A Storyline module has been audited by our external accessibility auding company and it has failed on the basis that Landmaek tags have been applied to Next and Previous buttons and Exit Full Screen button, and should not be according to the audit. These buttons should not have ladmark tags applied anyway as that is not the function of Landmark tags? They are also tagged as "Slide Navigation".... which causes confusion anyway. Any info on this would be appreciated and what response do I give to the audit company? I do not believe there is any way within the module to edit tags put into the html?
Thank you for sharing the results that you've experienced.
We reorganized the Storyline 360 player controls into logical groups, added ARIA landmarks, and restructured player features to follow a consistent order and hierarchy. As a result, it’s easier for learners with assistive technologies to understand the structure of a course, stay in context, and move around quickly.
I'm curious about why your audit shows a navigation landmark role as a failing element. Can I ask if you've tried using online accessibility evaluation tools to confirm if you'll get the same results as the audit?
It's best practice for all of your page content to have landmarks for screen reader users. Is your audit company using automated testing tools or is this a manual audit? I've tested in three automated tools and I'm unable to recreate this error in the player.
Thanks for the response. I was puzzled also by the report as I have never seen this and I have been working with accessibility content for over 20 years. I honestly believe they sometimes get over zealous when dedicated companies get involved and are trying to prove something.
Another point though that was flagged in the audit was that when the user zoomed in when viewing a published module, the player grew much larger but the slide content shrank down and is un-viewable. They expect the slide content to zoom in so visually impaired users can see the text much larger etc....and not just the player.
Thanks for the updates and sharing what came up during the audit. It's important for us to understand what's coming up for folks when creating accessible content!
Quick question for you! Have you had the opportunity to explore using the Modern Player Zoom?
Essentially, this functionality will allow your learners to control the scaling of the content. Here's some additional information from the article I've linked in my reply:
Learners can toggle between the default zoom behavior and modern player zoom simply by pressing Ctrl+Alt+Z on their keyboard. After switching to modern player zoom, the slide content no longer scales to fill the available space in the browser. Rather, slides return to the size you defined in Storyline 360 (e.g., 720 x 540). Learners can then use their browser zoom controls to make the player frame and slide content bigger. If learners zoom in far enough, vertical and/or horizontal scroll bars will appear around slides.
I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, we'd be happy to assist in this thread or privately in a support case!
Have a great start to your day, and happy authoring! 🎉
3 Replies
Hello Darren,
Thank you for sharing the results that you've experienced.
We reorganized the Storyline 360 player controls into logical groups, added ARIA landmarks, and restructured player features to follow a consistent order and hierarchy. As a result, it’s easier for learners with assistive technologies to understand the structure of a course, stay in context, and move around quickly.
I'm curious about why your audit shows a navigation landmark role as a failing element. Can I ask if you've tried using online accessibility evaluation tools to confirm if you'll get the same results as the audit?
It's best practice for all of your page content to have landmarks for screen reader users. Is your audit company using automated testing tools or is this a manual audit? I've tested in three automated tools and I'm unable to recreate this error in the player.
Thanks for the response. I was puzzled also by the report as I have never seen this and I have been working with accessibility content for over 20 years. I honestly believe they sometimes get over zealous when dedicated companies get involved and are trying to prove something.
Another point though that was flagged in the audit was that when the user zoomed in when viewing a published module, the player grew much larger but the slide content shrank down and is un-viewable. They expect the slide content to zoom in so visually impaired users can see the text much larger etc....and not just the player.
Hi Darren, 👋
Thanks for the updates and sharing what came up during the audit. It's important for us to understand what's coming up for folks when creating accessible content!
Quick question for you! Have you had the opportunity to explore using the Modern Player Zoom?
I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, we'd be happy to assist in this thread or privately in a support case!
Have a great start to your day, and happy authoring! 🎉