Accessibility Feedback - Midpoint Review - Identity, Inherited Proofing

[briandeconinck]

VFS acceptance criteria

• [ ] Let Platform know when the Must feedback has been incorporated
• [ ] Leave any comments for feedback you decide not to take
• [ ] VFS team closes the ticket

Thoughts/questions

• Acknowledging here the discussion around the wizard deprecation. If that's not a route you're going then no accessibility feedback is needed.

Feedback

• Must = the feedback must be applied
• Should = the feedback is best practice
• Consider = suggestions/enhancements

Must: Make sure you maintain material honesty and choose buttons and links carefully. The key thing here is:

• Buttons should only be used for actions, eg. form submission, opening/closing a modal, causing something to happen on the current page.
• Links should be used for navigational purposes, ie. taking the user somewhere where they are not currently (typically with a change in the URL in the browser).

For example, looking at the CTA buttons for Login.gov and ID.me:

Since these are static prototypes I can't know for sure, but these feel navigational to me---like they're going to take me to an account creation page (like the "Create a Login.gov account" action link at the end of the wizard), rather than triggering an action on this page.

Should:

• Make sure the H1 heading on each page matches the breadcrumb navigation. The current prototype has some mismatches, eg. "VA.gov is moving towards a more secure login process" vs. "Transition your account."
• Heading structure for the CTA for account creation could be made clearer. For screen reader users who are navigating by heading (and don't have the visual design cues), a heading that says "Here's what you need..." doesn't necessarily imply that the button/link to actually create the account is in that section of content. Consider adding an additional heading before the buttons/links themselves to better identify them.

Consider: For the CTA buttons for Login.gov and ID.me (if they end up being buttons): Red and green buttons right next to each other raises concerns for color blind users. Since color is only being used to match third-party branding and isn't being used to convey additional information, it's not something I would label as a must-change. But if there's a design option that's not a red button / green button side-by-side I think it would give accessibility folks less heartburn! (cc @artsymartha68, who flagged this after the meeting today.)

Platform directions

• Update "Issue Title"
• Link to collab cycle touchpoint meeting epic
• Add to the Feedback pipeline on the Platform Governance team board
• Add your feedback
• Add assignees based on collab cycle touchpoint
  • Design Intent: VFS designer, VFS PM (optional), yourself (optional)
  • Midpoint Review: VFS PM, yourself (optional)
  • Staging Review QA Only: VFS PM, yourself (optional)

[briandeconinck]

Added some additional "should" items after a follow-up conversation with folks on the Governance team. It will likely overlap some with what you hear from design, IA, and sitewide content.

[artsymartha68]

Thanks, @briandeconinck. After I was able to zoom in I realized that yes these red and green buttons are branded with the colors for Login and ID.me as per the login screen designs from Ryan. I don't like the way they look on a light blue background, that's a visual design opinion/judgment.