govuk_publishing_components: Accessibility acceptance criteria
Accessibility acceptance criteria are a list of criteria that a user interface must meet to be considered accessible. They define what makes the building blocks of a user interface accessible and give teams criteria to test against. They are a record of accessibility decisions.
it is lack of awareness that most commonly results in things being inaccessible
Accessibility acceptance criteria raise awareness about what accessible means in a specific context. They’re more specific than general accessibility guidance, such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).
By drafting accessibility acceptance criteria upfront we are forced to think about accessibility from the start. It helps us to consider the range of users. The criteria become a starting point for building accessible things.
Writing accessibility acceptance criteria
Start with accessibility needs
Identify where there is a high risk of introducing an accessibility barrier and include criteria that prevent them.
If similar things already exist, review them to find barriers. Test them with users who have access needs. The original criteria for the accessible autocomplete were derived from tests made by Theodor Vararu on existing autocomplete libraries.
For many patterns the hard work of defining what accessible means has been documented in guidelines like WCAG. Do the hard work to extract rules specific to what you’re building and link back to the guidelines to give context. Consider which rules are most easily broken and give them prominence.
Don't be too generic
Criteria are useful if they are specific and testable.
When we began writing accessibility acceptance criteria for components we had difficulty knowing what to include. Consider a component that contains links – do the criteria need to list everything that makes a link accessible? How much of this becomes a reproduction of existing guidelines?
In this case it was helpful to create a shared definition of an accessible link that could be linked to. This avoided diluting the criteria while giving us a place to record more generic decisions.
Don't define the solution
Accessibility acceptance criteria are similar to acceptance criteria in user stories. Good acceptance criteria describe an outcome rather than the solution.
The criteria should give room for interpretation and allow designers and developers to make improvements over time. Ideally if technology or designs change the criteria will still apply.
In our banner component example we state the required contrast ratio, but we do not limit the design with implementation specifics such as font size or colour.
Iterate criteria
As something is built and tested, continue to refine your criteria as you find missing needs. When accessibility bugs are found – a browser bug, a screen reader quirk, new technology misbehaving, add further criteria and treat them like a failing unit test.
Criteria maintain accessibility
When building user interfaces we do our best to ensure they are accessible. But without a definition of what made it accessible it’s hard to iterate on and too easy to introduce accessibility regressions. Even when we know it’s been built well, and that effort went into making it accessible – how do we make changes without breaking accessibility? What stops our new definition of accessibility from being incomplete or different to the original definition?
Making something accessible can be nuanced and complex and not all accessibility testing can be automated. There are always manual steps needed to test features in the way they impact users.
Outlining accessibility issues in criteria records the decisions that were made and define the rules that keep something accessible.
In code we can use these criteria to write unit tests that prevent regressions. In our translation component we can test that links have a lang attribute, and in our banner component we can test the contrast ratio.
Example criteria
Accessible autocomplete
At GDS we first used accessibility acceptance criteria when building the accessible autocomplete. Theodor Vararu, Léonie Watson and Ed Horsford defined the following autocomplete accessibility criteria — the necessary behaviours that an autocomplete needs to meet to be usable by assistive technologies:
The field with autocomplete must:
- Be focusable with a keyboard
- Indicate when it has keyboard focus
- Inform the user that it is an editable field
- Inform the user if there is a pre-filled value
- Inform the user that autocomplete is available
- Explain how to use autocomplete
- Inform the user that content has been expanded
- Inform the user when there are matches, or if there are no matches
- (Optional) Inform the user how many matches are currently available
- Inform the user as the number of matches changes
- Enable the user to navigate the available matches using touch or keyboard
- Inform the user when a match is selected
- (Optional) Inform the user which number the currently selected match is (1 of 3 for example)
- Inform the user if a match is pre-selected
- Enable the user to confirm the selected match
- Inform the user when a match is confirmed
- Return focus to the editable field when a selected match is confirmed
GOV.UK publishing components
Navigating translations
For a component that lists links to translations of the current page we identify the following criteria:
The translation navigation links must identify the language of the link for correct screen reader pronunciation
While this is true for all words that are in a language different to the main content’s language, it is especially important to consider in the context of this component. Here there is a high risk of introducing an accessibility barrier.
Banners
On a banner component that places white text on a blue background we use the criteria to highlight the importance of contrast ratios:
The banner must have a text contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 against the background colour to meet WCAG AA
While all text must have a sufficient contrast ratio, given this component’s use of colour it has an increased risk of introducing a barrier.