Systematically Evaluating Digital Map Tools Based on the WCAG

Abstract

This study examines the accessibility of digital map tools in relation to the Web Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, highlighting critical issues for disabled users. Despite the widespread use of digital maps across various professions and daily activities, their accessibility remains insufficient. The research involved a partial Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) comparison of the top 14 digital map tools, focusing on 15 WCAG criteria particularly relevant to geographic maps. The study expanded definitions for three criteria - 1.1.1 Non-Text Content, 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast, and 2.1.1 Keyboard Accessibility - to better apply them to map contexts. Findings revealed significant accessibility shortcomings, with only one tool (Audiom) achieving full compliance and others lacking adequate text alternatives, proper contrast, and keyboard operability. The discussion emphasizes the urgency for map developers to enhance accessibility, especially in light of upcoming legal requirements like the ADA Title II regulations. Making maps accessible not only aids users with disabilities but also offers business benefits by expanding the user base and fostering innovation. The study provides a systematic evaluation framework and clear guidelines to encourage greater digital map accessibility within an academic context.

Introduction

The proliferation of digital geographic maps has significantly enhanced the way users interact with spatial data (Longley et al.). Over 16% (30 million) of the publicly facing websites contain a digital map (Bocoup; Huss). The digital map market was worth $28.3 billion USD in 2024 (Digital Map Market). Over 40 professions (e.g., oceanographer, city planner, meteorologist, event planner, climatologist, and janitor) depend on digital maps (Longley et al.). People typically view digital maps multiple times a week (Savino et al.). However, the accessibility of these maps remains a critical concern, particularly for disabled users. The research question guiding this study is: “What is the accessibility of existing digital map tools based on the Web Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview)?” Numerous laws around the world, including section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans With Disability Act in the United States, rely on the WCAG (W3C Web Accessibility Initiative ).

Background

Defining the concept of a map is foundational for understanding “equivalent purpose” to meet WCAG SC 1.1.1, especially when considering non-visual modalities such as tactile and textual representations (World Wide Web Consortium). Traditional dictionary definitions often emphasize visual aspects, thereby excluding non-visual maps (“Map Definition”). An inclusive definition posits that a map is “a symbolic depiction emphasizing relationships between elements of some space, such as objects, regions, or themes”, encapsulating the three essential elements of “symbolic spatial relationships” necessary for a representation to be considered a map (“Map Definition”).

Evaluating what makes a map effective also involves the framework of spatial knowledge, comprising landmark, route, and survey knowledge (Siegel and White; Ducasse et al.; Ottink et al.). The three elements of spatial knowledge apply to all features on a map, including points, polygons, and lines. Landmark knowledge refers to the understanding of Sensory elements, name, type, shape, orientation, and size of a particular map feature; route knowledge pertains to the relationships between different features including distance, direction, legs of the route, and shape of the route; and survey knowledge encompasses comprehension of how all features relate through their distance, direction, shape, size, orientation, and general layout on the map (Ottink et al.; Siegel and White; Schmidt et al.; Aziz et al.; National Federation of the Blind).

Digital Map Representations

Digital maps are typically represented visually, which makes non-visual accessibility paramount (Longley et al.; Types of Thematic Maps). The digital accessibility community and academia have different approaches to non-visual digital maps.

