Difference between revisions of "Hornbill WCAG 2.1 Status"
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<h1>Accessibility Evaluation Report for WCAG 2.1</h1> | <h1>Accessibility Evaluation Report for WCAG 2.1</h1> | ||
− | |||
− | |||
<h2>1. Executive Summary</h2> | <h2>1. Executive Summary</h2> | ||
<p>This report describes the conformance of the Hornbill Collaboration Core and its applications with W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 and 2.1. The Success Criteria (checklist) is described in Section 5 below and is based on the Success Criteria checklist provided by W3C ( https://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/appendixB.html )</p> | <p>This report describes the conformance of the Hornbill Collaboration Core and its applications with W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 and 2.1. The Success Criteria (checklist) is described in Section 5 below and is based on the Success Criteria checklist provided by W3C ( https://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/appendixB.html )</p> | ||
− | |||
− | |||
<h2>2. Last Reviewed</h2> | <h2>2. Last Reviewed</h2> | ||
Line 16: | Line 12: | ||
<li>English</li> | <li>English</li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
− | |||
− | |||
<h2>3. Reviewer</h2> | <h2>3. Reviewer</h2> | ||
Line 25: | Line 19: | ||
<li>Hornbill Technologies Limited</li> | <li>Hornbill Technologies Limited</li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
− | |||
− | |||
<h2>4. Review Process</h2> | <h2>4. Review Process</h2> | ||
Line 37: | Line 29: | ||
<li>Made a manual review to our source code and our run-time environment</li> | <li>Made a manual review to our source code and our run-time environment</li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
− | |||
− | |||
<h2>5. Commitment to Accessibility Improvements</h2> | <h2>5. Commitment to Accessibility Improvements</h2> | ||
Line 46: | Line 36: | ||
We recognize that we do not understand how these unaddressed issues might be applied in a practical sense, and so want to tackle the remaining issues as and when there are practical examples we can work with. We remain both committed and open-minded about these items and will address them, but are hoping to work with customers on individual requirements and individual user needs as required. | We recognize that we do not understand how these unaddressed issues might be applied in a practical sense, and so want to tackle the remaining issues as and when there are practical examples we can work with. We remain both committed and open-minded about these items and will address them, but are hoping to work with customers on individual requirements and individual user needs as required. | ||
− | |||
− | |||
<h2>6. Summary and Recommended Actions</h2> | <h2>6. Summary and Recommended Actions</h2> |
Revision as of 06:12, 15 November 2022
Accessibility Evaluation Report for WCAG 2.1
1. Executive Summary
This report describes the conformance of the Hornbill Collaboration Core and its applications with W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 and 2.1. The Success Criteria (checklist) is described in Section 5 below and is based on the Success Criteria checklist provided by W3C ( https://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/appendixB.html )
2. Last Reviewed
- http://live.hornbill.com/INSTANCE_NAME/
- July 5, 2022
- English
3. Reviewer
- Daniel Dekel - Principal Web Developer
- Hornbill Technologies Limited
4. Review Process
- WCAG 2.1 Level 1 (A), Level 2 (AA) and Level 3 (AAA)
- Used HTMLHint (http://htmlhint.com/) to validate the HTML Content of all our source code
- Used W3C Checklist and Overview (https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/) (Section 5)
- https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/new-in-21/
- Made a manual review to our source code and our run-time environment
5. Commitment to Accessibility Improvements
We have not fully met every point in the requirements so far. Some of the unaddressed points are subjective, and we don't fully understand the application of them in all cases, leaving it difficult for us to make meaningful changes that will serve people with impaired sight issues without degrading the product for them or for anyone else.
To that end, we have taken the view that rather than trying to meet every point just for the sake of ticking the boxes, the more subjective/ambiguous points have not been addressed because we do not have enough of an understanding about how we might address the issues without degrading the function of Hornbill's products.
We recognize that we do not understand how these unaddressed issues might be applied in a practical sense, and so want to tackle the remaining issues as and when there are practical examples we can work with. We remain both committed and open-minded about these items and will address them, but are hoping to work with customers on individual requirements and individual user needs as required.
6. Summary and Recommended Actions
Overall:
There are 78 checks in total. 56 are fully met. 9 are partially met, 7 are not and 6 are not applicable.
Results for Level 1 (A):
There are 30 checks in total for Level 1
29 are fully met. 1 is partially met.
Results for Level 2 (AA):
There are 20 checks in total for Level 2
18 are fully met. 2 are not applicable.
Results for Level 3 (AAA):
There are 28 checks in total for Level 3
9 are fully met. 8 are partially met, 7 are not met and 4 are not applicable.
General
- Background Color – The Request List within Hornbill Service Manager provides distinctive background colors to support visualization of the status of requests. For some visually impaired people, this can be a problem, as assistive technologies cannot distinguish between colors.
- Buttons - Some buttons are represented by icons, which do not include an alternative text description.
- Images - Some images do not include accessible names.
- Element Names - Some elements generated using JavaScript do not include role names.
7. Summary Check List