Fairtiq

Getestete Version: 7.0.3

For journeys on public transport, the Fairtiq app always charges the cheapest available electronic ticket for the distance travelled.

Overall assessment of the app Fairtiq

Overall assessment: Good accessibility.

Full name: Fairtiq
Publisher: Fairtiq AG
Publisher country: CH
Informationen about the app
Tested version: 7.0.3
Operating system: iOS
Overall assessment normalised: 0.89
– Share of accessibility profile: 0.45 (50% out of 0.89)
– Share of feasibility grade: 0.44 (50% out of 0.89)
Valuation information
The assessments and ratings relate exclusively to the version 7.0.3 of the app tested by us in the period from June to August 2023.

Accessibility profile

Tabelle Aspekte des Accessibility-Profil

Aspect Rating
Mobile operability 2.5 out of 5 points
Keyboard operability 4.5 out of 5 points
Voice control 5 out of 5 points
Compatibility with user agents 4 out of 5 points
Assistance with interactions 4.5 out of 5 points
Consistency/predictability 5 out of 5 points
Semantic structure 4.5 out of 5 points
Comprehensibility 4.5 out of 5 points
Display flexibility 5 out of 5 points
Contrast and sensory characteristics 5 out of 5 points
Non-text content graphics 5 out of 5 points
Multimedia alternatives No rating
Average value 4.5 out of 5 points
The maximum achievable score is 5 points.

On a normalised scale, the score of the accessibility profile corresponds to 0.89 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 range Meaning
4.5 to 5 points Good accessibility
4 points Conditional accessibility
3 to 3.5 points Insufficient accessibility
0 to 2.5 points Poor accessibility

Diagramm Aspekte Accessibility-Profil

Presentation of accessibility by type of limitation

Type of restriction Degree of compliance
Motor skills 83%
Sight 95%
Hearing 100%
Cognition 93%

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

Starting and stopping a journey – a feature central to the app – is accessible for screen reader users too. The settings can be accessed and modified with a screen reader. Keyboard operability and zooming in the app are mostly well implemented. The headings are mostly correct, but in some places confusing or blank. The order of focus does not always make sense: for example, if the Back button is selected on a subnavigation point, the entire menu is closed instead of the focus being set back to the main menu. Status messages are accessible in some cases, but in some places the status is not accessible, or not very informative, when displayed by the screen reader: for example, a screen reader reads out the message ‘loading’ merely as ‘tip’. Keyboard inputs are sometimes not read by the screen reader, or incorrectly, which can cause some confusion for users without eyesight.

Navigate to the next or previous results

Direct links to all detailed results