Skip to main content

ACM Digital Library

Summary

Accessiblü conducted a high-level accessibility evaluation of the ACM Digital Library platform to assess its usability for individuals with disabilities. The review was conducted using automated testing tools (Axe DevTools), keyboard-only navigation, and manual inspection for conformance to WCAG 2.2 AA success criteria.

Key Findings

The ACM Digital Library demonstrates several positive accessibility features, including proper semantic HTML structure in many areas and functioning keyboard navigation for primary content access. The platform includes skip navigation links and shows attention to accessibility in its core architecture. However, our evaluation identified significant opportunities for improvement that would enhance the experience for users with disabilities.

The testing revealed critical issues with interactive carousel and slideshow components that prevent keyboard users from accessing important content. Additionally, there are widespread color contrast deficiencies throughout the platform, missing ARIA attributes for dynamic content, and inconsistent form labeling that creates barriers for screen reader users. While the platform's foundation is solid, addressing these concerns would significantly improve access for persons with disabilities and users of assistive technology, allowing them to fully utilize the extensive computing research resources that ACM provides.

Top 3 Issues

  1. Keyboard-Inaccessible Interactive Components

    1. Brief Description: Multiple carousel, slideshow, and interactive elements throughout the site cannot be accessed or operated using keyboard alone. Profile carousels, content sliders, and browsing interfaces lack proper keyboard handlers.
    2. Impact: Keyboard-only users, including those with motor disabilities and many screen reader users, cannot access significant portions of the platform's content and functionality.
    3. WCAG Success Criteria: 2.1.1 Keyboard (A), 2.1.3 Keyboard (No Exception) (AAA)

  2. Color Contrast Deficiencies

    1. Brief Description: Numerous text elements throughout the platform fail to meet WCAG 2.2 AA minimum contrast ratios of 4.5:1 for normal text and 3:1 for large text. This affects secondary text, links, button labels, and metadata displays.
    2. Impact: Users with low vision, color blindness, or aging-related vision decline struggle to read content, identify interactive elements, and navigate the interface effectively.
    3. WCAG Success Criteria: 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) (AA), 1.4.6 Contrast (Enhanced) (AAA)

  3. Missing and Improper ARIA Implementation

    1. Brief Description: Dynamic content areas lack proper ARIA roles and state information. Hidden elements marked with aria-hidden contain focusable content, dialog components lack accessible names, and expandable sections don't communicate their expanded/collapsed state to screen readers.
    2. Impact: Screen reader users cannot understand the current state of interface elements, resulting in confusion about what actions are available and what the results of their interactions have been.
    3. WCAG Success Criteria: 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value (A), 1.3.1 Info and Relationships (A), 4.1.3 Status Messages (AA)

Disabilities Impacted

Blind and Low-Vision Users

  • Issues: Keyboard-inaccessible carousels and slideshows, missing ARIA roles and labels, improper focus management, elements hidden from screen readers but visible on screen, insufficient color contrast, and missing alternative text for informative images.
  • Impact: Screen reader users face significant barriers when attempting to browse recommended content, navigate through article collections, and interact with dynamic interface elements. Low-vision users struggle to read text throughout the platform due to insufficient contrast, and critical functionality remains undiscoverable or unusable. The platform's advanced features become largely inaccessible, limiting research capabilities.

Users with Motor Disabilities

  • Issues: Keyboard-inaccessible interactive components, inconsistent focus indicators, complex navigation patterns requiring precise mouse control, and elements with inappropriate semantic roles in the focus order.
  • Impact: Keyboard-only users cannot access carousel content or interactive browsing features that are essential for discovering research materials. Users who rely on alternative input devices find the platform difficult to navigate efficiently, and some content collections remain completely inaccessible without mouse interaction.

Neurodiverse Users

  • Issues: Inconsistent heading structures, ambiguous link text, unlabeled form controls, complex navigation patterns, and poor color contrast affecting readability.
  • Impact: Users with cognitive disabilities struggle to develop a clear mental model of the interface due to inconsistent patterns. The lack of clear visual hierarchy and difficult-to-read text creates additional cognitive load, making the platform more challenging to use. Users with attention or focus-related disabilities may become disoriented by the complex interface patterns and insufficient visual feedback.