Review of Scoopit
Scoopit
Reviewed 15 Jul 2014
·
Average score 66%
Summary
Scoopit uses drag and drop for adding the button to the toolbar in the browser and then expects users to link to data via a dynamic area that appears from the right of the site which is not keyboard accessible. There do not appear to be any access keys supplied so it may be easier to use <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/scoop.it/id487321972?mt=8">Scoopit as an iPhone or iPad app</a>. The site does provide a very easy visual way of organising and sharing web content under different content headings.
Detailed Results
| # | Test | Outcome | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Login, Signup and Other Forms Accessible | 0% | Keyboard access/tabbing works logically in most forms where the access is possible. A CAPTCHA is used for sign up without an alternative unless you want to use Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin or Yammer account sign up. Form controls/fields do not appear to h |
| 2 | Image ALT Attributes | 67% | Some images on the main page do not have Alt attributes. However, they are mostly for decoration. Other images of pages that will be scooped also fail to have alt tags but that text provided offers good links to content. |
| 3 | Link Target Definitions | 33% | There are several blank links as well as poorly described links, such as "Read more" that do not help the screen reader user. (WebbIE). |
| 4 | Frame Titles and Layout | 67% | Few frames are not titled and might affect the layout. Firefox - AE tool, IE - WAT. |
| 5 | Removal of Stylesheet | 67% | The content and navigational elements are accessible and structured. However, a number of input fields appear unconnected to content which can be confusing. (GC- web tool, WAVE). |
| 6 | Audio/Video Features | 100% | Videos cannot be uploaded, however, you can include a video player, e.g. YouTube. |
| 7 | Video/animations - audio descriptions | 100% | Videos cannot be uploaded, however, you can include a video player, e.g. YouTube. |
| 8 | Appropriate use of Tables | 33% | Data/Layout tables are found within the website, which are not headered. This might create problems for a screen reader. |
| 9 | Tab Orderings Correct and Logical | 33% | Tab order is not always logical within the content and some items cannot be reached via the keyboard only. |
| 10 | Page Functionality with Keyboard | 67% | Website is accessible through keyboard, but there some "dead" zones that require mouse use, e.g. "Scoop it" button. |
| 11 | Accessibility of Text Editors | 100% | No rich text editors are found within the site. The existing ones are straightforward. |
| 12 | Appropriate Feedback with Forms | 100% | Clear, appropriate feedback is provided next to the form controls. No time constraints. |
| 13 | Contrast and Colour Check | 67% | Colour contrast in the site is generally good, apart from some minor issues. |
| 14 | Page Integrity when Zooming | 67% | Readability unaffected when zooming, but horizontal scrolling is necessary and the design does not appear to be responsive. |
| 15 | Text size, style, blinking elements and Readability | 100% | Text is generally between 10 and 12pt, sans serif font. There is no flashing or blinking content. |