Designed to meet the needs of people around the globe with different abilities, the features within the Powell Software products ensure everyone can create, communicate, and collaborate on any device.
Powell Teams
Accessibility information link
Powell Intranet
Assessments
Detailed Accessibility Analysis: Powell Intranet vs. Competitor Platform
-
Competitor’s Accessibility Declaration Overview
General Approach:
-
The competitor provides a comprehensive, criterion-by-criterion self-assessment against WCAG 2.1.
-
Many criteria are only partially supported or dependent on user or administrator configuration.
-
Some criteria are not supported (e.g., identifying language changes within content, status messages).
-
Notes frequently mention ongoing improvements and limitations due to user-generated content.
-
Powell Intranet Accessibility Status (Based on Internal Reports)
-
Declaration: 74% of RGAA criteria met (partial compliance).
-
Audit Results: 57 of 87 WCAG 2.2 AAA criteria passed, 9 failed, 21 not applicable.
-
Key Issues Identified:
-
Inadequate error prevention for critical actions.
-
Timeout management and pointer cancellation.
-
Target size and some admin functions not fully keyboard accessible.
-
Accessibility varies depending on admin configuration.
-
-
Direct Comparison by WCAG Category
A. Perceivable
| Criterion | Competitor | Powell | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Text alternatives | Partially | Passed | Powell offers more robust support; competitor uses images in CSS and lacks alt text. |
| Time-based media | User-dependent | Not present | Neither platform offers full control; depends on user content. |
| Adaptable structure | Partially | Passed | Powell shows better semantic structure. |
| Meaningful sequence | Partially | Passed | Powell maintains correct DOM order. |
| Sensory characteristics | Partially | Passed | Competitor uses icon-only buttons; Powell more accessible. |
| Orientation | Yes | Passed | Both compliant. |
| Input purpose | Yes | Passed | Both compliant. |
| Use of color | Partially | Passed | Powell uses more inclusive visual cues. |
| Contrast (text and UI) | Partially | Passed | Powell provides stronger contrast. |
| Resize text | Partially | Passed | Powell scales better, particularly on admin pages. |
| Images of text | Yes | Passed | Both compliant. |
| Reflow | Yes | Passed | Both platforms reflow properly. |
| Text spacing | Partially | Passed | Powell handles spacing better. |
| Content on hover/focus | Partially | Passed | Competitor uses non-dismissible hover-only content. |
B. Operable
| Criterion | Competitor | Powell | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Keyboard access | Partially | Mostly passed | Powell's issues are limited to admin areas; competitor has broader limitations. |
| No keyboard trap | Yes | Passed | Both compliant. |
| Character key shortcuts | Yes | Not mentioned | Competitor supports this explicitly. |
| Timing adjustable | Partially | Failed | Both have deficiencies; Powell lacks autosave/draft options. |
| Pause, stop, hide | Partially | Passed | Powell provides better control over autoplay elements. |
| Three flashes | Yes | Passed | Both compliant. |
| Bypass blocks | Yes | Passed | Both compliant. |
| Page titled | User-dependent | Passed | Both compliant, dependent on admin setup. |
| Focus order | Partially | Passed | Powell handles focus order more consistently. |
| Link purpose | Partially | Passed | Powell provides clearer context. |
| Multiple ways | Yes | Passed | Both depend on site structure/configuration. |
| Headings and labels | Partially | Passed | Powell includes more accessible labels. |
| Focus visible | Partially | Passed | Powell maintains visible focus indicators. |
| Pointer gestures | Yes | Passed | Both compliant. |
| Pointer cancellation | Yes | Failed | Competitor avoids down-event triggers; Powell does not. |
| Label in name | Partially | Passed | Powell uses ARIA effectively. |
| Motion actuation | Yes | Passed | Both compliant. |
C. Understandable
| Criterion | Competitor | Powell | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Language of page | User-dependent | Passed | Both compliant. |
| Language of parts | No | Not present | Both lack proper language attribute handling. |
| On focus | Yes | Passed | Both compliant. |
| On input | Yes | Passed | Both compliant. |
| Consistent navigation | Yes | Passed | Both compliant. |
| Consistent identification | Partially | Passed | Powell ensures consistency in labels and components. |
| Error identification | Yes | Passed | Both compliant. |
| Labels/instructions | Yes | Passed | Both compliant. |
| Error suggestion | Partially | Failed | Both have limited support for error suggestions. |
| Error prevention | Yes | Failed | Competitor performs better in this area. |
D. Robust
| Criterion | Competitor | Powell | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parsing | Partially | Passed | Powell has cleaner, more valid markup. |
| Name, role, value | Partially | Passed | Powell includes ARIA and semantic roles effectively. |
| Status messages | No | Passed | Powell uses more accessible alerts. |
-
Overall Assessment
Powell Intranet Strengths:
-
Better support for: alternative text, semantic structure, focus management, contrast, spacing, and ARIA usage.
-
Fewer partially met criteria.
-
Fewer technical issues related to markup and accessibility semantics.
Competitor Platform Strengths:
-
Avoids pointer cancellation issues (no down-event triggers).
-
Stronger error prevention for critical user actions.
-
Explicit support for character key shortcuts.
Shared Challenges:
-
Accessibility can be undermined by admin/user configurations.
-
Both platforms lack proper handling of content with multiple languages.
-
Both show limited implementation of error suggestion and legacy UI inconsistencies.
Accessibility features
Some features can be enabled in your portal to make it more inclusive.
See more information here : Accessibility features