Skip to content
English - Australia
More support
Contact us
  • There are no suggestions because the search field is empty.

Accessibility Checks in SWOOP for SharePoint

Server status: USA Europe Germany Canada Australia

SWOOP Accessibility Checks – Support Guide for SharePoint Intranets

Modern intranets should be accessible to all employees, and SWOOP Analytics now includes accessibility checks to help intranet managers and page authors meet WCAG 2.1 guidelines. SWOOP’s Accessibility Checker scans your SharePoint pages and flags common accessibility issues so you can fix them proactively. This guide breaks down each issue SWOOP identifies – No Alt Text, Unclear Link Text, Repeated Link Text, Empty Link Text, and Repeated URLs – explaining what they mean, how SWOOP detects them, how to fix them, and which WCAG 2.1 criteria apply. By addressing these issues, you’ll make your intranet content more inclusive, improve user experience for everyone, and ensure compliance with accessibility standards.

No Alt Text

Images missing alternative text are flagged so you can add descriptive alt attributes.

Unclear Link Text

Vague link labels (e.g. "click here") are detected since link text should indicate its purpose.

Repeated Link Text

Identical link text used for different destinations is identified as confusing and in need of differentiation.

Empty Link Text

Links with no text (or an image link with no alt text) are flagged because they have no accessible label.

Repeated URLs

Different link texts pointing to the same URL are reported to encourage consistent labelling.

 

Each issue above corresponds to a best practice in accessible content creation. In the sections below, we detail each issue, how SWOOP helps you catch it, steps to resolve it, and relevant WCAG 2.1 guidelines.

No Alt Text (Images without Alternative Text)

Definition: No Alt Text means an image on the page is missing a textual alternative. Every non-decorative image needs an alt attribute describing its content or purpose so that users who cannot see the image (e.g. screen reader users) know what it conveys. This aligns with WCAG 2.1 Criterion 1.1.1: Non-text Content, which requires that all images have a text alternative.

How SWOOP Identifies It: SWOOP’s Accessibility Checker scans each page for images and checks if an alt text is provided. If an image’s alt attribute is empty or missing, SWOOP logs a “No Alt Text” issue for that page. In the SWOOP dashboard, you’ll see a list of pages that have images without descriptions, so you can pinpoint which images need attention.

Why It’s Important: Without alt text, visually impaired users using screen readers won’t know what an image is about. Important information could be lost. Even for sighted users, if an image fails to load, alt text ensures the content isn’t completely missing. Providing alt text is fundamental for accessibility and is typically a Level A requirement in WCAG (1.1.1).

How to Fix: For each image flagged as having no alt text, edit the SharePoint page and add a meaningful Alternative Text for that image. The alt text should succinctly describe the image or its function. For example, if the image is a chart, the alt could be “Bar chart showing quarterly sales.” If an image is purely decorative (adds no informational content), you can mark it as decorative or leave alt blank and mark it decorative in SharePoint settings (so screen readers ignore it). In SWOOP’s example, once an editor adds appropriate alt text and republishes the page, that No Alt Text issue will disappear on the next SWOOP scan.

WCAG Reference:1.1.1 Non-text Content (Level A) – All non-text content (like images) must have a text alternative that serves an equivalent purpose. By fixing “No Alt Text” issues, you ensure compliance with this guideline and make content accessible to users who can’t see images.

Unclear Link Text (Generic or Vague Link Text)

Definition: Unclear Link Text refers to hyperlink text that is too vague or generic, such that its purpose or destination is not apparent from the text alone. Common examples are “click here”, “read more”, “more info”, or just “link”. These phrases do not inform the user where the link will lead when read out of context. According to WCAG 2.1 Criterion 2.4.4: Link Purpose (In Context), the purpose of each link should be clear from its link text (or context).

