Accessibility.

Accessibility status: we aim to meet WCAG 2.2 Level AA. We have not yet completed an independent conformance audit, so this statement describes our current design targets and known limitations rather than certifying conformance.

Loam is coursework infrastructure: if a student can't use it, it has failed at its job. We design and build the Loam writing environment and this website with WCAG 2.2 Level AA as the target, and we treat accessibility gaps as defects, not feature requests.

• Full keyboard operability. The editor toolbar, dialogs, and the teacher replay controls all work without a mouse, with visible focus indicators on controls and dialogs.
• Readable contrast. Body text meets at least a 4.5:1 contrast ratio, in both the light and dark themes.
• Reduced motion. Animations, including the recording indicator and notifications, have prefers-reduced-motion alternatives.
• All languages of input. IME composition (for Chinese, Japanese, Korean and other non-Latin input) works in the sealed editor; the integrity guardrails must never break legitimate typing.
• Assistive technology. We use semantic HTML and test with keyboard-only navigation and screen readers.
• No time pressure from us. Loam itself imposes no time limits on writing; any deadline is the school's, set by the teacher.

Integrity guardrails apply to how text enters the document, and they can interact with some assistive workflows (for example, dictation software). Schools can direct alternative arrangements for individual students under their own accessibility and assessment policies. Talk to us and we'll support the arrangement rather than fight it.

We publish known accessibility issues and their status here as we find them. Currently:

• The writing surface itself suppresses the browser's default focus ring while you type. The text caret shows where you are. All controls around it keep visible focus indicators.

If something on this page says it works and it doesn't for you, that's a bug. Please tell us.