Microsoft Authenticator

Getestete Version: 6.7.12

The Microsoft Authenticator app enables a simple and secure login process with your smartphone. Microsoft Authenticator also supports multi-level authentication for business, school, university and non-Microsoft accounts.

Overall assessment of the app Microsoft Authenticator

Overall assessment: Good accessibility.

Full name:Microsoft Authenticator
Publisher:Microsoft Corporation
Publisher country:US
Informationen about the app
Tested version:6.7.12
Operating system:iOS
Overall assessment normalised:0.91
– Share of accessibility profile:0.45 (50% out of 0.91)
– Share of feasibility grade:0.45 (50% out of 0.9)
Valuation information
The assessments and ratings relate exclusively to the version 6.7.12 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 operability4.5 out of 5 points
Voice control5 out of 5 points
Compatibility with user agents4.5 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 flexibility5 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 0.91 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 skills86%
Sight95%
Hearing100%
Cognition96%

Feasibility of use scenarios

Grade
5.4
The highest grade is 6.

On a normalised scale, the grade corresponds to 0.9 points. This value is weighted at 50% in the overall assessment.

Key findings

The setting area of the app is sufficiently structured and easy to use with screen readers. Setting up the two-factor authentication runs smoothly. Ongoing updates are received with regard to all changes, such as the expiration of the unique code. Keyboard operation is restricted in some places. When adding an address, mandatory fields are not marked as such and there is no auditory feedback if fields are missing and the address cannot be saved. With some exceptions, the app is structured using semantic headings. In some cases, paragraphs are incorrectly marked as headings. The text size can be adjusted sufficiently with a few exceptions.

Navigate to the next or previous results

Direct links to all detailed results