Letters, briefs and reports can be shown with their own typography. Automatic keeps that only while none of your settings above ask otherwise.
To help institutions make defensible decisions about the technologies that mediate communication access for Deaf, DeafBlind, hard of hearing, and disabled people. We evaluate the systems institutions buy, build the public record those decisions need, and ship the technology the market fails to build.
A world where the AI adopted by public-serving institutions is accountable, evidence-based, and accessible by design, so that Deaf, DeafBlind, and disabled communities are never an afterthought.
We advise buyers, not vendors. We do not publish evaluative findings about any organization that has paid us within the preceding twenty-four months, vendor engagements are private and unrated, and all published work discloses its funding. This costs revenue, and it is the reason our findings are worth relying on.
Deaf judgment governs our evaluation criteria themselves. Leadership is the structure of the work, not an endorsement added after the analysis.
Claims are graded on what was actually measured and shown. Where evidence is absent, we say the evidence is absent, which is a finding, not a failure.
We speak in solicitations, evaluation criteria, contract terms, and acceptance testing, because that is the language in which decisions actually get made.
Published, versioned instruments separate an evaluation from an opinion. Our conclusions are visibly the product of a consistent process.
We hold our own website, documents, and events to the standards we advise on. A firm that advises on accessibility and ships an inaccessible deliverable has ended the conversation.