ream.

No form, and the reason is architectural

One address. A person at the other end.

There is no contact form on this page because a form needs somewhere to post to, and this site has no server. Adding one would mean adding an endpoint, a spam filter and a database of messages — a small privacy liability purchased for a slightly nicer rectangle. An email link does the same job and leaves no trace behind.

hello@ream.tools

Plain text is best. Attachments are not needed and are better avoided — describing a document is enough to diagnose almost every case, and sending the real one puts a copy in an inbox that did not need to exist.

What to expect

  • A reply from a person, usually within a few days.
  • No ticket number, no autoresponder, no satisfaction survey.
  • Bug reports and security reports are answered first.
  • If something cannot be fixed, you will be told that rather than left waiting.

No SLA · no phone · no postal address

Security reports

Put “security” in the subject line. Please do not open a public issue with a working exploit; write first. Reports are credited in the changelog unless you ask otherwise.

the threat model

Worth writing in about

Six good reasons to email

Every one of these has produced a real change to the site. None of them requires you to send a document.

  • A tool produced a wrong result

    The most valuable report there is. Include the tool, the file type, roughly what the document contains, the browser and version, and what you expected versus what came out. Do not send the document itself — describe it.

  • A factual claim on the site is wrong

    Corrections are treated as fixes rather than arguments. Send the page, the sentence, and a source. This includes claims about competitors, which are held to the same standard as claims about this site.

  • A security problem

    Anything that makes this site send a document anywhere is the most serious bug possible here. Write first rather than publishing a working proof of concept, and allow a reasonable window for a fix.

  • An accessibility barrier

    If a control cannot be reached by keyboard, a label is missing, contrast fails, or a table makes no sense to a screen reader, that is a defect and it gets prioritised. Say which page and which assistive technology.

  • A licence or attribution question

    The tools are free for any use, including commercial work, and there is nothing to buy. If you need that in writing for a procurement form, ask and you will get a short written answer.

  • A tool that should exist

    Suggestions are welcome and are weighed against one question: can it be done honestly in a browser tab? Ideas that need a server are declined with a reason rather than quietly ignored.

A good bug report

Five things that make it fixable

A report that says “merge PDF is broken” cannot be acted on. The version that can be fixed in an afternoon contains these five fields, and none of them is the file.

The tool
The page path, for example /redact-pdf.
The browser
Name and version, plus the OS. Safari and Chrome fail differently.
The file
Type, rough size and page count. Never the file itself.
The behaviour
What you did, what happened, and what you expected instead.
The message
Any error text, copied rather than screenshotted where you can.

The other list

What cannot be helped with

  • Recover a password. There is no key escrow, so a lost password is a lost document — by design.
  • Process a file for you. There is no inbox attached to a processing queue, and nobody here can open your document even if you send it.
  • Close an account or cancel a subscription. Neither exists, so there is nothing to cancel and no data to delete.
  • Offer legal, tax or medical advice about a document.
  • Provide a support SLA or a guaranteed response time. This is a small project and saying otherwise would be a lie.
  • Look up what you did on the site. There are no logs of your activity to look up, because none are created.

If you write in about a lost password, the reply will say there is no recovery — and that the architecture which makes the privacy claim true is the same architecture that makes recovery impossible. That is a trade, not an oversight.

Accessibility

Held to the same standard as the privacy claim

The site is built with semantic landmarks, a visible focus ring on every interactive element, keyboard-operable panels, labelled form controls and a motion-reduction media query that disables animation. Comparison tables use real table markup with header cells and captions rather than divs.

It has not been through a formal WCAG audit, and no conformance level is claimed. That gap is stated because a badge nobody verified is worth less than an honest sentence. If something does not work with your setup, that is a defect worth reporting.

In place

Focus rings, landmarks, labelled inputs, reduced-motion support, captions on data tables.

Not claimed

No WCAG audit, no conformance statement, no assistive-technology test matrix.

Or skip the email

Most questions are answered by using a tool.

The four-second network-panel test settles the privacy question faster than a reply could. If it does not, that is exactly the email worth writing.

Try a toolWrite instead