2022, the year of awareness

Monday, February 20, 2023

The subject of digital accessibility is becoming more widespread and is beginning to be taken seriously, particularly in the light of the second audit campaign carried out last year on a sample of public sites. This shows a positive trend, even if the study period is not yet long enough to validate this trend.

Seventeen public websites were audited in detail. The average score did not reach 50% compliance, the threshold for partial compliance in terms of digital accessibility. In the sample, nine sites currently exceed this mark. Nevertheless, at 48%, 2022 is four points higher than 2021 (44%). Between growing awareness and the deadlines imposed for redesigning a website, 2023 should show that good practice in this area has been integrated and that accessibility has become a key point in specifications.

However, this 2022 average masks major disparities. Forty points separate the most accessible site from the least accessible. Essential sites in the fields of mobility or education are not accessible to people with disabilities.

Description of graph 1

This bar chart shows 17 public sites targeted for full audits in 2022 in descending order of compliance with the RGAA criteria, from covid19.public.lu (66%) to Letzshop.lu (26%).

Below 50%, a site is not considered accessible. That's 8 out of 17 sites audited.

What could cause the score to drop? An audit consists of 106 criteria divided into thirteen themes, according to the RGAA 4.1 framework. Here, the most problematic areas are not the most visible: multimedia elements, such as videos, do not even account for 2% of non-compliances.

Design faults at the very heart of the machine

The problem lies first and foremost with the very basis of the site: "mandatory elements", presentation of information, structure and navigation. In other words, the majority of the non-compliances identified.

Description of graph 2

This bar chart shows the RGAA themes sorted from those with the most non-compliances to those with the fewest, among 17 public sites targeted for full audits in 2022.

Mandatory elements, presentation of information and structure: the very basis of the sites poses a problem

What are we talking about? Mandatory elements check the validity of the code, the presence and relevance of the document's language, its title, and the misuse of HTML tags for presentation purposes. Taken all together, these are obstacles to the clear reproduction of the page by screen readers, used in particular by blind people.

Similarly, a lack of attention to the presentation of information can lead to text that is enlarged but illegible due to a lack of flexible layout; to buttons or form input fields that lack clear visual cues when they are the target of input; to links whose nature is not obvious (lack of underlining, too little contrast with the surrounding text).

These two issues alone account for a third of the problems identified.

Closely related to these issues is the structuring of information, which looks at the relevance of headings, the coherence of the document structure and the correct use of lists. This trio - mandatory elements, presentation of information, structuring of information - which consequently comprises the key elements of a site's architecture, accounts for half (47%) of the non-compliances encountered.

If we add navigation - the relevant and recurring presence of a menu, a site map and a search engine - the bulk of the non-compliances can be summed up here.

This is followed by elements generally integrated into the body of the page: accessibility of forms, colour issues (insufficient contrast, information conveyed solely by colours inaccessible to colour-blind people, images conveying information, such as green ticks or red crosses, with no text alternative, and therefore indecipherable by screen readers), scripts - with a few lines of code, it's easy to (re)create menus, carousels or even tick boxes, but there's a big risk of forgetting users with disabilities by deviating from the canonical HTML tags - and, finally, links: by way of example, it is impossible for a screen reader to interpret a link consisting of an image without a text alternative.

To complete the picture, four themes are presented under the 5%, starting with consultation issues - here we note the control over animations, time limits, accessibility of office documents -, tables - often complex to understand for blind and partially-sighted people, even if they are accessible -, and finally multimedia elements - subtitling of videos, presence of audio description... - Frames round off the list.

In the top 5, problems that can be easily resolved

Let's take these 106 criteria, separate them from their respective themes and look at those mentioned most frequently, in descending order:

1. HTML tags used for presentation purposes only
2. Scripts incompatible with assistive technologies
3. Information is not structured by the appropriate use of headings
4. Insufficient contrast between text colour and background colour
5. Lists are not properly structured

Sometimes it's rewriting interactive elements, sometimes it's fine-tuning a style sheet: depending on the issues encountered, the time required to correct them can vary. Making sure that scripts are compliant is not always a trivial task for developers. Other points, which concern content producers or designers, may be simpler to resolve. This involves correctly titling the different parts of the HTML page to help people with disabilities navigate easily, using tags dedicated to structuring lists and ensuring that the contrast in the text is sufficiently marked.

