Website accessibility - kew.org science sites

The following sites are covered by this statement:

• Plants of the World Online
• ColPlantA
• ColFungi
• Useful Plants of Boyaca
• In-Colombia
• Tree of Life Explorer
• Tropical Important Plant Areas
• DNA Bank
• Medicinal Plant Names Services
• Plant DNA C-Values Database
• JD Hooker Correspondence Collection
• Library Catalogue

How accessible are these websites

We know some parts of these websites are not fully accessible:

Medicinal Plant Names

The following aspects of the site are not fully accessible:

• The text of the cookie notification doesn’t meet contrast requirements (1.4.3 Contrast)
• Some parts of the HTML don’t conform with the specifications (4.1.1 Parsing)
• Text in other languages, like the Latin plant names, aren’t marked up as being in a different language (3.1.2 Language of parts)
• Toggle interactions might be missed by users of assistive technologies (1.3.1 Info and relationships)
• Not all links, like “see all” have clear purpose on the page (2.4.4 Link purpose)

MSB Seed List (New site)

The following aspects of the site are not fully accessible:

• Text on several images doesn’t meet contrast requirements (1.4.3 Contrast)
• Text on buttons doesn’t meet contrast requirements (1.4.3 Contrast)
• Focus indicators don’t meet contrast requirements (1.4.11 non-text contrast)
• Zooming in on the pages causes loss of content (1.4.10 Reflow)
• Link purpose can by unclear (2.4.4 Link purpose)
• The folded or expended state of the mobile menu isn’t communicated to assistive technologies (4.1.2 Name, Role, Value)
• Links are used instead of buttons for actions (4.1.2 Name, Role, Value)
• Pagination structure is unclear for users of assistive technologies (2.4.4 Link purpose, 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value)
• Some buttons don’t have an accessible name for assistive technologies (4.1.2 Name, Role, Value)
• Navigational landmarks aren’t marked up as such (1.3.1 Info and relationships)
• Skip link aren’t working as intended and direct people back to the homepage (2.4.1 Bypass blocks)
• Heading-like text isn’t always marked up as such (1.3.1 Info and relationships)

Plants of the world Online / Useful plants of Columbia / Useful Fungi of Columbia

The following aspects of the site are not fully accessible:

• Various images have similar undescriptive alt text (1.1.1 non-text content)
• Title attribute is used in cases, causing excessive feedback for assistive technology users (1.1.1 non-text content)
• Some images act as buttons but aren’t identified as such (4.1.2 Name, Role, Value)
• Some buttons have misleading or missing accessible names (1.3.1 info and relationships, 2.5.3 Label in name)
• Some parts of the HTML don’t conform to specifications (4.1.1 Parsing)
• Text on several images doesn’t meet contrast requirements (1.4.3 Contrast)
• Links are used for filter button actions and don’t convey their active state (4.1.2 Name, Role, Value)

Plant DNA c-values

The following aspects of the site are not fully accessible:

• Text on image causes some instances of contrast ratio falling below required levels (1.4.3 Contrast)
• Text falls below contrast ratio minimum  (1.4.3 Contrast)
• Multiple form fields  with the same label  could cause confusion (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Multiple navigation landmarks present but not individualy labelled   (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Multiple issues with headings (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Tabs are not marked up correctly (4.1.2 name, role, value)
• Table content is obscured when page zoom is increased to 300% (1.4.10 reflow)
• Pagination link purpose and state not clear (4.1.2 name, role, value / 2.4.4 Link purpose)
• Page language is not defined (3.1.1 language of page)
• All pages have the same page title (2.4.2 page titled)
• infotip information missed by those using a screen reader  (1.3.1 info and relationships / 4.1.2 name, role, value)
• Image used as link causes repeated information for screen reader users (1.1.1 non-text content / 2.4.4 link purpose)

DNA Bank

The following aspects of the site are not fully accessible:

• Heading like text not marked up as headings (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Text does not meet required contrast ratio (1.4.3 Contrast)
• Main landmark not used (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Screen reader users may be unable to differentiate between navigation landmark areas (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Colour used as only way to identify links (1.4.1 use of colour)
• Filter results automatically submit (3.2.2 on input, 4.1.2 Status messages)
• Page language is not defined (3.1.1 language of page)
• Two pages have the same page title (2.4.2 page titled)
• Error message not clear and may be missed by screen reader users (3.3.3 error suggestions)
• Combobox not marked up as such (4.1.2 Name, role, value)
• Increasing page zoom causes icons to be obscured (1.4.10 reflow)
• Some elements cannot be accessed via keyboard alone and are not correctly marked up as buttons (2.1.1 Keyboard, 4.1.2 Name, role , value)
• Screen reader users may struggle to understand the purpose of table header buttons and understand how the table is sorted  (1.3.1 info and relationships, 4.1.2 name, role, value)
• Some interactive components have no accessible name (4.1.2 name, role, value)
• Elements used to open/close further details accordions were difficult to use for people using assistive technologies.  (4.1.2 name, role, value)
• Focus not contained within modal (2.4.3 focus order)
• Focus order was illogical (2.4.3 focus order)
• Images have missing alternative text (1.1.1 non-text content)
• PDF Issues: no document title, no primary language was set, missing text alternatives, content was only partly tagged.

