Website user portal and public review feedback form consultation

Accessibility Standards Canada (ASC) is committed to improving how Canadians interact with our tools and digital platforms. As part of this commitment, we invited participants to test our new user portal and feedback form for draft standards.

This consultation aligns with the objective of the Act to create a barrier-free Canada by 2040. The consultation focused specifically on improving accessibility in 2 of the Act’s priority areas: Information and Communications Technology and Communications.

The objective of the consultation was to test and gather feedback on:

• the ease of accessing and using the user portal
• how well the feedback form supports participants in reviewing draft standards
• potential barriers or issues when completing key tasks
• ways to improve the clarity, usability, and accessibility of the tools

We invited participants to complete a series of test scenarios in the portal and feedback form. Testers were asked to record whether each step was successful and to provide comments or screenshots when issues occurred.

Insights from this consultation will guide improvements to the portal and feedback form, helping ensure these tools are accessible, user-friendly, and effective. They will also support our broader accessibility goals and continuous improvement efforts. 

Below is a summary of what participants shared during the consultation.

General comments

• Participants found the purpose of the portal and feedback form clear
• Participants saw value in having a central place to review and comment on draft standards

Account access and password management

• Some participants had difficulty with password-related tasks
• Logging in and resetting passwords wasn’t always clear or consistent

Feedback form and comment features

• Many participants were able to provide comments and move between sections easily
• Features such as saved feedback and counters were useful, but didn’t always work as expected
• Some participants had issues using the feedback panel
• A few participants noted that commenting features weren’t always clear or easy to us

Form clarity of interface and labels

• Some titles and labels were unclear or didn’t match the content
• Some structural elements, such as headings and markup, didn’t support accessibility

Error handling and system feedback

• Some participants found that error messages were unclear, inconsistent, or not linked to the right fields
• Some participants didn’t always understand what went wrong or how to fix it
• System feedback wasn’t always clear or visible when completing tasks

Navigation and interaction

• The overall structure of the portal was generally clear
• Participants were able to navigate between sections and complete test scenarios
• Key actions, such as adding feedback, were easy to identify
• Some content didn’t display well on smaller screens or at high zoom
• For example, in some cases, participants had to scroll horizontally to view all content, which created usability and accessibility challenges
• Some participants found reset buttons and other controls confusing and inconsistent

Accessibility and compatibility

• The platform showed a strong foundation for accessibility
• Some elements worked well with screen readers and assistive technologies; however, focus indicators and keyboard navigation weren’t always clear or consistent
• Hidden or decorative content wasn’t always handled in an accessible way
• Some language elements weren’t consistent between English and French