Giving it a cursory look [1] it seems they score pretty ok on accessibility:
They use a proper content structure with appropriate headline levels, buttons are large enough for people that can't use a mouse properly. The contrast in the default color scheme looks fine and they provide a high-contrast color scheme. They even offer to switch the font to accomodate dyslexics, but fail to include a dyslexic font[2]. The layout falls apart a little if you use the high contrast scheme with large letter-spacing and comic sans, but it still includes all functions, so that's forgiven.
The fact they don't provide alt-tags for all images is totally fine: The images are just visual add-ons to the links that are provided directly underneath the images, so any screen reader will pick up the links and not the images. Quite to the contrary, providing empty alt-tags as they do will hide the images from screen reader and will remove mental clutter. The "always add alt-tags" mantra is - as so many matras in the web design world - wrong when taken at face value.
Forms are designed well with proper placeholders and labels.
Now, there's much more to accessibility than this - for example the writing style and text complexity, but it's obvious they have given accessibility more than a passing thought and taken it into consideration. One thing is certain however: Accessibility is not a roadblock for good design.
[1] Please note that this is only the 10-minute-tick-the-most-important-boxes check :)
[2] maybe for legal reasons, including dyslexic fonts is a legal nightmare with two warring factions
Thanks for posting this - I'm aware of that, but wanted to note that they don't offer a "real" dyslexic font. I should have been more clear about that.
Yes. I haven't been following the outcome, so that might be resolved but my latest info bit is that it's currently a minefield. Comic Sans is a viable alternative for most use cases though.
They use a proper content structure with appropriate headline levels, buttons are large enough for people that can't use a mouse properly. The contrast in the default color scheme looks fine and they provide a high-contrast color scheme. They even offer to switch the font to accomodate dyslexics, but fail to include a dyslexic font[2]. The layout falls apart a little if you use the high contrast scheme with large letter-spacing and comic sans, but it still includes all functions, so that's forgiven.
The fact they don't provide alt-tags for all images is totally fine: The images are just visual add-ons to the links that are provided directly underneath the images, so any screen reader will pick up the links and not the images. Quite to the contrary, providing empty alt-tags as they do will hide the images from screen reader and will remove mental clutter. The "always add alt-tags" mantra is - as so many matras in the web design world - wrong when taken at face value.
Forms are designed well with proper placeholders and labels.
Now, there's much more to accessibility than this - for example the writing style and text complexity, but it's obvious they have given accessibility more than a passing thought and taken it into consideration. One thing is certain however: Accessibility is not a roadblock for good design.
[1] Please note that this is only the 10-minute-tick-the-most-important-boxes check :)
[2] maybe for legal reasons, including dyslexic fonts is a legal nightmare with two warring factions