When assessing how accessible your website or app is, auditors will likely want to look at whole pages. But perhaps most of what you are working on is individual components. I mean, this is how lots of companies work nowadays. Can pattern libraries be tested for accessibility? And if so, what do we test? In this post I will address those questions and look at accessibility testing in different levels of pattern library driven development.
Note that this post is mostly about whether it can be done, as opposed to how, which is a subject all of itself. I may do a post about that later.
A pattern is a reusable piece of your user interface, also known as component or module. It often documents the UI design and is made of code that runs in the browser. Examples of patterns: buttons, messages, accordions, headers, sliders, breadcrumbs and tooltips. A pattern library is a collection of such patterns and slightly more than that. As Alla Kholmotova says in her forthcoming book Design systems, it is “a tool to capture, collect and share design patterns and guidelines for their usage.”
With our interface separated into building blocks, it would be great if we can do our accessibility testing pattern by pattern, too. Can we? Well, yes and no.
Let’s start with the bad news. To be able to say something about how accessible your whole site is, you need to assess whole pages, WCAG2 says:
2. Full pages: Conformance (and conformance level) is for full Web page(s) only, and cannot be achieved if part of a Web page is excluded.
But there’s good news, too: there are heaps of accessibility issues that can be spotted on a pattern level, or criteria that can be marked as sufficiently met. Let’s look at how that would work.
What auditors test your site for
When deciding whether something is easy to access for as many people as possible, auditors will make sure four things are the case. They’ll want your site to be:
In WCAG2, the accessibility guidelines, there is a number of criteria categorised under each of these main principles. Knowing those criteria is a great way to learn about making more accessible interfaces. There are quite a few. The actual spec is a good place to read about them and it is also the official norm. There is also the WebAIM checklist, which has slightly more developer-friendly wording and (opinionated) recommendations on how to meet the criteria — it’s a great resource!
Although you cannot formally claim your site’s WCAG2 conformance based on audits of just its components, as we’ve seen above, you can look at many of the criteria on a component level. This can have advantages in comparison with testing whole pages.
Patterns as isolated test cases
At the Patterns Day conference last month, Rachel Andrew mentioned something interesting about patterns. She said that working with reusable interface components, where each one has its own page, made her realise that those work quite well as isolated test cases. I feel this also goes for some accessibility tests: there is a number of criteria where isolation aids testing.
Component-specific guidance is available
Not only can isolating patterns be useful in the testing phase, there is also lots of documentation for accessibility-proofing components specifically. WAI ARIA Authoring Practices describes of common patterns how to get them accessible, with examples of keyboard operability and what should happen to focus. There is also Heydon Pickering’s Inclusive Components Club, which describes in detail what optimisations can be made and how they help whom.
Let’s look at some things that can be tested when looking just at individual patterns. In order to avoid this to become too high level, I will give some suggested questions for specific, real-world-ish use cases.
- Is it visually clear where the focus is? (Focus visible)
- Is information about the state of the collapsible exposed to the accessibility tree?
- Is there enough colour contrast between background and foreground? (Contrast minimum)
- Can the collapsible be expanded using a keyboard only? (All functionality operable through keyboard interface)
- Does the field have a label? (Provide descriptive labels)
- Is the label properly associated with the input?
- Does the icon that appears next to the input when there’s an error have a text alternative? (Provide text alternatives for non-text content)
- Are error messages conveyed to assistive technology (Identify and describe errors)?
- Is it easy and clear how to stop the video?
- Is there a way to display transcripts and include captions? (Provide alternatives to time-based media)
- Can the video player controls be used with just a keyboard? (Make all functionality available from a keyboard)
Assuming your final page only has pattern libary markup, CSS and JS, all of the above things will yield the same test result in isolation and when used in a page. This is what makes them suitable to test on a component level.
I think for most components, there’s a whole lot of accessibility criteria that can be tested. There is also a number of things where we need whole pages, and in some cases, whole pages with the real data. So let’s look at those next.
Some criteria can only be tested in the context of a full page. Some examples:
- Are no heading levels skipped?
- Do skip links refer to existing IDs? (Have a mechanism to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple pages
- Are there no duplicate IDs in the page?
- Can we tab through the page and does tabbing make sense?
Whole pages with real data
Lastly, there are also some aspects that can only be tested when pages are composed and they have real content in them. For instance:
- Is the language comprehensible?
- Is it identified which language the page is in? (and, if different: parts of the page) (Make sure human language is programatically identifyable)
- Are all the people in the video identified in the transcript?
- Do the captions appear at the correct times?
- Can I find out what’s happening in that graph without seeing it?
- Does the
altattribute of that image describe what’s in the image (if it is not decorative)?
Although claiming a site meets the WCAG2 criteria has to be based on research of full pages, there are lots of things you can figure out and tackle while working on components with mock data. Above, I have given some examples of such things. I’ve also shown some examples of criteria that would require full and/or finished pages to be properly assessed.
As always, your mileage may vary! I would recommend checking the components you have against the WCAG2 criteria to see which ones can be checked on component level and which require full pages. Hopefully, the examples give an idea of what kind of things can be tested on which level, and when to run (automatic) accessibility tooling through patterns or full pages.