Fashion eCommerce: Web Accessibility Ranking

In this analysis, we will explore the level of accessibility of these 10 fashion e-commerce Made in Spain, evaluating how they are preparing to comply with regulations and providing insight into the aspects that still need to be improved to offer an inclusive and barrier-free experience.

To carry out this ranking, key aspects were evaluated in the most common sections of airline web portals, such as the home page, the flight reservation process, the contact form and the registration section. Among the criteria analyzed are the ability to navigate only with the keyboard, the existence of alternative descriptions in images, the correct use of headings, color contrast, and accessibility in the forms.

Mango

Mango leads the ranking with a score of 7.90 and an AA level of adequacy. Although its website has good general accessibility, problems with identifying the main language and language changes were detected, which affects screen readers. In addition, errors were found regarding consistent navigation on the website, due to problems in the CSS code (portal style sheet) that may make it difficult to process in some browsers. Finally, it is worth highlighting the lack of a visible indicator for the keyboard focus, complicating navigation for users with motor disabilities.

elPulpo

With a score of 7.40 and a suitability level of Invalid, elPulpo stands out in keyboard navigation and accessible labels. However, it has important deficiencies in its compatibility with mobile resolutions and search engines. On the other hand, the website also presents errors in the identification of language changes and in the readability and contrast of certain visual elements, which affects users with visual disabilities.

Silbon

Silbon obtains a 6.30 (Invalid Adequacy Level). To begin with, the web portal faces several problems in contrast and structural navigation. In addition, Silbon presents several accessibility barriers related to structural grouping problems and the absence of labels in forms, making interaction difficult for users with screen readers. Additionally, contrast and consistent navigation require improvements to achieve a good level of compliance.

Antony Morato

With a 5.80 and Invalid level, Antony Morato’s portal suffers from a clear lack of labels on forms and serious contrast errors both at the textual level and in images, icons and interactive elements. Antony Morato also faces challenges in the header structure, with consecutive repeated links and tags without content in them. In addition, failures have been identified in the identification of the primary language and in device-independent navigation, which impacts the user experience with assistive technologies.

Cortefiel

Cortefiel has a grade of 5.30 and a level of suitability Not Valid. Problems are observed in the heading structure and absence of descriptions for several visual elements. The Cortefiel portal presents errors in the textual alternatives for decorative images, making their interpretation by screen readers difficult. Problems were also found in structural grouping and in the separation of content and presentation. These errors make Cortefiel a portal with numerous navigation difficulties for users with disabilities.

Mirto

Mirto ties with Cortefiel with a 5.30, so they are in a similar situation. In this case, Mirto is facing similar failures, such as: incomplete tags and links without a defined purpose or repeated. Additionally, Mirto suffers from empty headers, lack of proper labels on forms, and failures to identify language changes, which sharply reduces its accessibility for users with cognitive or visual disabilities.

The Goose

Entering the part of the ranking with portals that present a compliance situation Non-compliant as well as a level of adequacy Not Valid, we find El Ganso has a score of 4.60. Although its interface is intuitive, it lacks adequate labels on forms and buttons, in addition to problems with color contrast and keyboard navigation, essential aspects for users with motor or visual disabilities.

Spagnolo

Spagnolo is in a very similar situation, which has obtained a grade of 4.20. In this case, its main problems lie in keyboard navigation and inadequate contrast, although it is also worth highlighting the lack of textual alternatives, inconsistent navigation and erroneous and insufficient form labels.

Scalpers

With a 3.70, Scalpers has obtained one of the worst scores in the ranking. Specifically, clear deficiencies are observed in textual alternatives for images, header structure, device-independent navigation, compatibility with mobile resolutions and search engines, and a non-existent use of WAI-ARIA attributes that help contextualize the interactive elements. All these barriers make Scalpers almost at the bottom of the table, since the severity and large number of errors significantly affect the accessibility of the site.

puroEGO

puroEGO is in last place with a score of 3.20. The portal presents multiple accessibility problems, such as the absence of textual alternatives in images, errors in the header structure and forms without adequate labels. Furthermore, insufficient contrast, failures in the identification of the main language, coherent navigation problems and the poor operability of its interactive elements in terms of accessibility, make its use difficult for people with disabilities.

Summary Table of Web Accessibility Level in Fashion eCommerce

This analysis has been carried out with the Web Accessibility Observatory tool, where common errors in web accessibility have been considered such as lack of keyboard navigation, images without alt, contrast problems, poorly structured headers and forms without labels, among others.