Non-visual maps within the digital accessibility community are typically created using one of four techniques: simple alt-text, turn-by-turn directions, nearby address searches, or tables (Sloan; Map Accessibility; Langen). Alt-text is widely variable from being one line (e.g., “a neighborhood map”) to a multipage description (UniDescription; Cassidy; McCall and Chagnon; Hennig et al.; Conway et al.). Alternate text can fit the map definition, but it needs to be detailed enough to convey all elements of spatial knowledge, and quickly navigable. Turn-by-turn directions present the user with legs along a route, including the distance to travel, direction to turn, and often a landmark along or at the end of the route leg (e.g., “In 500 feet turn left onto Fillmore Street.”) (Sloan; GoodMaps Explore User Guide; ClickAndGo Wayfinding; Biggs, Toth, et al.; Giudice, Whalen, et al.). Turn-by-turn directions are symbolic, somewhat focused on element relationships, convey no spatial information, do convey some landmark knowledge, present a significant amount of route knowledge, and give no survey knowledge. Nearby address searches often present the user with a search box where the user enters their current location, and results are presented in a list, often sorted by distance from the user’s provided location (Logan; Calle-Jimenez et al.; Juan-Armero and Luján-Mora; Sloan). Nearby address searches do present symbolic feature names, have no spatial element, only provide the distance relationship, only have names for landmark knowledge, provide no route knowledge, and only provide distance for survey knowledge. Tables are typically used for thematic maps and consist of a column for the feature name along the left, and the subsequent columns to the right consisting of the numeric or categorical variables that are overlaid on the features (Sloan). Tables do provide symbolic names and values, provide no spatial information, provide no relationship information, only provide names and values for landmark knowledge, provide no route knowledge, and provide no survey knowledge. There has been limited research and evaluation comparing these types of non-visual maps with visual maps. The academic community has focused primarily on digital tactile and sonified maps. The WCAG SC 1.1.1 requires a text alternative, so this has influenced the digital accessibility community away from pursuing most researched solutions.

Research on non-visual digital maps encompasses tactile maps (interactive, tangible, and refreshable) and digital maps (touchscreen, keyboard, and text-only interfaces) (Ducasse et al.). Tactile maps have significant limitations, including non-compliance with WCAG SC 1.1.1 due to lack of textual content, inability to provide real-time dynamic information and zooming capabilities, high costs associated with manual creation and production, the expense of full-page braille displays, limited information capacity, and requirements for high tactile and braille literacy, alongside limited research on tactile thematic maps (Lawrence and Lobben; Rowell and Ungar; Rowell and Ongar; Stilson). Touchscreen digital maps provide speech and text feedback as users explore geographic features by touch but are constrained by low resolution and device size, limiting precise communication of distance, orientation, shape, and size (Delogu et al.; Ducasse et al.; Ottink et al.; Carroll et al.; Giudice, Guenther, et al.). Keyboard-based maps allow users to navigate using arrow keys and receive auditory or textual information, effectively conveying comprehensive spatial knowledge across numerous features (Biggs, Toth, et al.; Walmer et al.; Zhao et al.; Delogu et al.; Ducasse et al.; Biggs, Coughlan, et al.; Ottink et al.). Hybrid interfaces, such as the one by (Guerreiro et al.), combine touchscreen control with keyboard navigation to communicate spatial information. Text-only map descriptions-utilizing tables, hierarchical structures, or extensive textual narratives-are less effective than other maps for conveying spatial relationships, impose higher cognitive loads, and inadequately support spatial knowledge acquisition, particularly concerning shape, size, and orientation (Smelcer and Carmel; Zong et al.; Hennig et al.; Ottink et al.). Given that BLIs (Blind and Low-vision Individuals) encounter maps infrequently (less than once per year), co-designed map representations may fail to support comprehension of spatial knowledge (Biggs, Pitcher-Cooper, et al.). While LLM-based text interfaces offer potential, current models exhibit limited spatial reasoning and require extensive querying for full understanding (Google; Anthropic; Bos). An alternative is the “MUD” text adventure interface, where users navigate through textual commands to explore spatial environments, although more research is needed (Biggs, Yusim, et al.).

The WCAG 1.1.1 states that although text is required, it should not be the only representation modality. Across numerous studies, BLI participants have stated they want the ability to customize their map viewing experience in their desired modalities. This is because each person thinks differently and comprehends data best with different representational methods (Zong et al.; Hennig et al.; Ottink et al.; Aziz et al.; Biggs, Agbaroji, et al.; Biggs, Toth, et al.; Biggs, Coughlan, et al.).

