UWS Shop Accessibility Statement

Structure

On many webpages: heading levels have been omitted are not marked up logically; footer headings have been incorrectly classified as children of the page content and in some cases part of a list when they are not visually part of the lists. Many web pages use tables for presentation but they haven’t been marked as presentational and table headers are not marked up as such. Many web pages use text visually styled as headings, which are not marked up as such. This fails success criteria 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships), 1.3.2 (Meaningful Sequence), 2.4.2 (Page Titled), 2.4.6 (Headings and Labels), and 2.4.10 (Section Headings).

Keyboard accessibility

There are many focus indicator issues on this website which include:

• 'out of stock' button is in focus order when it is visually disabled
• 'Add to basket/Out of stock' button has no visible focus indication
• 'All departments' button has no focus indication
• 'Apply' button in the filter does not have any visible focus indication
• 'Add to basket' button does not have visible focus indication
• 'Rate your experience' buttons are not in focus order

These fail success criteria 2.4.3 (Focus Order), 2.4.7 (Focus Visible), and 2.4.11 (Focus Visible (Enhanced)).

Submenus within the website cannot be accessed on a keyboard basis. This fails success criteria 2.1.1 (Keyboard).

Skip links

No skip link is included on the platform pages. Offering a skip link to move keyboard users straight to the content would be beneficial. This fails success criteria 2.4.1 (Bypass Blocks).

Drop down menus

Drop down menus should always have a description that is explicitly associated with the field to make sure that users of assistive technologies will also know what the field is for. This fails success criteria 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships), 3.3.2 (Labels or Instructions) and 4.1.2 (Name, Role, Value) Select box has no description.

Inline Hyperlinks & Broken Links

We have instances of broken links on every page in the website; a local link (anchor link) occurs but the destination does not exist. This fails success criteria 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships) Local link destination does not exist.

Pages currently include hyperlinks which are identified by colour only; these can be difficult to see for people with colour vision difficulties. This fails success criteria 1.4.1 (Use of Colour). Whilst we’re working on with our partner to rectify issues, you might find a tool like A+ FontSize Changer Lite helpful – it can automatically underline all hyperlinks on a page.

Across many pages on the website, adjacent hyperlinks, one with a link text, the other with an iconic representation of that link, point to the same destination. This fails success criteria 1.1.1 (Non-text Content) Adjacent links used for same destination.

Many pages of the website use the same link text for links going to different destinations. Users might not know the difference if they are not somehow explained. This fails success criteria 2.4.4 (Link Purpose (In Context)) Link text used for multiple different destinations.

A few pages on the website use link text that is too generic and does not identify the link purpose. The link does not seem to have any programmatically determined link context that can aid in identifying the purpose either. This fails success criteria 2.4.4 (Link Purpose (In Context)) Link text is too generic in its current context.

HTML

HTML has been used on all pages of the website to format presentational attributes instead of CSS. This fails success criteria 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships) HTML is used to format content.

Labels and instructions

Some input fields across the website are not programmatically associated with their respective labels. These fail success criteria 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships), 1.3.5 (Identify Input Purpose), 4.1.2 (Name, Role, Value). Input fields should always have a description that is explicitly associated with the field to make sure that users of assistive technologies will understand the purpose of the field.

Form errors

Forms across the website do not contain distinct or clear submit buttons. This fails success criteria 3.2.2 (On Input) Missing button in form.

The forms used across the website have no visible label indicating the purpose of the input field. This fails success criteria 3.3.2 (Labels or Instructions) Field label not visible.
Forms across the website have drop down boxes (select) present without a submit button. This fails success criteria 3.2.2 (On Input) Provide a button for ‘select box’.

On many pages of the website the form input fields do not have a description that is explicitly associated with the field to make sure that users of assistive technologies will also know what the field is for. This fails success criteria 1.3.1 (Info & Relationships), 3.2.2 (Labels or Instructions) and 4.1.2 (Name, Role, Value) Input field has no description.

The form elements on many pages of the website have a label but text has not been added to that label (i.e. the label is empty). This fails success criteria 2.4.6 (Headings and Labels).

On many pages on the website, the form element has a label but text has not been added (label is empty). This fails success criteria 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships) and 4.1.2 (Name, Role, Value) Form control label is missing text.

Alternative text

The university logo image does not have appropriate alternative text. Unavailable products in the website catalogue do not have alternative text descriptions. Alternative products in the catalogue have unnecessary alternative text descriptions. There are no alternative text descriptions for the verification codes generated. This fails success criteria 1.1.1 (Non-text Content).

Layout and appearance

Reflowing at 400% causes some dropdown items not to be fully visible. Text spacing also causes text overflow. This fails success criteria 1.4.10 (Reflow).

Colour

Colour contrast is not sufficient for the social media links as well as borders around catalogue quantity and ‘All Departments’ call-to-action button and inactivated experience buttons. This fails success criteria 1.4.3: Contrast (Minimum).

Language

The website does not have the language set on each page. This fails success criteria 3.1.1 (Language of Page) Language of page has not been set. For all pages on the website, the language of the page should be interpreted as British English (en-GB).

Page elements

On the My Account page of the website, the ID used for an element on the page is also used for another element on the same page. This fails success criteria 1.3.1 (Info & Relationships) and 4.1.1 (Parsing) Element ID is not unique.

Although we have no control over the structure of the website, we are in discussions with the 3rd party supplier of this platform concerning their plan to address digital accessibility compliance issues that the platform contains. Once we have established a position in relation to this platform, we will update this statement.

A custom solution for the University is not a viable option and we are claiming that it would be a disproportionate burden at this time.

None.

The website is also assessed using a sector-leading, automated website governance platform to identify website errors, warnings - Siteimprove.

Using the Siteimprove platform, an automated digital accessibility review of the website is undertaken every 5 days.

The manual digital accessibility assessment of the website was undertaken on the 27 August 2020. It was carried out by AbilityNet Ltd and consisted of 3 webpages using 10 different accessibility tests.