MSBP Partnership website

The following aspects of the site are not fully accessible:

• Sub-menus in the navigation can’t be activated using the keyboard (2.1.1 keyboard)
• Title attributes and abbreviation elements are used to relay information, which isn’t available to keyboard users (2.1.1 keyboard)
• Some interactive elements are missing an obvious focus indicator (2.4.7 focus visible)
• Some text does not meet contrast requirements (1.4.3 contrast)
• Interactive elements don’t always meet contrast requirements (1.4.11 non-text contrast)
• The alt text for the banner does not describe the image (1.1.1 non-text content)
• Icons are used to indicate external links but this information isn’t relayed in other ways (1.1.1 non-text content / 1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Heading-like text isn’t marked up as such (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• The pages are missing HTML landmarks (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Footnotes are referenced but are easily missed with assistive technologies (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Supportive text for form fields isn’t associated to the input fields for assistive technologies to relay (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Some video contains texts and information that is not relayed via other means (1.2.1 video only)
• Videos are missing text-transcripts and audio description (1.2.3 media alternative / 1.2.5 audio description)
• Some descriptions rely on sensory characteristics (1.3.3 sensory characteristics)
• Both pages in the registration process have identical titles not indicating the progress (2.4.2 page titled)
• Pages aren’t marked as being in English (3.1.1 language of page)
• Some buttons can’t easily be controlled with assistive technologies because they’re missing the proper attributes for states (4.1.2 name, role, value)
• The current page in the navigation isn’t relayed to assistive technologies (4.1.2 name, role, value)
• Elements that act like buttons aren’t marked up as such (4.1.2 name, role, value)
• Not all the HTML conforms to the specifications (4.1.1 Parsing)
• Form fields are missing autocomplete attributes to support the automatic filling of values (1.3.5 Identify input purpose)
• There is no alternative way to navigate the website besides links (like search or a sitemap) (2.4.5 multiple ways)

PAFTOL / Tree of life

The following aspects of the site are not fully accessible:

• Some relationships are only relayed via visual diagrams (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Relationship between pieces of text is only relayed visually(1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Text does not meet required contrast ratio (1.4.3 contrast)
• Non-text content does not meet required contrast ratio (1.4.11 non-text contrast)
• Some buttons have no accessible name (4.1.2 Name, role, value)
• Element that acts like button not marked up as such (4.1.2 Name, role, value)
• Aria-label use could cause frustrations and table update not relayed to screen reader users (4.1.2 Name, role, value)
• Opening data entry information modal is generally difficult for screen reader users. (4.1.2 Name, role, value)
• aria-label does not match onscreen text (2.5.3 Label in name)
• Definition lists not use correctly/consistently (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Information relayed to users via icon not relayed to screen reader users (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Screen reader users may be unable to differentiate between navigation landmark areas (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Filter results automatically submit (4.1.3 status messages / 3.2.2 on input)
• Decorative Icon is announced to screen reader users as ‘image’ (1.1.1 non-text content)
• HTML didn’t conform to the W3C specification (4.1.1 Parsing)
• Heading like text not marked up as heading (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Some navigation links cannot be access when page zoom increased (1.4.10 reflow)

Tropical Important Plant areas

The following aspects of the site are not fully accessible:

• Element is not accessible via keyboard navigation only and not correctly marked up as button (2.1.1 keyboard)
• Accordions/collapsible content was difficult to use for screen reader users (4.1.2 Name, Role, Value)
• Menu acts as a modal dialogue but is not marked up as such (4.1.2 Name, Role, Value)
• Content within the menu is not scrollable  (1.4.10 reflow)
• Focus is not contained within modal (2.4.3 Focus order)
• Groups of form fields were not structured appropriately (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Elements marked up incorrectly as a combobox  (4.1.2 Name, Role, Value)
• Element acts like <select> element but not marked up as such (4.1.2 Name, Role, Value)
• Filter results automatically submit (4.1.3 Status messages) 
• Current page indicated visually but not programmatically  (4.1.2 Name, Role, Value)
• Tabs are not marked up correctly  (4.1.2 Name, Role, Value)
• Some links on the page are unclear and don’t have a adequate visible label (2.5.3 Label in name / 2.4.4 Link purpose)
• Content should be marked up as definition list (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Heading like text not marked up as such (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Non-text content does not meet required contrast ratio (1.4.11 non-text contrast)
• HTML didn’t conform to the W3C specification (4.1.1 parsing)

Archives

The following aspects of the site are not fully accessible:

