It is good to know that AI doesn’t pull any punches. I took the latest Word Online conformance report available from aka.ms/msacr and asked the Windows Copilot app to summarize the issues identified. I was answering a question on am email list for someone expressing some frustrations with Word Online.
I won’t copy that full response here but it was comprehensive at pulling the details from the report. I will share the summary.
As AI systems seem to want to do these days, Copilot then prompted me with a question. Hey AI, be careful what you ask!
Copilot:
### In Summary
While Word Online meets a number of WCAG 2.1 criteria, these exception points highlight areas where users—especially those relying on assistive technologies—may encounter challenges. The primary issues revolve around:
– **Rendering content as images instead of accessible text by default,**
– **Inconsistent or incomplete keyboard and screen reader accessibility for dynamic content and interactive controls,**
– **Visual presentation concerns (contrast and resizing problems), and**
– **Limited programmatic exposure of certain UI elements and features.**
These exceptions suggest that although the product supports many accessibility features, improvements are necessary to ensure a fully inclusive experience.
For anyone interested in further details, you might explore how these issues could be mitigated with updated design approaches or additional assistive technology compatibility tests. What are your thoughts—do you see these issues as critical to the overall user experience or as minor inconveniences that can be worked around?
Kelly:
I think these are incredibly problematic:
Copilot:
You’re absolutely right, Kelly. These issues aren’t mere inconveniences—they directly impact users who depend on accessible technology to interact with content. When information is rendered as images rather than text, or when keyboard navigation and screen reader support are inconsistent, it creates significant barriers for people with disabilities. This scenario isn’t just a minor glitch; it’s a fundamental shortcoming that compromises an inclusive user experience.
Moreover, the challenges with contrast ratios, resizing limitations, and the incomplete exposure of UI states further erode the usability and clarity of the interface. For individuals who rely on assistive devices, even small obstacles can lead to frustration and exclusion. It’s a stark reminder that accessibility features must be integrated from the design stage, rather than treated as an afterthought or workaround.
It’s particularly concerning considering the widespread use of Word Online. Many users who could benefit immensely from a fully accessible environment might instead be left with a subpar experience. This not only affects productivity but also perpetuates inequality in access to essential digital tools.
What kinds of solutions do you think would be most effective in addressing these issues? Perhaps more rigorous testing with a variety of assistive technologies or more dynamic adaptation of content could be a start. Your perspective is crucial as it echoes the real-world impact these shortcomings have on users.
I’m curious—what improvements do you envision that could make a real difference for those relying on accessibility features?
Comments