Review of Wikipedia / Mediawiki

Wikipedia / Mediawiki Reviewed 10 Aug 2009 · Average score 75%

Summary

On the whole these web pages tend to be screen reader accessible and navigable with a keyboard. The registration may need an e-mail to the administrator. It should be noted that pages edited by the public are not necessarily very reader friendly as they have large amounts of text often with random links that when taken independently of the text may appear illogical. Depending on the user, tables and diagrams that are added may not always be accessible.

Detailed Results

#	Test	Outcome	Notes
1	Login, Signup and Other Forms Accessible	67%	Captcha does not offer an alternative method, although users are welcome to contact the administrators of the site to request an account. The signup form is accessible and has the required form labels.
2	Image ALT Attributes	33%	Other than on the homepage, very few critical images have alternative text. This creates problems for users with screenreaders.
3	Link Target Definitions	100%	All links, including images which would otherwise be ambiguous, have titles to uniquely identify them. Many links are provided within sentences.
4	Frame Titles and Layout	100%	No frames or iframes, which can be disorientating for screen-readers, are used in the design.
5	Removal of Stylesheet	100%	The page is still understandable and functional when it is viewed as a linear document, with no styles.
6	Audio/Video Features	67%	Some articles have transcripts for audio and video and most images can be given a title as well as having alt. attributes. Users can add their own wiki-markup to enhance accessibility.
7	Video/animations - audio descriptions	100%	It is possible to add audio and text to a wiki and users can add their own wiki-markup to enhance accessibility.
8	Appropriate use of Tables	33%	Data tables are used in many places on the site, but are not created using heading pages - screenreaders may have trouble interpreting the information.
9	Tab Orderings Correct and Logical	67%	Tab order is generally in a logical and consistent top-to-bottom format, but not always left-to-right format. Tab order for tables and forms is logical.
10	Page Functionality with Keyboard	100%	The website is fully accessible without the use of a mouse.
11	Accessibility of Text Editors	67%	Only the form for editing pages uses a toolbar, but buttons are not used for creating rich text. The editing form is very rarely used. It is possible to tab into the editor and out again, although the toolbar can not be accessed in this way.
12	Appropriate Feedback with Forms	67%	The feedback is fine, but sometimes difficult to distinguish from the rest of the page.
13	Contrast and Colour Check	100%	No contrast issues as all sections have good luminosity contrast ratios.
14	Page Integrity when Zooming	67%	The website maintains the layout and usability of all critical areas perfectly when zoomed, although some images may encounter issues in some browsers.
15	Text size, style, blinking elements and Readability	67%	The majority of text on the site is size ten, which is readable but much of the menu system is a smaller font size. There is no flashing or blinking content. Sans-serif fonts are used throughout the body content.