• Some interactive elements cannot be navigated to or interacted with using the keyboard only. This fails WCAG 2.1 success criterion 2.1.1 (Keyboard)
• An obvious focus indicator was missing when some interactive elements were in keyboard focus. This fails WCAG 2.1 success criterion 2.4.7 (Focus Visible)
• Some elements had accessible names that did not match related onscreen text. This is particularly problematic for those using speech input software to navigate the website. This fails WCAG 2.1 success criterion 2.5.3 (Label in Name)
• Some links did not clearly describe the link purpose or which page would be reached if a user followed the link. This fails WCAG 2.1 success criterion 2.4.4 (Link Purpose)
• The state of some components (e.g., open or closed) was not relayed to screen reader users. This fails WCAG 2.1 success criterion 4.1.2 (Name, Role, Value)
• Some elements that act like buttons were not correctly marked up as buttons. This fails WCAG 2.1 success criterion 4.1.2 (Name, Role, value)
• Some heading-like text was not marked up as a heading. This fails WCAG 2.1 success criterion 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships)
• Multiple navigation landmarks are present but are not clearly labelled to describe their purpose or use. This fails WCAG 2.1 success criterion 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships)
• Content that visually looks like a structured list was not always marked up as such. This fails WCAG 2.1 success criterion 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships)
• Some pages have the same page title which can cause confusion for some users. This fails WCAG 2.1 success criterion 2.4.2 (Page Titled)
• Presentational code (CSS) was embedded within structural code (HTML). This fails WCAG 2.1 success criterion 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships) 
• Some form fields do not have clear visible labels. This fails WCAG 2.1 success criterion 3.2.2 (Labels or Instructions)
• Some labels on form fields were not very clear and users with poor or no vision may struggle to use them. This fails WCAG 2.1 success criterion 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships)
• Clear instructions on what data should be inputted was missing on some form fields and the error message to resolve the issue is not specific to the problem. This fails WCAG 2.1 success criterion 3.3.1 (Error Identification) and 3.2.2 (Labels or Instructions)
• Some dynamic changes to page content were not relayed to screen reader users. This fails WCAG 2.1 success criterion 4.1.3 (Status Messages)
• Moving content could not be controlled by users. This fails WCAG 2.1 success criterion 2.2.2 (Pause, Stop, Hide)
• Alternative text was redundant in some cases. This was due to either a repetition in onscreen text or an image being purely decorative. This fails WCAG 2.1 success criterion 1.1.1 (Non-Text Content)  
• Some images had either no or nonsensical alternative text. This fails WCAG 2.1 success criterion 1.1.1 (Non-Text Content)  
• Some text has poor colour contrast. This fails WCAG 2.1 success criterion 1.4.3 (Contrast Minimum)
• Some non-text content (such as focus indicator and user interface components) has poor colour contrast. This fails WCAG 2.1 success criterion 1.4.11 (Non-Text Contrast)

JD Hooker

The following aspects of the site are not fully accessible:

• Content that is visible on hover is not shown on keyboard focus (2.1.1 keyboard)
• Some information is displayed on hover via the title attribute, which isn’t available for keyboard users (2.1.1 keyboard)
• An obvious focus indicator was missing from many interactive elements (2.4.7 focus visible)
• The focus order was not always predictable because positive tabindex values are used (2.4.3 Focus order)
• Cards have an accessible name that doesn’t match the visible name (2.5.3 label in name)
• Content was lost while zooming in the pages (1.4.10 reflow)
• Scrolling for both directions occurred when zooming in the pages (1.4.10 reflow)
• Several interactive components did not meet contrast requirements when they receive focus (1.4.11 non-text contrast)
• Images have generic text as alt text (1.1.1 non-text content)
• Visually hidden H1 headings are present that do not describe the purpose of the page (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Text is visually displayed as lists but not marked up as such (1.3.1. info and relationships)
• Buttons to remove filters don’t have suitable labels attached to them (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Hard-coded CSS prevents users from customising the styling to suit their needs (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Related checkboxes aren’t grouped using fieldsets (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Footnotes are used to give extra information, but this relationship isn’t available for users of assistive technologies (1.3.1 info and relationships)
• Some page titles don’t’ accurately reflect the purpose of the page (2.4.2 page titled)
• Filter buttons were difficult to use with assistive technologies due to incorrect markup. This goes for filter buttons, tabs, zoom and thumbnail buttons (4.1.2 name, role, value)
• The search functions as a combobox (search + results) but isn’t marked up as such (4.1.2 name, role, value)
• The markup of several buttons is done using links, not matching their actions (4.1.2 name, role, value)
• Not all HTML code conforms to the specifications (4.1.1 parsing)

Content that's not within the scope of the accessibility regulations

State of the World's Plants and Fungi microsite

We believe that the microsite created for the State of the World's Plants and Fungi reports (2016-2018) is exempt from the Public Sector Accessibility regulations as it is a legacy site and has not been updated since 2018. 

Reporting accessibility problems with this website

We’re always looking to improve the accessibility of these websites. If you find any problems not listed on this page or think we’re not meeting accessibility requirements, contact: info@kew.org.

Enforcement procedure

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is responsible for enforcing the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018 (the ‘accessibility regulations’). If you’re not happy with how we respond to your complaint, contact the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS).
 

Preparation of this accessibility statement 

This statement was prepared on 5th July 2022. This page was last reviewed on 8th July 2022.

This websites covered in this statement were tested between October 2021 and June 2022. The tests were carried out by Nomensa.

We took a sample of pages that represented the templates and types of content available on the website and tested a selection of journeys and tasks. We also ran an automated scan of the website to find areas that might have different issues.