Teams

Getestete Version: 5.10.0

The Microsoft Teams app combines chats, channels, meetings, storage, tasks and calendars in one place, helping users to collaborate on project planning and complete tasks together.

Overall assessment of the app Teams

Overall assessment: Good accessibility.

Full name:Microsoft Teams
Publisher:Microsoft Corporation
Publisher country:US
Informationen about the app
Tested version:5.10.0
Operating system:iOS
Overall assessment normalised:0.87
– Share of accessibility profile:0.44 (50% out of 0.87)
– Share of feasibility grade:0.44 (50% out of 0.89)
Valuation information
The assessments and ratings relate exclusively to the version 5.10.0 of the app tested by us in the period from June to August 2023.

Accessibility profile

Tabelle Aspekte des Accessibility-Profil

AspectRating
Mobile operability3 out of 5 points
Keyboard operability4.5 out of 5 points
Voice control4.5 out of 5 points
Compatibility with user agents4 out of 5 points
Assistance with interactions4.5 out of 5 points
Consistency/predictability5 out of 5 points
Semantic structure4.5 out of 5 points
Comprehensibility5 out of 5 points
Display flexibility3 out of 5 points
Contrast and sensory characteristics5 out of 5 points
Non-text content graphics5 out of 5 points
Multimedia alternativesNo rating
Average value4.5 out of 5 points
The maximum achievable score is 5 points.

On a normalised scale, the score of the accessibility profile corresponds to 0.87 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 skills84%
Sight92%
Hearing100%
Cognition97%

Feasibility of use scenarios

Grade
5.3
The highest grade is 6.

On a normalised scale, the grade corresponds to 0.89 points. This value is weighted at 50% in the overall assessment.

Key findings

The app’s settings are easy to configure with screen readers. When it comes to using the keyboard, things start to take a turn. For example, when navigating back from a subpoint in the Settings, the focus jumps to the ‘Close’ button instead of back to the Settings category. The screen-sharing function is not accessible with the keyboard. The headings in the app are used sensibly throughout. Most of the labels for switches have been chosen logically and are detailed enough. Status messages are usually accessible, for example when displaying search suggestions or when creating an appointment. When it comes to sending and receiving messages, however, such feedback is lacking. The calendar is not fully accessible. As a result, interaction using the keyboard and screen reader is only possible to a very limited extent in the day selection area. When zooming the content, overlaps and line breaks occur, and the font size is not adjusted continuously.

Navigate to the next or previous results

Direct links to all detailed results