
Audit Report
on AccessibilityJoomla! ATAG Audit
- Client
- Open Source Matters
- Inspection Agency
- Axess Lab
Vasagatan 28
111 20 Stockholm, Sweden - Reviewed by
- Eric Eggert
- Evaluation period
- July/August 2026
- Release date
- 16.08.2026
Change History
- 08/16/2026
Final Report
Summary
This is the supplementary Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) report to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) report.
Like with the WCAG report, Axess Lab used manual testing, tooling, and assistive technologies where possible to determine if the requirements of ATAG have been met.
In general, the ATAG requirements are met pretty well. The most issues come from inefficient keyboard usage and missing coherent documentation. Also, the front-end template does not support dark mode and editing content there does not give access to the accessibility checker.
Audit Details
- Project name
- Joomla! ATAG Audit
- Conformance Target
- ATAG 2.0
Selected Samples
- 09 – Backend Edit Form Patternhttps://stf-ms1a.sandbox.joomla.org/blog/administrator/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&layout=edit&id=11
- 10 – Frontend User Forms
Audit Results
Checkpoints
Details on the results
- Found Issues
- 5
- Issue: critical
- 1
- Issue: serious
- 2
- Issue: moderate
- 1
- Issue: minor
- 1
- Best Practices
- 0
Issues by Tag
- Development
- 5
- Editorial
- 1
- Design
- 3
06 – Media Manager
Issues found for this sample
09 – Backend Edit Form Pattern
Issues found for this sample
- Keyboard Access not efficient #1
- No apparent auto save feature #2
- No coherent accessibility documentation #4
10 – Frontend User Forms
Issues found for this sample
- No apparent auto save feature #2
- Front-End editing form does not respect dark mode #3
- No coherent accessibility documentation #4
- Frontend has no accessibility check #5
Issues by severity
Critical
Serious
Moderate
Minor
Issues by tags
Development
- Keyboard Access not efficient #1
- No apparent auto save feature #2
- Front-End editing form does not respect dark mode #3
- No coherent accessibility documentation #4
- Frontend has no accessibility check #5
Editorial
Design
- Keyboard Access not efficient #1
- Front-End editing form does not respect dark mode #3
- No coherent accessibility documentation #4
Discovered Issues
- Affected Samples
- Checkpoint
- A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access
- Type of issue
- Violation
- Severity
- Serious
- Tags
- Development, Design
When editing an article, the toolbar is at the top of the view. Using keyboard-only navigation, users have no efficient way to navigate to the toolbar to save or cancel the edit.

From the editing view (which is not shown as interactive in the graphic) at tab stop 16, getting back to the save button at tab stop 3 will take thirteen shift+tab interactions, from the last form field (Version Note) at 27, it will be 24 interactions.
While there are additional keyboard shortcuts (such as J then S to “Save and Close”), they are not obvious from the editing screen and also do not include all functionality of the toolbar.
Suggestion: Use skip links to give users easy ways back to the toolbar after the edit field and the sidebar.
Note: While Implementing ATAG suggests that landmarks might be used for this, keyboard navigation does usually not include landmarks by default, so it is not seen as accessibility supported.
- Affected Samples
- 06 – Media Manager
- 09 – Backend Edit Form Pattern
- 10 – Frontend User Forms
- Checkpoint
- A.3.2.1 Auto-Save (Minimum)
- Type of issue
- Violation
- Severity
- Moderate
- Tags
- Development
When editing content, the session time can run out and lead to unsaved changes. Ensure that changes are automatically saved so that a user an pick up the work from where they left off.
- Affected Samples
- 10 – Frontend User Forms
- Checkpoint
- A.3.6.3 Apply Platform Settings
- Type of issue
- Violation
- Severity
- Minor
- Tags
- Development, Design
In the Cassiopeia Theme, the editing view does follow the theme which is light mode only. There is no way to follow the dark mode of the system as a dark mode does not exist.
The ATAG standard has no exception for themes that do not have dark mode available, so the theme naturally fails this success criteria. As users can often chose their own theme or use the backend to edit, this failure was marked as Minor.
- Affected Samples
- 06 – Media Manager
- 09 – Backend Edit Form Pattern
- 10 – Frontend User Forms
- Checkpoint
- A.4.2.1 Describe Accessibility FeaturesA.4.2.2 Document All Features
- Type of issue
- Violation
- Severity
- Critical
- Tags
- Development, Editorial, Design
While the interfaces have some additional accessibility functionality, like the user settings for the backend theme or the additional keyboard shortcuts, these features are not centrally documented and also difficult to find. Some features, like the shortcuts are not documented where they would be useful (on the Dashboard despite applying to editing views).
Ensure that there is a consistent way to find accessibility feature documentation.
- Affected Samples
- 10 – Frontend User Forms
- Checkpoint
- B.3.1.1 Checking Assistance (WCAG)B.3.1.2 Help Authors DecideB.3.1.3 Help Authors LocateB.3.1.4 Status ReportB.3.1.5 Programmatic Association of Results
- Type of issue
- Violation
- Severity
- Serious
- Tags
- Development
While the backend editing flow can show a preview of the generated content with an accessibility checker embedded, the frontend editing does not allow to checke accessibility in the same way.
