Edubase Reader

Getestete Version: 4.5.0 (163)

The Edubase Reader app offers easy access to different digital learning content. Among other things, it allows users to display definitions of words and annotate text in different ways.

Overall assessment of the app Edubase Reader

Overall assessment: Poor accessibility.

Full name:Edubase Reader
Publisher:Edubase GmbH
Publisher country:CH
Informationen about the app
Tested version:4.5.0 (163)
Operating system:iOS
Overall assessment normalised:0.51
– Share of accessibility profile:0.32 (50% out of 0.64)
– Share of feasibility grade:0.19 (50% out of 0.39)
Valuation information
The assessments and ratings relate exclusively to the version 4.5.0 (163) 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 operability2.5 out of 5 points
Voice control5 out of 5 points
Compatibility with user agents1 out of 5 points
Assistance with interactions3.5 out of 5 points
Consistency/predictability5 out of 5 points
Semantic structure4 out of 5 points
Comprehensibility2.5 out of 5 points
Display flexibility2.5 out of 5 points
Contrast and sensory characteristics2.5 out of 5 points
Non-text content graphics4 out of 5 points
Multimedia alternativesNo rating
Average value3 out of 5 points
The maximum achievable score is 5 points.

On a normalised scale, the score of the accessibility profile corresponds to 0.64 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 skills60%
Sight61%
Hearing100%
Cognition78%

Feasibility of use scenarios

Grade
2.3
The highest grade is 6.

On a normalised scale, the grade corresponds to 0.39 points. This value is weighted at 50% in the overall assessment.

Key findings

The main function of the app – reading books – is not accessible for the most part. Books cannot be opened using the keyboard or screen reader. This means that other features of the app cannot be used either, such as setting bookmarks. The app contains a number of labels in English. Alternative texts are not used sensibly either, for example ‘icon back’ for the back function. Labels in the wrong language are incomprehensible when read out by the screen reader. The info switches are not understandable without the visual context. Error messages are correctly implemented: they are displayed and focused as a dialogue box. The order in which the elements can be accessed using swiping gestures with a screen reader matches the visual order.

Navigate to the next or previous results

Direct links to all detailed results