Additional audits put navigation at the top of the list of problems

In order to open up a wider range of options, the Accessibility unit of the SIP (Information and Press Service) has itself tested 87 public sites, using a simplified method: three pages and 53 criteria, i.e. a limited selection of pages and criteria for each site. The methodology is therefore simplified, with the aim of raising awareness among a greater number of players by getting them to report existing problems on their sites, without aiming to be exhaustive.

Fewer criteria, fewer pages, a different sample of sites: this selection somewhat reshuffles the deck, by bringing navigation issues to the fore, but the quartet of mandatory elements, presentation and structuring of information, and navigation obtains similar scores, accounting for almost half of the problems encountered (48%), with the last theme predominating.

Forms and colours were also very common.

Description of graph 3

This bar chart shows the RGAA themes sorted according to the number of non-compliances, among 87 public sites targeted for simplified audits in 2022.

Here, the average of the 87 sites reaches partial compliance (54%). Using this simplified audit method, one site achieves a score of 100%(infocrise.public.lu) and the majority (46) reach or exceed the 50% mark.

The interest of a wider range of sites also makes it possible to identify at which administrative level there is significant room for improvement. For example, at local level (e.g. communes, syndicates or communal funds), the compliance levels achieved are still twenty points lower than at sites under State control. The State benefits from having a centralised service that enables better coordination of joint projects, including digital accessibility, an area in which the 'Web & UX' team at the Government IT Centre (CTIE) is aware of and trained, and for which quality assurance processes have been established.

Description of chart 4

This column chart shows the average levels of compliance with the RGAA criteria depending on whether the site belongs to the State domain (67%), the local level (communes, local authority associations, etc.: 47%) or another level (banking domain, transport sector, etc.: 46%), among 87 public sites targeted for simplified audits in 2022.

Centralised tools and a common methodology may explain the relatively high score achieved by government sites

And on smartphones?

In 2022, six apps benefited from a full audit - three times as many as in 2021. The small number of apps tested makes year-on-year comparisons tricky. The audit for mobile applications is based on the RAAM 1 framework (106 criteria divided into fifteen themes). An average of nine screens per app were tested.

Six apps, three for iOS, three for Android. At the finish line, the differences are less striking: less than twenty points separate the bottom of the pack from the top. The average score for the six apps is 49%, five points higher than in 2021 - but then again, the comparison may not be relevant, as only two apps were tested in the first campaign in 2020-2021.

Description of chart 5

This bar chart shows 6 public apps targeted for full audits in 2022 in descending order of compliance with RAAM criteria, from the MainOffall app on Android (59%) to the Luxtrust app, also on Android (40%).

One app in three partially compliant: we need to step up the pace towards greater accessibility

Nine out of the fifteen topics covered by the RAAM account for all the non-compliances identified. The following points are therefore not covered here:

• Multimedia
• Tables
• Documentation and accessibility features
• Editing tools
• Help desk services
• Real-time communication

Description of graph 6

This bar chart shows, for each year (2021, 2022), the RAAM themes sorted according to the number of non-compliances, among 6 public apps targeted by simplified audits.

One non-compliance in five relates to components that users with disabilities cannot reach

Under "interactive components" lie tests designed to check that buttons, links, input zones, menus, dialogue windows, tabs, etc. are compatible with assistive technologies and can be controlled, in particular, by a keyboard. The auditors also check whether the user is notified in advance of any major changes to the screen. This heading accounts for almost one out of every five non-compliances found.

This is followed by "Consultation", "Forms", "Colours " and "Information structure". The first five accounted for more than two-thirds of the non-compliances identified (71%). The last four areas each accounted for between five and ten per cent of the problems identified.

The trend observed since 2020-2021 leads us to conclude that these audits demonstrate a desire to do better, a desire that is generally clearly expressed at audit feedback meetings, and which could pave the way for a year 2023 with significantly higher scores. As the 2025 deadline approaches for certain private sector websites and apps, which will be subject to penalties if accessibility requirements are not met, the public sector must, more than ever, lead the way.