The site carries four near-duplicate indigos – #1e196a (the workhorse: body, buttons, most headings), #2e3192 (brighter brand blue), plus #2a286c and #1a1a80. My thinking is stick with the main indigo for text and headings.
Paragraph text is OK in blue but the accent orange (#f7914e) fails accessibility standards (WCAG AA at 2.3:1) – both as a link/text colour on white and as a button with white text. So the current orange links and any white-on-orange CTAs are technically inaccessible.
So I am thinking we might just ditch the orange and replace with a gold. The logo gold (#AB9536) doesn’t pass accessibility tests on a white background.
But we can use a draker tint: This (#807028) is a text safe gold we can use for links and I have included examples using as a heading. The only issue moving away from the orange is there is a lot of imagery that uses it.
So either these need replacing or we accept it as is (or stick with orange and forget the gold).
Prue, let me know your thoughts – examples below
Note also, I rebuilt your logo and mark in SVG. But it isn’t exactly the same; the wordmark is fully outlined from Playfair Display – the closest match to the original serif.
Everything is true vector geometry. The mark is one path with the dot knocked out.
Prue: Let me know if these are ok to use:
#1E196A#2E3192#AB9536#807028#F7914E#666666Body in indigo or grey. Links use the text-safe gold. Buttons are deep indigo.
Book a chatWhite body text, with orange or gold highlights. The home for the warm colours.
Register nowBrighter — great for a hero. Keep text white here (indigo would disappear).
Learn moreGold as a small band or highlight with indigo text — not for long paragraphs.
Get the checklist