Review of diigo

diigo Reviewed 17 May 2012 · Average score 73%

Summary

The site is generally well designed with various options to login, but the accessible form depends on the service is used. The main issue is page functionality with keyboard access and at times it was easier to work in a text only view. The site is complex and allows you to see a website and use the videos etc whilst adding comments for your diigo library. Usability is an issue rather than accessibility on many pages.

Detailed Results

#	Test	Outcome	Notes
1	Login, Signup and Other Forms Accessible	67%	Users can log in via Facebook, Twitter. Google and Yahoo, as well as the sites registration with supportive instructions but when verification occurred read by NVDA, keyboard exit from the pop up window did not seem possible. There is a Captcha but if a u
2	Image ALT Attributes	100%	Important images have alternative text and images for bullet points are correctly labelled.
3	Link Target Definitions	100%	Links have titles to uniquely identify them.
4	Frame Titles and Layout	67%	iframes are used for advertisements and sections of the website, but it is possible to navigate out of the iframe to the next section.
5	Removal of Stylesheet	100%	The page is accessible without the stylesheet. In text only mode it appeared that there was better keyboard access.
6	Audio/Video Features	33%	There is the chance to add text descriptions for the links stored. The information video does not have captioning.
7	Video/animations - audio descriptions	33%	There is the chance to add text descriptions at the comments. The information video does not have audio descriptions.
8	Appropriate use of Tables	100%	Tables are not used in the design of the site.
9	Tab Orderings Correct and Logical	100%	Tab ordering is correct and logical, in a top-to-bottom or left-to-right format.
10	Page Functionality with Keyboard	0%	The main issue with this service is not so much the website but the bookmarklet called a Diigolet that is added to a toolbar so that you can build a library and share bookmarks etc. It is inaccessible via the keyboard once you are in a web page. .
11	Accessibility of Text Editors	100%	There is no rich text editor within this product. Edit fields such as search and explore groups do not have labels so may caused problems for screen reader users. The comment edit boxes tend to be separate from the bookmarked website when wishing to note
12	Appropriate Feedback with Forms	100%	The product provides suitable feedback when the user performs an action. .
13	Contrast and Colour Check	67%	Most contrast ratio are adequate, but some non-critical text has a poor luminosity contrast ratio.
14	Page Integrity when Zooming	67%	The layout and readability of the site is unaffected by zooming. However, there is so much going on with some of the pages that it is hard to view all items.
15	Text size, style, blinking elements and Readability	67%	The majority of text is size 12, but may be uncomfortable for some such as light grey text on grey background.