Uber

Getestete Version: 3.567.10003

The Uber app helps you find a ride. Journeys can be organised in advance or spontaneously. The app shows a price estimate and the different vehicle types to choose from before booking. The driving status and location can be shared with others.

Overall assessment of the app Uber

Overall assessment: Conditional accessibility.

Full name: Uber – Request a ride
Publisher: Uber Technologies, Inc.
Publisher country: US
Informationen about the app
Tested version: 3.567.10003
Operating system: iOS
Overall assessment normalised: 0.83
– Share of accessibility profile: 0.42 (50% out of 0.83)
– Share of feasibility grade: 0.42 (50% out of 0.83)
Valuation information
The assessments and ratings relate exclusively to the version 3.567.10003 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 out of 5 points
Voice control 5 out of 5 points
Compatibility with user agents 4.5 out of 5 points
Assistance with interactions 4 out of 5 points
Consistency/predictability 5 out of 5 points
Semantic structure 3.5 out of 5 points
Comprehensibility 4.5 out of 5 points
Display flexibility 4 out of 5 points
Contrast and sensory characteristics 5 out of 5 points
Non-text content graphics 4.5 out of 5 points
Multimedia alternatives No rating
Average value 4 out of 5 points
The maximum achievable score is 5 points.

On a normalised scale, the score of the accessibility profile corresponds to 0.83 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 74%
Sight 86%
Hearing 100%
Cognition 87%

Feasibility of use scenarios

Grade
5.3
The highest grade is 6.

On a normalised scale, the grade corresponds to 0.89 points. The grade must not lead to an improvement in the overall assessment and is therefore cut to 0.83 points for the calculation. This value is weighted at 50% in the overall assessment.

Key findings

The settings are generally usable without restriction, yet some unlabelled switches and buttons do not have a role, and so their function is not discoverable to screen reader users. In addition, the headings are lacking in semantics and many icons and graphics have no alternative text. It’s easy to order a ride with a screen reader. Status updates indicating how far away the ride you ordered is are read out continuously. However, users cannot order a ride via keyboard because they cannot select a destination from the list. The cancel button is not accessible with the keyboard either. In forms, error messages are not linked to the field and some error messages are read out in English. Another point for improvement is the zoomability of text – something which is only possible in some cases.

Navigate to the next or previous results

Direct links to all detailed results