Methodology

A partial Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) was conducted on the top 14 digital map tools, identifying common failures across 15 WCAG criteria (out of 78 total criteria) that are particularly applicable to geographic maps (Haileselassie and Sirk; Information Technology Industry Council). All WCAG criteria are important, but these 15 were relevant to nearly all maps, and were originally proposed in a report done by the Maps for HTML W3C community group (Chan and Linder). Data for eleven of the map tools was taken from this 3rd-party evaluation published at on Github Chan and Linder. The ACR for the three other map tools was taken from the vendor’s website. Two of the ACRs, ESRI and Concept3D, were performed internally by the map tool company, so results may be misstated (Groves). The other ACR, XR Navigation, was completed by LevelAccess.com: ADA Compliance, 508 Compliance, WCAG, VPAT, a 3rd-party accessibility evaluation company. The research team spot-checked a sampling of the above viewers for accuracy, since most reports are more than a year old. Additionally, the research team reevaluated all the above tools with the expanded definition for WCAG SC 1.1.1 described below. The 15 WCAG criteria that were applicable to maps include 1.1.1 Non-text Content, 1.3.1 Info and Relationships, 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast, 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum), 2.1.1 Keyboard, 2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap, 2.1.4 Character Key Shortcuts, 2.4.3 Focus Order, 2.4.7 Focus Visible, 2.5.5 Target Size, 3.1.1 Language of Page, 3.1.2 Language of Parts, 3.2.2 On Input, 3.2.5 Change on Request, and 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value. Although most of the criteria were applied with minimal interpretation, three criteria required a more nuanced definition than what the WCAG provides. The three areas are: 1.1.1 Non-Text Content, 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast, and 2.1.1 Keyboard Accessibility.

Section 1.1.1: Non-Text Content Applied to Maps

• Expanded Definition: The traditional method of evaluating map accessibility by focusing on the “main purpose” is inadequate when the criteria states “non-text content that is presented to the user has a text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose” (Sloan; World Wide Web Consortium). Instead, the framework of spatial knowledge, which includes landmark, route, and survey knowledge acquisition, as defined by Siegel and White, was used. This framework has been validated across thousands of studies in the field of cartography and provides a rigorous, systematic approach to evaluating spatial information in maps. Either interactive alternate text or a detailed text description were considered passing.

• Definitions:

  • Landmark Knowledge: Sensory characteristics, name, type, shape, orientation, size, and if applicable, numeric or categorical variables of features.
  • Route Knowledge: Connections between landmarks, including distance, direction, legs of the route, and shape of the route.
  • Survey Knowledge: Overall understanding of spatial relationships, including distance, direction, shape, size, orientation, and general layout of all points, polygons, and lines.

Section 1.4.11: Non-text Contrast Applied to Maps

• Expanded Definition: Thematic maps with multiple color categories often fail to meet the required contrast ratio of 3:1. Two solutions work to pass this criteria:

  • Oreo Borders: A triple line outline technique that ensures distinguishable feature categories. Using this technique, every feature will have a 3-line border. The outer lines (cookies) could be black and the inner line (frosting) could be white. If the surrounding colors are black, then the outer borders can be white and the inner line can be black. This always allows for maximum contrast because the background of the border is fully controlled (Sims). Note that low vision and colorblind users may still have trouble telling apart the colors, even though they can see where the colors are delineated.
  • Pattern Differentiation: Using patterns instead of colors, although this is less preferred than high contrast colors by low vision users (Kvitle; Accessibility Guidelines Working Group).

Section 2.1.1: Keyboard Accessibility Applied to Maps

• Expanded Definition: All map functionalities must be operable through a keyboard interface. This includes placing points and vertices using the keyboard for map creation tools.

Results

The evaluation revealed significant accessibility issues across the majority of digital map tools. A systematic comparison based on 15 WCAG criteria showed varying levels of compliance, with Audiom achieving 100% compliance followed by Bing Maps Embed at 53%, and Google Maps embed scoring the lowest at 7%.

Web map tool		Total		Level A		Level AA		Level AAA
	% Accessibility Attainment	Failed	Applicable	Failed	Applicable	Failed	Applicable	Failed	Applicable
Audiom	100.00%	0	15	0	9	0	4	0	2
Bing Maps embed	53.00%	7	15	3	9	2	4	2	2
MapBox Studio embed	47.00%	8	15	4	9	2	4	2	2
Concept 3D	47.00%	8	15	4	9	2	4	2	2
Leaflet JS API	43.00%	8	14	3	8	4	4	1	2
Bing Maps Control API	36.00%	9	14	4	8	3	4	2	2
MapBox GL JS API	36.00%	9	14	4	8	3	4	2	2
OpenStreetMap embed	33.00%	10	15	4	9	4	4	2	2
OpenLayers API	29.00%	10	14	5	8	3	4	2	2
ESRI	27.00%	11	15	5	9	4	4	2	2
MapKit JS (Apple Maps) API	23.00%	10	13	5	7	3	4	2	2
TomTom Maps SDK for Web	21.00%	11	14	6	8	4	4	1	2
Google Maps Platform API	14.00%	12	14	7	8	3	4	2	2
Google Maps embed	7.00%	13	14	7	8	4	4	2	2

