Technical Accessibility Roadmap for Aberystwyth University’s Online Shop
Improvements Required
Many of the improvements identified are outside the capability of the University to resolve, as it procures the system from a third-party provider. The University will work with the third-party provider (WPM) to seek to identify solutions for the following:
Colour
On all pages there is not sufficient colour contrast on parts of the text. This can mean that people with certain visual impairments will not be able to read this content. This doesn't meet WCAG 2.1 success criterion 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum). We will explore ways of making text more distinguishable from the background, by ensuring sufficient colour contrast.
Components
Interactive components are too close to other interactive areas on some pages. This means that they may not be far enough apart from other interactive areas, to avoid them being used by mistake. This doesn’t meet WCAG 2.2 success criterion 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum). We will discuss options for moving the interactive components with our third-party provider.
Forms
On the search form, a placeholder is used rather than a label. This can mean that it's not clear to people filling out the form what data they should enter into the field. This doesn’t meet WCAG 2.1 success criterion 1.3.1 Info and Relationships.
Some form fields do not have visible labels or identify what their purposes are programmatically. This can mean that it's more difficult for people using assistive technology to understand what data should be entered. This doesn't meet WCAG 2.1 success criterion 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose. We are working with our third-party provider on ways we can make improvements to all of our forms to ensure that all relevant fields identify their programmatic purpose.
Form controls do not appear sufficiently distinct from their surroundings, so that people with visual impairments are still able to clearly see them. This doesn’t meet WCAG 2.1 success criterion 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast. We will explore ways of making form controls more distinguishable from their surroundings, either by ensuring sufficient colour contrast, or introducing distinguishing styling.
Some buttons do not work when using assistive technology. This means that people using assistive technology may not be able to complete the form with the information required. This doesn’t meet WCAG 2.1 success criterion 2.1.1 Keyboard. We will work our way through the pages to fix any broken buttons.
Headings
Some pages skip a heading level or include multiple heading 1 elements. This is confusing when the pages are accessed using assistive technology. This doesn’t meet WCAG 2.1 success criterion 1.3.1 Info and Relationships. We will update pages with appropriate and visible headings.
Some pages use headings to highlight text that isn't really a heading. This is confusing when the pages are viewed using assistive technology. This doesn’t meet WCAG 2.1 success criterion 1.3.1 Info and Relationships.
Keyboard
Some pages have areas that cannot be accessed via keyboard. This includes sub-menus in the navigation. This means that the information contained in the sub-menus is not available to people navigating via keyboard. This doesn’t meet WCAG 2.1 success criterion 2.1.1 Keyboard. We will discuss the viability of introducing keyboard navigation for all elements with our third-party provider.
Landmarks
There are no landmarks identified within the pages. This means that people using assistive technology may have difficulty orienting themselves and navigating the pages. This doesn’t meet WCAG 2.1 success criterion 1.3.1 Info and Relationships. We will review the site design to seek to ensure that the primary content is included in a main landmark.
Language
Both English and Welsh text are available on the same pages. This can be confusing for people using screen readers as all the text will be read out based on the same language rules and pronunciation. This doesn't meet WCAG 2.1 success criterion 3.1.1 Language of Page.
Information on the language of the page is not defined. This can mean that assistive technology is unable to present the text correctly. This doesn't meet WCAG 2.1 success criterion 3.1.1 Language of Page. We will work with our third-party provider on options to define the language of each page.
Links
Some pages have multiple links using the same text. This is confusing when the pages are accessed using assistive technology. This doesn’t meet WCAG 2.1 success criterion 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context).
The majority of pages do not include links which allow users to skip to the main content of the page. This can make it difficult for people using assistive technology to navigate the page and find the main content. This doesn’t meet WCAG 2.1 success criterion 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks. We will consider with our third-party provider ways of introducing links which allow users to skip to the main content of the page where appropriate.
Tables
Tables are being used for layout throughout the site. This means that it is confusing and frustrating for people using assistive technology. This doesn’t meet WCAG 2.1 success criterion 1.3.1 Info and Relationships.
Some table column headings are empty and do not contain a valid scope attribute. This is confusing when the pages are viewed using assistive technology as users won’t know what the header refers to. This doesn’t meet WCAG 2.0 success criterion 1.3.1 Info and Relationships. We are working on making improvements to all of our tables, to ensure that all column headings have been aligned with the correct scope attributes.
Text
When browser zoom is increased beyond 200%, text doesn't reflow. This means that people who need to enlarge text will have to scroll left to right to read it. This doesn't meet WCAG 2.1 success criterion 1.4.10 Reflow. We will review the site design with our third-party provider to seek to ensure that text is not hidden or partially hidden when increasing font size.
Recent Accessibility Improvements Made
Images
Some images didn’t have a useful text alternative. This meant that the information in the images wasn’t available (or is confusing) to people using assistive technology. This didn’t meet WCAG 2.1 success criterion 1.1.1 Non-Text Content. Images on the site now include alternative text.