How SWOOP Identifies It: SWOOP’s checker uses a built-in list of non-descriptive link phrases (like “click here”, “read more”, “see more”, etc.) that are known poor practices. When SWOOP scans a page and finds a hyperlink whose visible text exactly matches one of these generic terms, it flags an “Unclear Link Text” issue. In the SWOOP dashboard report, the page will be listed with an entry like Unclear link text: "click here", "read more", indicating which problematic phrases were found. This takes the guesswork out of hunting them down – SWOOP tells you exactly which link labels need improvement.

Why It’s Important: Link text that doesn’t describe its destination is frustrating and inaccessible, especially for users with screen readers who often navigate via a list of links. Hearing a dozen links all labelled “Click here” in a list is meaningless. Even sighted users scanning a page benefit from descriptive links (it improves usability and even SEO). Clear, specific link text lets all users quickly understand their options. For example, a link that says “Download Annual Report (PDF)” is far more informative than one that just says “click here”.

How to Fix: Identify the links flagged by SWOOP and update their link text to be more descriptive of the content or action. Replace generic terms with phrases that explain what the user will get if they click the link. For instance:

  • Instead of “Click here to view details,” change the hyperlink text to “View the 2025 Financial Report” (if that’s the target content).
  • Change “Read more” links at the end of teasers into “Read more about our benefits package” (adding context).
  • Ensure each link text is unique and specific if it goes to a unique destination.

After editing the page and updating those links, the SWOOP scan will no longer flag them as unclear. The goal is that the link, by itself, gives an idea of its purpose. This satisfies the expectation of WCAG 2.4.4 that users can understand a link’s purpose from its text alone.

WCAG Reference:2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context) (Level A) – The purpose of each link should be determinable from the link text alone, or from the link text together with its context. SWOOP’s “Unclear Link Text” rule is essentially enforcing this: if the link text is too generic (like “here” or “more”), it fails this criterion. By fixing unclear link texts, you adhere to best practices for descriptive hyperlinks.

Repeated Link Text (Same Text for Different Destinations)

Definition: Repeated Link Text refers to the situation where two or more different hyperlinks on the same page use identical link text but point to different URLs or resources. For example, you might have two separate links both labelled “Learn more”, but one goes to a product page and the other goes to a policy document. Users encountering “Learn more” twice won’t know which is which. This is an accessibility and usability concern because it’s ambiguous – the link text is the same, yet the outcomes differ.

How SWOOP Identifies It: SWOOP’s Accessibility Checker looks for pages where the same anchor text is used multiple times with different targets. If it detects, say, “Learn more” used in two or more links that lead to different URLs, it will flag a “Repeated Link Text” issue for that page. (This feature was introduced as an experimental check to catch consistency problems that can confuse users.) In the SWOOP dashboard, the issue might be noted as something like “Identical link text used for different destinations,” possibly listing the text in question.

For instance, SWOOP has observed that having multiple “Learn more” links on one page going to different places can be problematic, and thus it aims to call those out.

Why It’s Important: When link text is repeated but the links do different things, users (especially those using assistive tech) can’t distinguish which link goes where. A screen reader user hearing a list of links that includes “Learn more” twice with no further info won’t know which one to activate for the desired content. Even sighted users might be confused if context isn’t obvious. This ambiguity can be seen as failing the spirit of WCAG 2.4.4 as well – because each “Learn more” does not uniquely indicate its purpose or destination. It’s better practice to make each link’s text unique to its target.

How to Fix: When SWOOP flags repeated link text, review the page to locate all instances of that anchor text. Then adjust the wording of each so they are distinguishable. There are a couple of approaches:

  • Differentiate the Link Text: Append or modify each link’s text to clarify its context. Using the earlier example, you could change one to “Learn more about Product A” and the other to “Learn more about Policy XYZ”. This way, the link texts are no longer identical – each provides context about its destination.
  • Consolidate if Appropriate: Sometimes repeated link text occurs because of how content is structured (e.g., multiple “Read more” links under different snippets). If possible, you could also design the content to avoid too many generic links. But in many cases, just making them descriptive as above is the straightforward solution.

