Web Accessibility Directive (WAD) started to add accessibility requirements throughout European Union, especially public sector (some countries chose also parts of private sector, but that is unfortunately only exception and not a rule).
First part of WAD’s aim to improve accessibility for whole European Union came on 23th of September 2020, and now this week – 23th of June 2021 – came also the last part that targets (native) mobile applications. Again only for public sector (with some exceptions as mentioned).
Accessibility requirements for web and mobile are not same
WCAG 2.1 was an upgrade to WCAG 2.0 that is especially tailored to modern mobile devices and I thought all of it’s success criteria on level A and AA would also be required for native mobile apps.
‘This may come to a surprise but yes – I thought that WCAG 2.1 will be required on same success criteria level as for web. But it is not. That may came a bit odd for you, especially when we know that WCAG tries to be device and platform agnostic – so, as universal as possible.
But yes – there are differences and native mobile applications don’t have to conform to same number of success criteria as webpages and web applications.
WCAG 2.1 success criteria that are not required for mobile applications
The WAD is based on harmonized European standard called EN 301 549 (V2.1.2) and mobile application part can be found in Annex A of the standard (opens in new window). Following seven WCAG success criteria are not applicable for testing conformance of mobile (native) applications:
- 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks Level A
- 2.4.2 Page Titled Level A
- 2.4.5 Multiple Ways Level AA
- 3.1.2 Language of Parts Level AA
- 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation Level AA
- 3.2.4 Consistent Identification Level AA
- 4.1.3 Status Messages Level AA
As far as I understand are those success criteria primarily excluded because they are technically not applicable to native mobile platforms and oriented to markup technology, so basically only for the web.
I am not a specialist for the native applications, but I do have some experience with Android, React Native and Flutter and I think that at least 4.1.3 could be technically implemented. I will still have to find out why exactly it’s not included as a requirement as it really gives end-users great value, but technically it is not required for conformance and we have to live with it, at least until this will be upgraded some time in the future.
From theory to practice – what are the most obvious benefits
Let’s peek into the practical benefits – for the end user. I will not go through all relevant tests for all relevant success criteria, but let’s just mention some:
- a lot of users like to enlarge the default text sizes of their mobile devices – it is quite easy to test if native application does not support this and it really makes the difference for end-users, especially for elderly and groups that have problems with sight,
- orientation – if you do not prefer to have it locked – just change the position of your device and if application stays in the original orientation (most common in “portrait” mode), then this app fails in regards to conformity,
- colors and contrasts need special tools to be checked but sometimes lack of contrast is obvious and color alone should also not be the only means of information, that one can also be very obvious,
- target sizes may also be tested easily, if you have to struggle to tap on an element, then it is most probably target size that is not optimal.
Each application also need an accessibility statement and possibility to contact provider in case of problems. There can be differences between Android and iOS variations of application, so please be careful to cover both platforms.
Impact of accessibility on the population in Corona/Covid pandemics
Accessibility of mobile applications is crucial when we just think that mobile devices are so common and also very important for our daily tasks – from public services to e-banking and so on.
But in these pandemic / epidemic times it can really also mean the difference between being safe or not. Somebody can maybe argue that WAD knew about possible pandemics already in 2016 when timelines were discussed.
I am not trying to dramatize this, just try to think of your government’s Covid / Corona app and if it is not made accessible – it means that up to 20% of the population can miss out information about being in vicinity of infected persons.
I know that this number is an absolute maximum, as not everybody have the application in the first place, but don’t forget that some countries made it a legal requirement to have such an application. There we can for sure understand that that app need really to be accessible.
And I must also add the Digital Covid Certificates. It is now a fact that we will need them and it is also a fact that they need to be accessible – otherwise people will be left out and potentially even denied travel and access to some services. I really hope that WAD’s requirements will be respected, especially for so critical applications that have potentially health and freedom implications for a lot of people.
