TeleBĂ€rn

Getestete Version: 2.1.6

TeleBĂ€rn reports on current political, economic, social, sporting and cultural issues in the cantons of Bern, Solothurn and Fribourg. The app also provides access to all TV programmes in the archive as well as live streams.

Overall assessment of the app TeleBĂ€rn

Overall assessment: Insufficient accessibility.

Full name:TeleBĂ€rn
Publisher:CH Media
Publisher country:CH
Informationen about the app
Tested version:2.1.6
Operating system:iOS
Overall assessment normalised:0.75
– Share of accessibility profile:0.39 (50% out of 0.77)
– Share of feasibility grade:0.36 (50% out of 0.72)
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 operability4 out of 5 points
Keyboard operability3 out of 5 points
Voice control4.5 out of 5 points
Compatibility with user agents4.5 out of 5 points
Assistance with interactions5 out of 5 points
Consistency/predictability5 out of 5 points
Semantic structure4.5 out of 5 points
Comprehensibility4 out of 5 points
Display flexibility3.5 out of 5 points
Contrast and sensory characteristics4.5 out of 5 points
Non-text content graphics4 out of 5 points
Multimedia alternatives0.5
Average value4 out of 5 points
The maximum achievable score is 5 points.

On a normalised scale, the score of the accessibility profile corresponds to 0.77 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 skills76%
Sight79%
Hearing29%
Cognition78%

Feasibility of use scenarios

Grade
4.3
The highest grade is 6.

On a normalised scale, the grade corresponds to 0.72 points. This value is weighted at 50% in the overall assessment.

Key findings

The articles are accessible and structured using headings. However, the hierarchies of the headings are not correct in some places. The implementation of the video content is generally correct. However, rewinding is only possible via the point on the timeline – no alternative pointing action is offered. The videos have no subtitles; there are no audio or text transcriptions. While the videos are embedded in articles, the texts are not detailed enough to be considered as equivalent. The menu cannot be opened with a screen reader or keyboard. Hardly any of the switches contain meaningful labels and the link texts are not self-explanatory, such as the link to the contact, which is read out as ‘Contact132818567’. The contrasts meet the requirements in most cases. The app can be used in portrait or landscape format.

Navigate to the next or previous results

Direct links to all detailed results