Accessibility statement

Reviewed October 5, 2026. Parnon aims to make editorial content usable for a wide range of readers, including people using assistive technology, limited bandwidth, or an older device. This statement describes our current approach and how to report a barrier. Accessibility is treated as an ongoing editorial responsibility rather than a one-time project, which is why this page is reviewed on the same schedule as the rest of the site's core legal pages. For example, a reader using a screen reader to navigate the site should be able to understand the purpose of a link or image from its text alone, without relying on surrounding visual context that the technology cannot convey. Readers using a slower mobile connection in a region with limited bandwidth should still be able to load and read an article without the page becoming unusably slow. This statement applies to every page on the Parnon website, including articles, guides, and the legal pages themselves.

1. Standards we reference

We take guidance from the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines as a general reference point, aiming for clear structure, readable contrast, and sensible heading order. We do not claim formal certification. For example, headings on an article page are structured so that a screen reader user can jump between an introduction, a middle section, and a conclusion without needing to read every paragraph in between to find the relevant part. Text and background color combinations used across the site are chosen with readable contrast in mind, consistent with common guidance for body text and headings. Referencing these guidelines as a general direction means Parnon treats them as a practical checklist during development rather than asserting a formal, audited compliance level that has not been independently verified. Images across the site carry descriptive alternative text rather than generic labels such as "photo" or "image," so that a screen reader user receives a meaningful description of what the image depicts rather than an uninformative placeholder. Interactive elements such as the mobile navigation toggle and the cookie-consent buttons are built as standard, keyboard-operable controls rather than purely visual decorations, so a reader navigating by keyboard alone can still reach and activate them. Body text across the site is set at a size and line spacing intended to remain comfortably readable on a small mobile screen without requiring a reader to zoom in, and the layout is built to reflow sensibly at narrower screen widths rather than requiring horizontal scrolling to read a sentence.

• a. Heading structure: organized so a reader using assistive technology can navigate by section.
• b. Color contrast: chosen with readability in mind for both headings and body text.
• c. No formal third-party accessibility certification is claimed for the current site.

2. Known limitations

Some older content or embedded third-party elements may not fully match current guidance. We prioritize fixes based on reader reports and the severity of the barrier. For example, an older embedded element from an external provider may not offer the same keyboard navigation support as content built directly by Parnon, since that behavior depends on the third party's own implementation. A barrier that prevents a reader from accessing core article content is treated as a higher priority than a barrier affecting a secondary or decorative element. Known limitations identified during the October 5, 2026 review are tracked internally and addressed in the order of severity and reader impact, rather than in the order the underlying pages were originally published. Where a third-party embed cannot be made fully accessible, Parnon aims to provide the equivalent information in a text form elsewhere on the same page as an interim measure. A limitation affecting a widely read guide is generally prioritized above one affecting a lightly trafficked page. For example, a legacy image uploaded before the current editorial workflow was adopted may carry a shorter alternative-text description than current practice calls for, and such images are updated opportunistically as pages are revisited rather than all at once in a single pass. Similarly, a table included in an older article may not yet use the explicit header markup that current practice applies to new tables, which can make the table harder to interpret with some screen readers even though the information itself remains accurate. Parnon does not consider a known limitation resolved simply because a page has been superficially reviewed; a limitation is only closed once the specific barrier reported has actually been corrected on the live page.

• a. Third-party embeds depend on the accessibility support the external provider itself offers.
• b. Where full remediation is not immediately possible, an equivalent text description is provided where practical.
• c. Fixes are prioritized by how many readers a page reaches and how severe the barrier is.

3. Reporting a barrier

If a page is difficult to use with assistive technology, contact Jalan Sudirman No. 12, Jakarta Pusat, DKI Jakarta 10220, Indonesia or +62 813 6789 2541 with the page address and a description of the issue. For example, a report that specifies the exact article URL, the assistive technology or browser used, and a short description of what went wrong allows the editorial team to reproduce and address the barrier far more efficiently than a general comment that a page is hard to use. Parnon aims to acknowledge an accessibility report within 10 business days and to provide an update on next steps, even if a full fix cannot be completed immediately. A reader who needs the specific content of a page in an alternative format while a fix is pending is welcome to ask, and the editorial team will try to provide the relevant information directly. Reports can be sent by phone as well as in writing, which can be a more practical option for a reader using assistive technology that makes composing a detailed written message difficult. There is no required format for a report; a short phone call describing the page and the problem in plain terms is treated with the same priority as a detailed written message. Parnon does not require a reader to identify themselves beyond what is needed to respond, and a report can be submitted without creating an account or providing information beyond a preferred way to receive a reply.

• a. Include the specific page address where the barrier was encountered.
• b. Describe the assistive technology, browser, or device involved where possible.
• c. Expect acknowledgment within approximately 10 business days of the report.

4. Ongoing work

Accessibility is treated as an ongoing editorial responsibility rather than a one-time project. This statement is reviewed in 2026 alongside other core pages. For example, new articles published after the October 5, 2026 review are checked against the same heading structure, contrast, and link-text expectations described in Section 1 before they are published, rather than accessibility being treated as a separate retrofit applied later. Feedback received through the reporting process described in Section 3 directly informs which pages are prioritized for review in future editorial cycles. Parnon expects this statement to be updated again during the normal 2026 review cycle described for the site's other legal pages, or sooner if a significant change to the site's structure or technology makes an earlier update appropriate. A reader who notices that a previously reported barrier has not been addressed is welcome to reference their original report when following up, which helps the editorial team track progress on recurring issues. Parnon also reviews accessibility informally whenever the site's design or navigation changes meaningfully, such as when a new page template is introduced, rather than waiting strictly for the next scheduled annual review to catch an issue introduced by that change. Where a future design update introduces a genuinely new interactive pattern, such as a collapsible section or a filterable list, that pattern is checked for keyboard operability and screen reader compatibility before it is rolled out across the site rather than afterward. This ongoing approach is intended to reduce the number of accessibility issues that accumulate between the site's formal annual reviews.

• a. New articles are checked against current heading, contrast, and link-text practices before publication.
• b. Reader feedback directly shapes which existing pages are prioritized in future review cycles.
• c. A follow-up referencing an earlier report helps track whether a previously identified barrier has been resolved.