Review of PBworks (PBwiki)

PBworks (PBwiki) Reviewed 10 Aug 2009 · Average score 55%

Summary

The output from this wiki is good but sadly the editor used does not allow for keyboard access and is not screen reader accessible. A text browser does not even show a link for editing the main area. However for text to speech applications access is good and colours can be changed along with font sizes and types.

Detailed Results

#	Test	Outcome	Notes
1	Login, Signup and Other Forms Accessible	67%	Forms lacked labels although some screen readers would be able to access the text boxes as they were in the correct order.
2	Image ALT Attributes	67%	Many images are CSS backgrounds with supporting texts which means there are no problems in text browser and the screen reader will not even be aware of the images used.
3	Link Target Definitions	100%	There were no problems with links.
4	Frame Titles and Layout	100%	No frames in place.
5	Removal of Stylesheet	33%	Problems exist because the site uses a table layout.
6	Audio/Video Features	33%	This depends on the use of embedded YouTube video player and use of alt tags with added graphics etc.
7	Video/animations - audio descriptions	33%	This depends on the use of embedded YouTube video player and use of audio descriptions within the original videos.
8	Appropriate use of Tables	0%	Tables are used for layout which is detrimental to linear navigation.
9	Tab Orderings Correct and Logical	100%	Tab order goes through the tables from top down and then across the page.
10	Page Functionality with Keyboard	33%	Keyboard access was possible until you had to use the rich text editor when there was no way to reach the menus.
11	Accessibility of Text Editors	0%	The rich text editor did not allow for keyboard only access. Javascript is used and the form cannot be seen in a text browser.
12	Appropriate Feedback with Forms	0%	The feedback was not helpful as it appeared in one sentence with a long list of possible errors.
13	Contrast and Colour Check	100%	There were no problems with the standard colours.
14	Page Integrity when Zooming	100%	Zooming was good on the basic site.
15	Text size, style, blinking elements and Readability	67%	This was good on the main site but some of the help files or tips were rather faint and small.