DIGITAL DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT LANDING PAGE AUDIT

After completing the page audit I have determined that while the page could be improved, it is in fact meeting accessibility standards.

Cognitive Load:

-The content has been grouped and chunked in a way that makes it very clear for the user to understand.  The first thing you see is a clear explanation as to what is being offered, followed by relevant sub-categories with follow-up information.  Hierarchy is clearly communicated through the use of a well developed pyramidal structure.  Anchors are consistently used to allow the reader to skip about if they so choose, but not in a way that might add to confuse.

Language Usage:

-The page is very long, which goes against keeping it short and sweet, but is a necessary trade off to meet some cognitive needs I believe.  The information would be no good if not everyone could read it.  It is honest and does not deceive, doesn’t confuse by using different languages, and offers clear explanations.  I feel that this area has been covered quite well with this page.  I did find some Grammar mistakes and missed words that may cause confusion with a small amount of people, but nothing that creates confusion.

Color:

-I did not see any major “no-no’s” here, such as using only hue or saturation to convey information or indicate action, or any difficult to read text.  I do think that the color options could be re-visited though.  Black type on a white background can be difficult on the eyes.  An off-white or a tan background might be a more suitable choice.  Also, some of the headings are in a dark blue font with a black paragraph, whereas others have a black heading with a dark blue font.  I am not sure where this sits as far as importance goes, but it is definitely not consistent.  That being said, I found the way the font is reversed in the contact form area to be much easier on the eyes.

Typography:

-I think the choices here are very good.  The typeface is clear and easy to read, the font size is all up to par, nothing is too small to read and all choices meet the minimum requirements as far as “stroke” and “X height” are concerned.  Font size is all 16pt and above, spacing is sufficient, and line length is well under 100 characters.

 

For the score out of 5, I’ve scored each category individually as follows:

Perceivable 3/5:

-The contrast on the site is clear and the choice of typeface does not create confusion, but could be even better with an off white or tan background.  If there is a way for users to select visual or audio preferences, I was unable to find it.  Overall I found the site to be perceivable yes, but with room for improvements.

Understandable 4/5:

-The Interface Elements are clear and consistent, I believe most people would be able to understand without issue.  Its made quite clear where you are and what you can do while on the page.  Language is plainly used, I didn’t see any abbreviations or confusing acronyms.  The text has all been broken up really well with clear headings and small sections, however, I did find some minor Grammatical errors, and a few missed words.

Operable 5/5:

-I found the landing page to be very efficient in this category.  The page interface is simple and easy to use and understand.  Links are accessible from a keyboard, and all clickable targets are big and easy to get at.  The titles are clear, and the use of hierarchy makes the site easy to navigate.

Robust 4/5:

The page has done very well in this category also.  Semantic HTML is used, as well as an extra layer of SSL to ensure security.  The page functions perfectly on a mobile device, and is accessible for a vast many different browser types.

 

SUMMARY

Based on the previous observations, for an overall score I would give this page a 4/5.

As far as its accessibility challenges are concerned, I would rate this page as Minor.  While I was able to find some areas for improvement that are technically issues, i.e. grammar errors, minor contrast issues, an inability to choose preferences etc., There are no areas that I believe will cause problems for people.

Other than the absence of any type of audio recordings for people who are blind, there do not seem to be any major barriers for people with disabilities.  I did not know how to add this in to the scoring system, as I am unsure if there are computer settings that will read text to people, or if it is up to the page/site to provide that.