Overall Evaluation
Evaluation by Checkpoints
| Checkpoint | Result | Issues |
|---|---|---|
| A.1: Authoring tool user interfaces follow applicable accessibility guidelines | ||
| A.1.1.1: Web-Based Accessible (WCAG) | Failed | For the WCAG failures, reference the separate WCAG audit. |
| A.1.2.1: Accessibility Guidelines | Inapplicable | |
| A.1.2.2: Platform Accessibility Services | Inapplicable | |
| A.2: Editing-views are perceivable | ||
| A.2.1.1 Text Alternatives for Rendered Non-Text Content | Passed | |
| A.2.1.2 Alternatives for Rendered Time-Based Media | Passed | |
| A.2.2.1 Editing-View Status Indicators | Passed | |
| A.2.2.2 Access to Rendered Text Properties | Passed | |
| A.3: Editing-views are operable | ||
| A.3.1.1 Keyboard Access (Minimum) | Passed | |
| A.3.1.2 No Keyboard Traps | Passed | |
| A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access | Failed | |
| A.3.1.4 Keyboard Access (Enhanced) | Not tested | |
| A.3.1.5 Customize Keyboard Access | Not tested | |
| A.3.1.6 Present Keyboard Commands | Not tested | |
| A.3.2.1 Auto-Save (Minimum) | Failed | |
| A.3.2.2 Timing Adjustable | Failed | This is failed for session time limits and keyboard control timing. See WCAG Review. |
| A.3.2.3 Static Input Components | Passed | |
| A.3.2.4 Content Edits Saved (Extended) | Not tested | |
| A.3.3.1 Static View Option | Passed | |
| A.3.4.1 Navigate By Structure | Passed | |
| A.3.4.2 Navigate by Programmatic Relationships | Not tested | |
| A.3.5.1 Text Search | Passed | |
| A.3.6.1 Independence of Display | Passed | |
| A.3.6.2 Save Settings | Passed | |
| A.3.6.3 Apply Platform Settings | Failed | |
| A.3.7.1 Preview (Minimum) | Passed | |
| A.3.7.2 Preview (Enhanced) | Not tested | |
| A.4: Editing-views are understandable | ||
| A.4.1.1 Content Changes Reversible (Minimum) | Passed | |
| A.4.1.2 Settings Change Confirmation | Passed | |
| A.4.1.3 Content Changes Reversible (Enhanced) | Not tested | |
| A.4.2.1 Describe Accessibility Features | Failed | |
| A.4.2.2 Document All Features | Failed | |
| B.1: Fully automatic processes produce accessible content | ||
| B.1.1.1 Content Auto-Generation After Authoring Sessions (WCAG) | Inapplicable | |
| B.1.1.2 Content Auto-Generation During Authoring Sessions (WCAG) | Passed | |
| B.1.2.1 Restructuring and Recoding Transformations (WCAG) | Inapplicable | |
| B.1.2.2 Copy-Paste Inside Authoring Tool (WCAG) | Passed | |
| B.1.2.3 Optimizations Preserve Accessibility | Inapplicable | |
| B.1.2.4 Text Alternatives for Non-Text Content are Preserved | Inapplicable | |
| B.2: Authors are supported in producing accessible content | ||
| B.2.1.1 Accessible Content Possible (WCAG) | Passed | |
| B.2.2.1 Accessible Option Prominence (WCAG) | Passed | |
| B.2.2.2 Setting Accessibility Properties (WCAG) | Passed | |
| B.2.3.1 Alternative Content is Editable (WCAG) | Passed | |
| B.2.3.2 Automating Repair of Text Alternatives | Passed | |
| B.2.3.3 Save for Reuse | Not tested | |
| B.2.4.1 Accessible Template Options (WCAG) | Failed | This is based on the Cassiopeia theme not meeting WCAG 2.2. While it is clearly possible to provide a conformant WCAG 2.2 theme, this audit did not investigate how broadly applicable and conformant the theme landscape is. |
| B.2.4.2 Identify Template Accessibility | Inapplicable | |
| B.2.4.3 Author-Created Templates | Inapplicable | |
| B.2.4.4 Accessible Template Options (Enhanced) | Not tested | |
| B.2.5.1 Accessible Pre-Authored Content Options | Inapplicable | |
| B.2.5.2 Identify Pre-Authored Content Accessibility | Inapplicable | |
| B.3: Authors are supported in improving the accessibility of existing content | ||
| B.3.1.1 Checking Assistance (WCAG) | Failed | |
| B.3.1.2 Help Authors Decide | Failed | |
| B.3.1.3 Help Authors Locate | Failed | |
| B.3.1.4 Status Report | Failed | |
| B.3.1.5 Programmatic Association of Results | Failed | |
| B.3.2.1 Repair Assistance (WCAG) | Inapplicable | |
| B.4: Authoring tools promote and integrate their accessibility features | ||
| B.4.1.1 Features Active by Default | Passed | |
| B.4.1.2 Option to Reactivate Features | Passed | |
| B.4.1.3 Feature Deactivation Warning | Passed | |
| B.4.1.4 Feature Prominence | Passed | |
| B.4.2.1 Model Practice (WCAG) | Passed | |
| B.4.2.2 Feature Instructions | Passed | |
| B.4.2.3 Tutorial | Not tested | |
| B.4.2.4 Instruction Index | Not tested | |

