Lidl Plus

Getestete Version: 15.20.4

The Lidl Plus app provides Lidl’s weekly promotional brochure digitally and information about promotions. The app also enables the digital storage of cash receipts.

Overall assessment of the app Lidl Plus

Overall assessment: Insufficient accessibility.

Full name:Lidl Plus
Publisher:Lidl
Publisher country:CH
Informationen about the app
Tested version:15.20.4
Operating system:iOS
Overall assessment normalised:0.7
– Share of accessibility profile:0.35 (50% out of 0.7)
– Share of feasibility grade:0.35 (50% out of 0.7)
Valuation information
The assessments and ratings relate exclusively to the version 15.20.4 of the app tested by us in the period from June to August 2023.

Accessibility profile

Tabelle Aspekte des Accessibility-Profil

AspectRating
Mobile operability2.5 out of 5 points
Keyboard operability5 out of 5 points
Voice control5 out of 5 points
Compatibility with user agents1.5 out of 5 points
Assistance with interactions2.5 out of 5 points
Consistency/predictability5 out of 5 points
Semantic structure3.5 out of 5 points
Comprehensibility4 out of 5 points
Display flexibility2.5 out of 5 points
Contrast and sensory characteristics3.5 out of 5 points
Non-text content graphics3.5 out of 5 points
Multimedia alternativesNo rating
Average value3.5 out of 5 points
The maximum achievable score is 5 points.

On a normalised scale, the score of the accessibility profile corresponds to 0.7 points. This value is weighted at 50% in the overall assessment.

  • Mobile operability: Usability and full display of content in portrait and landscape format; pointing actions and operability by device movement possible with conventional input methods.
  • Keyboard operability: Interactive elements can only be operated with a keyboard and are highlighted when focused on.
  • Voice control: Controls have an accessible label that corresponds exactly to the visual description/name.
  • Compatibility with user agents: User agents and assistive technologies are informed about changes in the state of the user interface as well as status messages.
  • Assistance with interactions: Interaction with forms; pointer entries can be cancelled or undone.
  • Consistency/predictability: Consistent navigation; context remains when focused in or during input.
  • Semantic structure: Content is labelled with structural elements such as headings, lists and labels that reflect the context of meaning.
  • Comprehensibility: Headings, form labels and link texts are understandable, correct language declaration is used.
  • Display flexibility: The presentation of the content can be adapted to the needs of the users: text size, control over animated elements and media.
  • Contrast and sensory characteristics: Adequate contrasts, no expressions such as ‘in the picture on the right’ or ‘click the red button’; information is not conveyed solely by colour.
  • Non-text content (graphics): Informative graphic elements have useful alternative texts.
  • Multimedia alternatives Multimedia content is compatible with at least one alternative sensory channel.
Value rangeMeaning
4.5 to 5 pointsGood accessibility
4 pointsConditional accessibility
3 to 3.5 pointsInsufficient accessibility
0 to 2.5 pointsPoor accessibility

Diagramm Aspekte Accessibility-Profil

Presentation of accessibility by type of limitation

Type of restrictionDegree of compliance
Motor skills81%
Sight72%
Hearing100%
Cognition75%

Feasibility of use scenarios

Grade
4.4
The highest grade is 6.

On a normalised scale, the grade corresponds to 0.73 points. The grade must not lead to an improvement in the overall assessment and is therefore cut to 0.7 points for the calculation. This value is weighted at 50% in the overall assessment.

Key findings

The settings area of the app can be used with a screen reader. It is possible to find a branch as well as to use the appropriate search filters. All in all, the requirements for keyboard operation are met. Headings are only sporadic and sometimes at the wrong level. The switches are not always implemented correctly, for example when displaying messages, which are read out as ‘inbox icon’. For some switches, such as the Back button, the label is completely missing. In many parts of the app, the screen reader remains silent, which limits the use of the app for blind people: for example, checking a cash receipt is difficult; elements in the app can be swiped, but their function remains unknown; in the settings, when a new password is created, the screen reader does not read out the password requirements. Further criticisms are the insufficient contrast ratios and the font size, which cannot be adjusted.

Navigate to the next or previous results

Direct links to all detailed results