Well

Getestete Version: 2.20.2-rc371

The Well app offers digital access to healthcare services and personal data. Among other things, the app can be used to research symptoms, arrange appointments with doctor’s surgeries and receive and store documents.

Overall assessment of the app Well

Overall assessment: Insufficient accessibility.

Full name: Well. Your health – digitally
Publisher: Well Gesundheit AG
Publisher country: CH
Informationen about the app
Tested version: 2.20.2-rc371
Operating system: iOS
Overall assessment normalised: 0.65
– Share of accessibility profile: 0.33 (50% out of 0.65)
– Share of feasibility grade: 0.33 (50% out of 0.66)
Valuation information
The assessments and ratings relate exclusively to the version 2.20.2-rc371 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 0.5 out of 5 points
Voice control 5 out of 5 points
Compatibility with user agents 2 out of 5 points
Assistance with interactions 3.5 out of 5 points
Consistency/predictability 5 out of 5 points
Semantic structure 3 out of 5 points
Comprehensibility 3.5 out of 5 points
Display flexibility 2.5 out of 5 points
Contrast and sensory characteristics 4.5 out of 5 points
Non-text content graphics 4 out of 5 points
Multimedia alternatives No rating
Average value 3.5 out of 5 points
The maximum achievable score is 5 points.

On a normalised scale, the score of the accessibility profile corresponds to 0.65 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

Feasibility of use scenarios

Grade
4
The highest grade is 6.

On a normalised scale, the grade corresponds to 0.66 points. This value is weighted at 50% in the overall assessment.

Key findings

The medical practice search feature works with a screen reader, if not a little laborious. However, booking appointments is not possible because the confirmation checkboxes cannot be selected with a screen reader. Medicines can be searched for, but the use of the filters is only possible to a limited extent with a screen reader. The keyboard makes it almost impossible to use the app since the keyboard focus is often not visible. Most icons and graphics lack meaningful alternative texts. The app contains some headings, but the heading hierarchies are not logical or are not recognisable due to a lack of semantics for assistive tools. While there are some instances where screen reader users receive useful feedback on interactions, such feedback is often lacking.

Navigate to the next or previous results

Direct links to all detailed results