LEGAL

Accessibility

What we are aiming for, what already works, and — honestly — what does not yet. Written to be checked against, not to reassure.

IN EFFECT FROM

We want Slipstream to be usable by riders with disabilities. This page says where we actually are, including the parts that are not good enough yet. We would rather publish something checkable than a claim of conformance we cannot support.

1. What we are aiming for

WCAG 2.1 Level AA across the website and the app.

We are not there yet. Section 4 lists what we know is short of it. This statement is not a declaration of conformance.

2. The website

The site you are reading was built with accessibility in mind rather than retrofitted, and the following are in place today:

  • Semantic landmarks — header, nav, main, footer — and a skip link to jump past the navigation
  • Real button elements for every control, with aria-expanded reflecting the state of the menu, the FAQ and the pricing toggle
  • Text alternatives on meaningful images; decorative graphics, including the phone mockups, are hidden from assistive technology rather than read aloud as noise
  • Visible focus outlines on every interactive element
  • Full support for prefers-reduced-motion — the marquee, the background glow, the shimmer and every scroll animation stop
  • The whole site works with JavaScript disabled. Content is in the HTML, not assembled by script
  • Headings in order, with stable ids so any clause here or in our legal pages can be linked to directly
  • No time limits, no auto-playing media, no flashing content

3. The app

The Slipstream app is considerably behind the website, and we are not going to pretend otherwise.

Work now underway covers screen-reader labelling of the shared controls and the live ride display, so that a value reads as "Power, 312 watts" rather than just "312", and so that charts are summarised rather than read out as a stream of unlabelled numbers.

What already helps, by design rather than by accident:

  • The ride display is built for glanceability — large numerals, high contrast, and a layout meant to be read mid-effort. That serves low vision too.
  • The app is fully usable offline and without an account, so nothing depends on completing a sign-up flow.
  • Audio and haptic cues accompany interval changes, so the workout does not rely on watching the screen.

4. Known limitations

Stated plainly, because a statement without them is worthless:

  • Screen-reader support in the app is incomplete. Custom controls and the live ride display are being labelled now; until that ships, parts of the app will be difficult or impossible to use with VoiceOver.
  • Charts and graphs are not yet described. The workout profile, the time-in-zone bar and the sparklines convey information visually only.
  • Large text sizes may cause layout problems on some app screens, where fixed-height rows were designed around the default size.
  • Only part of the app has been reviewed. We have looked at the shared controls and the ride screen, not every screen.
  • Colour contrast. We found and corrected a muted grey used for captions and labels that measured about 3.1:1 against our background — below the 4.5:1 that AA requires for body text. Other combinations may still fall short and we are working through them.
  • Some third-party content, such as the typefaces this site loads, is outside our direct control.

5. Reporting a problem

If something here blocks you, tell us — it is the fastest way for it to get fixed, and we treat it as a bug rather than a request.

Write to accessibility@slipstream.app or support@slipstream.app. Please describe what you were trying to do, the assistive technology and version you were using, and the screen or page involved.

We aim to acknowledge within five working days and to tell you what we intend to do about it, including a timescale where we can give one. If you are not satisfied with our response, you may be able to raise it with the relevant authority in your country.

6. How this was assessed

This statement reflects a self-assessment of the website and a partial review of the app, carried out on the date shown at the top of this page. It has not been independently audited, and there has been no formal user testing with assistive-technology users.

We will update this page as the app work lands, rather than leaving it to describe intentions.