On the occasion of Valentine’s Day, Access First – a major player in the digital accessibility market – focused not on those who have already found love, but rather on those who are still looking for it, in particular via the main mobile dating applications (Adopt, Bumble, Fruitz, Happn, Meetic, Tinder). To do this, the company has focused on four essential criteria for the accessibility of these platforms: the presence of a help/accessibility section, keyboard usability, screen reader usability and management of contrasts and text sizes. Access First publishes a sector study, the main lessons of which are as follows:
Presence of a help/accessibility section – None of the 6 dating apps studied has usable information regarding their accessibility.
Access First first analyzed the presence of a help/accessibility section on mobile dating apps. This accessibility section should provide information on the arrangements made to make the application accessible, any shortcomings, indicate the means of appeal and a channel for exchanges dedicated to accessibility. In France, according to the regulations, it has been mandatory for mobile applications since June 2021. A help function, or a dedicated means of contact, can also be useful for people with disabilities who need information, or assistance with an accessibility issue.
Thus, among the 6 dating applications studied, none has a help or information page on its accessibility, nor a dedicated means of contact that can be used by a person with a visual impairment. This generally characterizes a total lack of consideration of the subject of accessibility.
Keyboard Usability – A single dating app can be keyboard operated for the most essential functionality.
Access First then moved on to keyboard usability. Indeed, certain physical, visual and cognitive disabilities make the use of tactile devices difficult, if not impossible. The keyboard is then a usable means to circumvent this limitation. In addition, keyboard-operated applications are usually also usable through alternative devices, such as rods, switches, voice control systems, eye-tracking, etc.
Among the 6 applications studied, only one (Adopt) can be used on the keyboard for the essential functionalities, albeit with limitations despite everything. The other applications in the panel all present blocking obstacles for this mode of use.
Screen Reader Usability – A single dating app can be used screen reader for the most essential functionality.
Access First also looked at screen reader usability. Screen readers are software that allow you to consult an interface using voice synthesis or a Braille display. They are used mainly by blind and very visually impaired people, but also by some people with cognitive disorders that impair visual reading. All mobile devices, whether Android or iOS, have this feature as standard.
Among the 6 applications studied, only one (Meetic) can be used with a screen reader for the essential functionalities, although the quality of use is not optimal. The other applications in the panel all present blocking obstacles for this mode of use.
Management of text contrasts and sizes – Only 4 of the 6 dating applications studied pass on user text size settings and only 2 offer sufficient contrasts.
Finally, Access First took an interest in the management of text contrasts and size. Mobile devices indeed offer advanced features for customizing the display of texts, which may prove essential to some people for consultation on a small screen. To be effective, however, this setting must be correctly taken into account by the applications. The choice of text colors is also decisive for good readability, especially for people with visual impairments.
Among the 6 applications studied, 4 of them (Fruitz, Happn, Meetic and Tinder) pass on the user settings concerning the size of the texts, although imperfectly. None takes them into account completely. There is also insufficient contrast on 4 of the applications studied (Bumble, Fruitz, Happn and Tinder).
In conclusion
Of the 6 dating applications studied, it must be noted that accessibility does not seem to be a concern for their publishers: no information on their accessibility, and practically no consideration of alternative uses (keyboard and similar, reader screen, visual arrangements). One app (Meetic) gets two “average” ratings, four (Adopt, Fruitz, Happn, and Tinder) get only one, and Bumble gets none. Thus, none of these applications is satisfactory on at least one of the four criteria retained.
“On a technical level, the iOS and Android systems offer application developers the full arsenal allowing equal access for all mobile users. The obstacle is therefore not technological. On the other hand, one can wonder regarding the fact that the publishers of these services have taken into account people with disabilities who use – or would like to use – their services in complete autonomy. However, a person with a disability is just as likely as another to use dating apps. Having a sentimental and love life and living one’s sexuality are common aspirations, and inaccessibility should not be an obstacle. People with disabilities are, in fact and unfortunately, confronted with negative prejudices, not to mention taboos around their sexuality and their love life. In this context, instead of being an additional obstacle, dating applications should help everyone, without distinction, to participate in the great game of seduction, and why not, to find a soul mate…”, explains Olivier NOURRY, Co-founder of Be Player One and Chief Accessibility Officer Access First.
