Parkingpay

Getestete Version: 2.1.6

The Parkingpay app allows users to use and pay automatically for all types of paid parking spaces.

Overall assessment of the app Parkingpay

Overall assessment: Poor accessibility.

Full name:Parkingpay
Publisher:Digitalparking AG
Publisher country:CH
Informationen about the app
Tested version:2.1.6
Operating system:iOS
Overall assessment normalised:0.53
– Share of accessibility profile:0.28 (50% out of 0.56)
– Share of feasibility grade:0.25 (50% out of 0.5)
Valuation information
The assessments and ratings relate exclusively to the version 2.1.6 of the app tested by us in the period from June to August 2023.

Accessibility profile

Tabelle Aspekte des Accessibility-Profil

AspectRating
Mobile operability0.5 out of 5 points
Keyboard operability0.5 out of 5 points
Voice control5 out of 5 points
Compatibility with user agents0 out of 5 points
Assistance with interactions3 out of 5 points
Consistency/predictability5 out of 5 points
Semantic structure2 out of 5 points
Comprehensibility4 out of 5 points
Display flexibility3 out of 5 points
Contrast and sensory characteristics4.5 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.
  • 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 skills33%
Sight57%
Hearing100%
Cognition76%

Feasibility of use scenarios

Grade
3
The highest grade is 6.

Key findings

Preliminary remark: this app is primarily aimed at drivers and thus at people who are physically and mentally fit to drive. Because of blindness, impaired vision or other physical impairment, a person may be unfit to drive or even temporarily unfit to drive. Nevertheless, we have tested all aspects of accessibility. From our point of view, scenarios are also conceivable with this app, where, for example, a passenger with a restriction might want to find out about parking options or to process parking fee payments.
People with disabilities encounter numerous barriers with the Parkingpay app: in order to adjust the parking time, users must move their finger in a circle at the rotary switch. There is no alternative input method, such as manually entering a start and end time or a duration. The keyboard focus is not visible, so the app cannot be operated with alternative input devices such as a keyboard. The app is only available in portrait format and the text size does not adjust when zooming. For various content, the contrast ratios are not sufficient. The semantic identification of elements has a number of shortcomings: for example, headings are only visually recognisable as such and switches are not marked as switches. Likewise, the receipts in PDF format do not contain any semantic structures and therefore are not accessible. The conditions for accessibility for screen readers and other technical aids are not met across the board.

Navigate to the next or previous results


Direct links to all detailed results