Forum Discussion
Storyline 360 not compliant with WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility guidelines
I see that Articulate claims on this page that "Storyline 360 supports WCAG 2.1 Level AA, including screen readers, keyboard navigation, visible focus indicators, and more."
I'm confused though, b...
Hello Kuriko,
I'd be happy to answer the questions that you have here.
Q: Could you please clarify if the report is now outdated and if any recent improvements to the software allow it to meet criteria 1.3.5 and 3.1.2?
A: The link to the pdf report you've shared is outdated. You can find the current version on our website: Articulate Storyline 360 Accessibility Conformance Report
We do highlight these two exceptions as you mention: Notes: Storyline 360 output supports or partially supports all applicable WCAG 2.1 Level AA criteria, except 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose and 3.1.2 Language of Parts.
Q: Is Storyline 360 compliant with WCAG 2.1 AA?
A: Yes Storyline 360 meets AA conformance due to the details of these criteria. The first one would be a custom design, which we could not support, and the second one is a specific scenario that is not common.
1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose
Storyline 360 does not support programmatic input-field identification or auto-filling forms.
3.1.2 Language of Parts
You can set the course language, which can be programmatically determined. However, objects in the same course cannot be set for different languages.
As Phil indicated, authors make decisions to create courses to meet accessibility conformance and we are continuing to make improvements.
Thanks for reaching out!
A accessibility checker inside Storyline would be nice.
- Hi John,Firstly, you mentioned that this webpage with the false claim that "Storyline 360 supports WCAG 2.1 Level AA" is outdated. From your reply, I understand that it has been replaced with this page that which now simply states "we built Articulate Storyline 360 to support Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and Section 508 accessibility standards, as described in this report". I'm just wondering, in that case, is there any reason why the outdated/superseded webpage is still live on the web? If Articulate is attempting to retract its misleading claim, is it just an unfortunate oversight that this page has not yet been unpublished, given that it is leading people to come across that outdated, misleading claim when they do a web search for 'Storyline' and 'WCAG 2.1 Level AA'?Secondly, I can see Articulate’s disclaimer on this page that Storyline 360 doesn’t meet those two criteria. The disclaimer is quite hidden, only visible after you scroll about halfway down the very lengthy page content — essentially a needle in a haystack, as opposed to the eye-catching claim taking prime position at the top of the page which states: “we built Articulate Storyline 360 to support Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and Section 508 accessibility standards”. It would be nice if Articulate could be more upfront about the ways in which Storyline 360 does not meet the guidelines.You mentioned that, as Phil indicated, authors make decisions to create courses to meet accessibility conformance. However, would you agree that users and potential users of Storyline 360 should at least be made aware of the elements they will not be able to include in their courses, if they want them to be compliant with the Level AA criteria? I believe that Articulate has an obligation to make these conditions clearer to its potential users who are seeking to purchase an elearning authoring tool that is fully compliant with WCAG 2.1 Level AA, and to its already subscribed users who purchased the product believing that it allows for full compliance with accessibility guidelines. In other words, Articulate should include a clear and comprehensive list of things you cannot include in your course, if you want it to be compliant with WCAG 2.1 Level AA.Your reasons for why Storyline doesn't meet the first criterion was that it is a custom design, which you do not support. Could you please clarify in what way this is a custom design?In my particular case, many of the courses I’ve developed over the past 10 years contain an ‘Enter your name’ text entry field. Your team promotes this feature here, saying “Community members often ask how to add and display a learner’s name in their Storyline 360 courses. I love that feature because it’s a really simple way to personalize your project and boost learner engagement”. You also provide a template for this feature here in your article entitled '3 Ways to Personalize Your E-Learning Courses'.Unfortunately though, due to Storyline 360’s limitations, the text fields used to enter the user's name cannot be correctly identified as ‘Name’ fields and therefore cannot be appropriately auto-filled. Thus, having these text entry fields means that the whole course fails criterion 1.3.5: Identify Input Purpose and consequently does not meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA. Therefore, I now have to regretfully inform my clients that they cannot keep this feature in their courses, if they want them to be compliant with WCAG 2.1 Level AA. Can you please advise if Articulate is prioritising this feature for future updates?In the meantime, I think the very least that Articulate can do is:
a) advise users not to use text entry fields with a specific purpose, such as name fields, if they want their course to be fully accessible. I would suggest the best place to do this would be on your webpage entitled 'Storyline 360: How to design an Accessible course', andb) include the disclaimer regarding Criterion 1.3.5 not being supported—which is currently quite difficult to find—on all of your webpages that are promoting the use of the name field to personalise courses for learners, i.e. this page and this page, andc) unpublish this webpage with the false claim that "Storyline 360 supports WCAG 2.1 Level AA" or redirect the link to the correct page. Hi @John Morgan, I have not heard back from you in response to my post from 12 days ago, in which I asked for an explanation of your statement that Criterion 1.3.5 only relates to “a custom design, which we could not support”. I'd like to find out exactly what you meant by this, and if my subsequent explanation of criterion 1.3.5 changed your mind about this? I note that you have deleted that statement from your post above, but you have still not responded to my question. This gives the impression that you are trying to pretend you never said it, rather than admitting that you made a mistake.
