Understanding the accessibility of digital map tools is essential for creating inclusive and accessible maps on your app or website. This is a systematic comparison of the accessibility of top digital map tools. The evaluation is based on the 14 criteria outlined in this report (Opens a new tab). These criteria were taken from the Web Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) (Opens a new tab). The WCAG is used to evaluate compliance for many digital accessibility laws around the world (Opens a new tab). The 14 criteria are a partial list of all the guidelines. They are elements that the authors of the report thought were particularly applicable to digital maps. Note that most governments only require WCAG AA compliance, and only 12/14 criteria are WCAG AA.
Comparison Table
Download the table from Google Sheets (Opens a new tab)
| Web map tool | Total | Level A | Level AA | Level AAA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % Accessibility Attainment | Failed | Applicable | Failed | Applicable | Failed | Applicable | Failed | Applicable | |
| Audiom | 100.00% | 0 | 14 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 |
| Bing Maps embed | 57.00% | 6 | 14 | 3 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| MapBox Studio embed | 50.00% | 7 | 14 | 4 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Concept 3D | 50.00% | 7 | 14 | 4 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Leaflet JS API | 46.00% | 7 | 13 | 3 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Bing Maps Control API | 38.00% | 8 | 13 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| MapBox GL JS API | 38.00% | 8 | 13 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| OpenStreetMap embed | 36.00% | 9 | 14 | 4 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| OpenLayers API | 31.00% | 9 | 13 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| ESRI | 29.00% | 10 | 14 | 5 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| MapKit JS (Apple Maps) API | 25.00% | 9 | 12 | 5 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| TomTom Maps SDK for Web | 23.00% | 10 | 13 | 6 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Google Maps Platform API | 15.00% | 11 | 13 | 7 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Google Maps embed | 8.00% | 12 | 13 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
Sources
Audiom Accessibility Conformance Report (Opens a new tab)
Concept 3D Accessibility Conformance Report (Opens a new tab)
WCAG Map Tool Comparison (Opens a new tab)
ESRI Accessibility Conformance Report (Opens a new tab)
Comparison Criteria
The following criteria were used in this comparison:
- 1.1.1 Non-text Content (Level A) (Opens a new tab)
- 1.3.1 Info and Relationships (Level A) (Opens a new tab)
- 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) (Level AA) (Opens a new tab)
- 2.1.1 Keyboard (Level A) (Opens a new tab)
- 2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap (Level A) (Opens a new tab)
- 2.1.4 Character Key Shortcuts (Level A) (Opens a new tab)
- 2.4.3 Focus Order (Level A) (Opens a new tab)
- 2.4.7 Focus Visible (Level AA) (Opens a new tab)
- 2.5.5 Target Size (Level AAA) (Opens a new tab)
- 3.1.1 Language of Page (Level A) (Opens a new tab)
- 3.1.2 Language of Parts (Level AA) (Opens a new tab)
- 3.2.2 On Input (Level A) (Opens a new tab)
- 3.2.5 Change on Request (Level AAA) (Opens a new tab)
- 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value (Level A) (Opens a new tab)
Notes and Considerations
Some of the data was taken from the Accessibility Conformance Report provided on a vendor’s website. Other data was taken from this independent accessibility evaluation done on top map tools (Opens a new tab). If the vendor report said “partially Complies” that was a fail. A criteria needs to be “pass” for it to be considered passing (Opens a new tab).
Also, WCAG section 1.1.1:Non-text content was not evaluated correctly on most reports. As discussed in this blog post, many interpretations of this criteria are flawed (Opens a new tab). This criteria should use landmark, route, and survey knowledge elements for systematic evaluation. As of this writing, only Audiom (Opens a new tab) has been evaluated with this system to my knowledge.
