Pizza Hut Web Accessibility Evaluation Report

    1. Executive Summary

      This report describes the conformance of the Pizza Hut website with W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). The review process is described in Section 5 below and is based on evaluation described in Accessibility Evaluation Resources.

      Based on this evaluation, the Pizza Hut website does not meet WCAG 2.0, Conformance Level A. Detailed review results are available in Section 6 below. Resources for follow-up study are listed in Section 7 below. Feedback on this evaluation is welcome.

    2. Background about Evaluation

      Conformance evaluation of web accessibility requires a combination of semi-automated evaluation tools and manual evaluation by an experienced reviewer. The evaluation results in this report are based on evaluation conducted on the following date: 02/07/2018. The website may have changed since that time.

    3. Website Reviewed
    4. Reviewer
      • Name: Reeti Mathur
      • Organization: Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)
      • Contact information for Reviewer: remathur@umail.iu.edu
      • Reviewer’s area of expertise:
        • Web Technologies
        • Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and Techniques
        • Approaches for evaluation Web accessibility
        • Use of a variety evaluation tools for Web accessibility
        • Assistive technologies
        • Involvement of people with disabilities in evaluation
      • Natural language with which reviewer is fluent or familiar: English
    5. Review Process
      • WCAG 2.0 Level for which conformance was tested: WCAG 2.0 A
      • Evaluation and validation tools used:
        • WAVE Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool (Version 1.0.9)
        • Voiceover
      • Description of manual reviews (usability testing of accessibility features) used:
        • Using the WAVE tool, inspected the code of the three webpages manually, containing accessibility issues to identify and recommend solutions.
        • Used the inbuilt Voiceover on a Mac to check how the screen reader reads these webpages. There are a number of hidden links which the screen reader reads on all the three webpages evaluated.
    6. Results and Recommended Actions
      • Interpretative summary of review results:
        • This website does not meet WCAG 2.0 Level A.
        • Accessibility features in which this site is strong include
          • The role=button has been implemented. The screen reader is able to identify buttons easily.
          • Headers have been implemented well. The screen reader is able to convey the heading levels (example- heading level four)
        • Recommended priorities for addressing inaccessible features of site:
          • Content Related
            • Missing alternative text for static images
            • Missing alternative text in linked images
            • Empty links
          • Design Related
            • Color contrast
          • Code Related
            • Missing form label
            • Missing document language
      • Three selected Problems and Recommendations:
        • Three Problems
        • Recommendations
          • Content-based
            • Provide alternative text to static images describing the image such that the screen reader can read through the text to make images accessible to blind users. An <alt> tag is used. <img scr = “” alt = “”>
              • Image advertising a $7.99 large two topping pizza which can be ordered online. [1]
              • Image displaying a heart shaped pepperoni pizza, a Choco chip pie and a few stacked brownies in a bowl. [2]
              • Image showing a container with four different types of soda bottles the customer could choose from. [3]
              • Image of a zoomed in shot of two traditional chicken wings with hot sauce served on a white ceramic plate. [4]
              • Image of a zoomed in photo of five breadsticks served with tomato ketchup in a bowl placed on a wooden tray. [4]
            • Provide alternative text to linked images because a linked image without alternative text is an empty link. The screen reader would not be able to let the user know that it is a linked image.
              • Linked image having the logo of Pizza Hut. [5]
          • Design-based
            • For Text on images [6]: A foreground color of #000000 is recommended on a #FFFFFF background color.
              • image goes here
            • For all buttons on this site [7]: A background color of #A9131A is recommended for a #FFFFFF foreground color.
              • image goes here
            • For form fields [8]: A foreground color of #AD1219 is recommended for the asterisk symbol on a #FFFFFF background color.
              • image goes here
          • Code-based
            • The registration form does not have a label tag. This can be corrected by using the <label> element to associate it with a form control. Also, the document language is missing which can be corrected using the <html lang> tag.
            • The recommended code snippet for text area is [9]:

<div>

      <label for= “fullName”>First Name:</label>

      <input id= “fullName” aria-describedby= “nameFormat” type= “text”/>

      <p id= “nameFormat”>First Name</p>

</div>

            • The recommended code snippet for radio button is [10]:
      • Evaluation and validation tools used:
        • WAVE Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool (Version 1.0.9)
        • Voiceover
      • Description of manual reviews (usability testing of accessibility features) used:
        • Using the WAVE tool, inspected the code of the three webpages manually, containing accessibility issues to identify and recommend solutions.
        • Used the inbuilt Voiceover on a Mac to check how the screen reader reads these webpages. There are a number of hidden links which the screen reader reads on all the three webpages evaluated.