{"id":1197,"date":"2023-04-30T21:09:34","date_gmt":"2023-04-30T20:09:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cerovac.com\/a11y\/?p=1197"},"modified":"2023-05-08T23:41:05","modified_gmt":"2023-05-08T22:41:05","slug":"accessibility-of-municipal-websites-in-norway-after-web-accessibility-directive-more-on-automatic-accessibility-tests","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cerovac.com\/a11y\/2023\/04\/accessibility-of-municipal-websites-in-norway-after-web-accessibility-directive-more-on-automatic-accessibility-tests\/","title":{"rendered":"Accessibility of municipal websites in Norway after Web Accessibility Directive \u2013 more on automatic accessibility tests"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This is a part 4 in a series of posts dedicated to accessibility of municipal websites in Norway after Web Accessibility Directive and provides additional facts about results of automatic accessibility testing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In previous post “Accessibility of municipal websites in Norway after Web Accessibility Directive \u2013 automatic accessibility tests<\/a>” I used automatic accessibility tools to check the accessibility status of homepages alone. In this post I present the results of at 17837 pages belonging to 356 Norwegian municipalities that I analyzed. Checking homepages is a quick test but if we want to get a better representation we need more data and we can get more data only when we check more pages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From 0.02 to 7.42 automatically detectable WCAG failures per 50 sites<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Two of the municipality websites only had a single automatically detected WCAG failure on 50 pages tested<\/strong>. This means that ratio was 0.02 failed WCAG success criterion per 50 pages<\/strong>. And both failed WCAG 4.1.1 Parsing (that will be removed from WCAG 2.2 anyway)<\/a>. That’s quite an achievement and my first thought was that they (and their developers and designers) really have some good procedures in place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Worst website of a municipality had 371 automatically detectable WCAG failures on 50 pages and with it a ratio of 7.42 errors per page<\/strong>. This was not a very old page as far as I could tell, and it seems that a lot of errors are duplicates due to re-usage of components, but it also reflects a poor awareness and especially poor quality assurance of designers, developers and content providers behind it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If we process all WCAG failures and divide them with all tested URLs we can establish that average municipality URL has 1.63 WCAG failures that can be detected with automatic accessibility testing tools<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Average municipality URL has 1.63 WCAG failures (that can be detected with automatic accessibility testing tools).<\/p>\nWe found 29199 WCAG failures on 17837 URLs. This gives us an average of 1.63 WCAG failures per URL.<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Occurrence of WCAG failures based on automatic accessibility testing<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

No big surprises here when we consider limitations of automatic accessibility testing<\/a>. Code-based failures, poor links and contrast issues lead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WCAG Success Criterion<\/th>#<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
4.1.2 Name, Role, Value (A)<\/td>11562<\/td><\/tr>
2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context) (A)<\/td>4489<\/td><\/tr>
1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) (AA)<\/td>4299<\/td><\/tr>
1.3.1 Info and Relationships (A)<\/td>3761<\/td><\/tr>
4.1.1 Parsing (A)<\/td>2219<\/td><\/tr>
1.1.1 Non-text Content (A)<\/td>1253<\/td><\/tr>
3.1.1 Language of Page (A)<\/td>478<\/td><\/tr>
1.4.1 Use of Color (A)<\/td>458<\/td><\/tr>
1.4.4 Resize text (AA)<\/td>299<\/td><\/tr>
2.4.2 Page Titled (A)<\/td>293<\/td><\/tr>
3.1.2 Language of Parts (AA)<\/td>61<\/td><\/tr>
2.1.1 Keyboard (A)<\/td>26<\/td><\/tr>
2.2.1 Timing Adjustable (A)<\/td>1<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>
Table 1: Occurrence of WCAG Success Criterion based on automatic accessibility testing<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This data is actually very similar to the data of Table 1 in the previous post (“Accessibility of municipal websites in Norway after Web Accessibility Directive \u2013 automatic accessibility tests<\/a>“) where we only analyzed the homepages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was the first time for me to see the 2.2.1 Timing Adjustable failure detected in a long time. It was due to <meta http-equiv=\"refresh\" content=\"300\"><\/code>, a command that automatically refreshes the page in 300 seconds and not only a problem for accessibility but for all users.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most of these WCAG failures could be prevented with proper processes in place, and with cooperation of designers, developers and content providers, as usual.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Occurrence of all automatically detectable WCAG failures<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

I decided to publish the whole report but protect municipalities identity and only used a random indicator based on table row index instead of the real URL.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My intention is not to expose distinct municipalities but to measure overall state and ideally check the progress after some period of time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Table2: occurence of WCAG Success Criterions based on automatic testing of multiple pages under single municipality<\/caption>
Site<\/th># of urls checked<\/th>SCs:<\/th># SCs:<\/th># SCs per URL:<\/th><\/thead>