjs is not a medical device and confers no regulatory status. If your obligation includes DCB0129/DCB0160, EU MDR or FDA SaMD considerations, those attach to your product. See Regulatory context and Safety, scope and limitations.
How to check
The twenty-minute path. Each stop tells you what to look for and what a bad answer looks like.
The scope claim (minutes 0 to 3)
Read Safety, scope and limitations. You are checking that the vendor states plainly what the system is not. A health design system that does not disclaim device status, or that implies its components carry clinical validation, has told you something important in the first three minutes.
The accessibility statement (minutes 3 to 7)
Read the statement. Check that it is dated, that it names a standard and a version, that it distinguishes the system from products built with it, and that it contains a non-empty list of known gaps. A statement with no gaps is not a strong statement; it is an untested one.
The conformance report (minutes 7 to 12)
Open the ACR. Check the remarks column, not the conformance column. Every row currently says Not Evaluated, and the remarks say why. When rows begin to say "Supports", the remark must name the evaluation method and its date, or the row is unsupported.
The measured evidence (minutes 12 to 16)
Open Contrast conformance. This is the one property of the system that a committed script measures today: token pairs. Component accessibility was audited against WCAG 2.2 AA by the authors, but that is a fixed set of findings rather than a generated number. Check that the contrast numbers carry a generation date and a script name, that both APCA Lc and WCAG 2.2 ratios are given, and that failures are shown rather than filtered out.
The honesty test (minutes 16 to 20)
Pick any two pages at random from
Accessibility and read only their Known gaps sections. You are
checking whether the gaps are specific and uncomfortable ("prefers-contrast is
not implemented") or generic and comfortable ("we are committed to continuous
improvement"). This is the fastest available proxy for whether the rest of the
documentation is trustworthy.
Measured results
Nothing generates a conformance number on this site. No row of
registry/catalogue.ts records an independent review, and <A11yReport> takes
its counts as props rather than reading a measurement, so there is no generated
evaluation table to publish and none is invented here. The author-run WCAG 2.2 AA
audit is recorded in
ADR 0025, not as a
generated dataset.
Nothing on this site types a measured number by hand, so an ungenerated table shows this rather than an example.
Every component has been audited against WCAG 2.2 AA by its authors, but nothing has been through an independent evaluation against a success criterion, and no clinical review has taken place. The one number a script produces is token-pair contrast: it is generated, committed, and published on Contrast conformance.
Known gaps
- No independent conformance evaluation has been performed. There has been no third-party audit and no assistive technology testing. The WCAG 2.2 AA audit on record was run by the authors of the components, which raises a floor rather than delivering a verdict.
- No clinical review has taken place, and it is still pending. Until a clinician signs a component it is not for a production health surface.
- No generated component-level conformance data exists. Sixty components ship and every one has been audited against WCAG 2.2 AA by its authors, but not one has been independently reviewed, and no catalogue row records an independent review. Author-run findings are a floor, not third-party evidence, and nothing here treats installable code as evidence of conformance.
prefers-contrastis unimplemented, which is a real gap against SC 1.4.11-adjacent expectations in high-contrast operating-system modes; see Increased contrast.- The documentation site has not been audited against its own standard. See This site's accessibility.
Updates to this page
Last read through against the system on 2026-09-20. Due for review every 6 months; expiry is reported by pnpm run check:freshness.