1. Non-Text Content (Section 1.1.1)

   • Only one of the 14 tools provided text alternatives that served the equivalent purpose of the map. Most tools had incomplete or inadequate text descriptions for their spatial content.
2. Non-text Contrast (Section 1.4.11)

   • Only one of the 14 tools met the minimum contrast requirements between adjacent map features. Neither the Oreo borders or pattern differentiation methods were widely implemented.
3. Keyboard Accessibility (Section 2.1.1)

   • Seven of the 14 tools lacked most keyboard operability, with critical functions such as panning and zooming not accessible via keyboard. Some tools had controls that were not keyboard accessible or had improper focus management. It was also impossible to focus all features on the map with the keyboard in most cases.

Discussion

The findings highlight the need for map tools to be made more accessible. With the new Americans With Disability Act (ADA) Title II regulations calling for state and local governments to use WCAG compliant tools by 2026, these tools need to either become WCAG compliant, or they will put agencies out of compliance (U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division). As demonstrated by XR Navigation, it is very possible to make a WCAG compliant digital map tool, it’s just not being done. This paper presents a clear systematic map evaluation framework that can be applied across map tools. The landmark, route, and survey knowledge framework provides a robust method for assessing the spatial information conveyed by maps for equal textification (representing geographic data through text) with the visualization (representing data through visual graphics) (González-Castañeda et al.; Longley et al.). As shown by the results, only one map managed to convey spatial information through text (XR Navigation). This means that the other digital map tools had map elements that were only effectively read as “Map region clickable” to screen readers, with all other geographic information being blank. Additionally, Oreo borders and pattern differentiation need to be more widely applied. The lack of keyboard accessibility in many tools underscores the importance of designing for operability from the outset. Ensuring that all functionalities are accessible via keyboard is crucial for users with motor impairments.

Building accessible tools has a number of business benefits for digital map tool companies above basic legal WCAG compliance, including increasing the product’s possible user base by over one billion (or 12%) (Kronschnabl and Vieira; World Health Organization; Biggs, Pitcher-Cooper, et al.; Biggs, Toth, et al.; Rutgers IT), new innovation areas that free the sighted users from the tyranny of vision so they can learn in their preferred sensory modality (Longley et al.; Walker and Nees; González-Castañeda et al.; Barbe et al.; Barbe and Milone; Fleming), decreased risk of user injury when navigating (Biggs, Agbaroji, et al.; Williams et al.), time saved by support agents (not to mention customers) (Blasch et al.), and increased marketing opportunities through multiple sensory modalities (W3C Web Accessibility Initiative; Kronschnabl and Vieira).

Conclusions

This study underscores the critical need for map developers to make WCAG compliant map tools. Customers expect large companies to produce WCAG compliant tools, but they are not. Hopefully, having these specific accessibility guidelines clearly defined for digital geographic maps will encourage greater digital map accessibility. As it currently stands without clear guidance, only one map tool meets WCAG AA compliance, Audiom (XR Navigation). Considering the legislation around the world requiring WCAG AA compliance, it is important that web accessibility specialists and product managers be clear in telling their customers that accessible digital maps are possible, presenting clear criteria for evaluating digital map accessibility, and recommending accessible digital map tools as they are required (W3C Web Accessibility Initiative ; U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division; Department of Health and Human Services). In resolution 2024-11, the National Federation of the Blind called on all federal agencies and higher education institutions to adopt inclusive digital maps that meet the WCAG and use this spatial knowledge framework (National Federation of the Blind). By adopting the landmark, route, and survey spatial knowledge framework, and addressing non-text contrast and keyboard accessibility issues, digital map tools can become WCAG compliant.