After updating the links so that no two different destinations share the exact same wording, SWOOP will no longer flag the page for repeated link text. The links will then make sense on their own.

WCAG Reference: While there isn’t a specific WCAG criterion that says “don’t use the same text for different links,” it’s closely related to 2.4.4 Link Purpose. Identical link text for different targets can be considered a failure of Link Purpose (In Context) since a user hearing the link text alone cannot tell the purposes apart. In essence, it undermines the requirement that links be understood in context. By differentiating repeated link text, you improve compliance with the intent of 2.4.4 and enhance overall understandability of the page.

Empty Link Text (Links with No Accessible Text)

Definition: Empty Link Text refers to a hyperlink that contains no text or accessible label at all. This often happens when an image is used as a link without alt text, or a link is created but the anchor text is left blank. Essentially, there’s an <a> element with nothing readable inside it. These “invisible” links are problematic because a keyboard or screen reader user can focus on the link, but no name/label is announced to explain what the link does[1].

For example, an image that is also a link, if missing alt text, results in a link that a screen reader will announce as just “Link” with no description – this is an empty link scenario.

How SWOOP Identifies It: SWOOP is smart about detecting this pattern. If it finds an anchor (<a>) that has no text content and no alternative text (in the case of an image link), it flags an “Empty Link Text” issue. A common case is an image wrapped in a link tag, where the image has no alt attribute; SWOOP will list that as an empty link. In fact, SWOOP not only flags it but also surfaces the target URL for context. For instance, the SWOOP report might say: “Empty link text – link to https://… ”, which helps you locate the offending link (you could search the page’s HTML for that URL to find it).

Why It’s Important: An empty link provides no information. When navigating through links, a screen reader user might encounter a link and just hear “Link” with no label, which is confusing and frustrating. It’s a double violation:

  • It fails WCAG 1.1.1 (if an image link has no alt, that’s missing non-text alternative).
  • It fails WCAG 2.4.4 (link purpose) because there’s no text to indicate purpose at all. Essentially, an empty link is a broken element in terms of accessibility – users can’t know what it is or where it goes.

From SWOOP’s perspective, it avoids double-counting this as both a missing alt and a bad link; it primarily flags it under empty link text. But the underlying issues are indeed those WCAG criteria.

How to Fix: The fix depends on why the link is empty:

  • If the link is an image with no alt text, add appropriate alt text to that image. This will not only fix the “No Alt Text” problem but also give the link an accessible label (the alt text serves as the link text for screen readers). For example, if the image (which is a link) is a company logo linking to the homepage, the alt text could be “Company-Name Home”.
  • If the link was meant to have text but was accidentally left blank or only contains an icon, then you should provide visible link text or an ARIA label. Ideally, always have visible text. If using an icon-only link (like a icon of a PDF as a link), ensure there’s alternative text (via aria-label or similar) describing the link’s function.
  • If the link is unnecessary (sometimes empty links appear due to copying and pasting or editing quirks), remove it altogether to clean up the page.

After fixing, each link on the page should have either visible text or an alt attribute (for image links) or an ARIA label that gives it an accessible name. SWOOP will then no longer flag an empty link.

WCAG Reference: This scenario touches multiple guidelines:

  • 1.1.1 Non-text Content – images used as links must have text alternatives (alt text).
  • 2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context) – links should have descriptive text. A completely empty link fails this because the purpose cannot be determined at all.
  • Additionally, WCAG 4.1.2 (Name, Role, Value) is relevant: interactive elements like links must have an accessible name. An empty link has no accessible name, violating this principle as well.

By fixing “Empty Link Text” issues, you ensure that every hyperlink has an accessible name and purpose, which is crucial for users navigating with assistive technology.

Repeated URLs (Different Link Text for the Same Destination)

Definition: Repeated URLs, in this context, means there are multiple links on a page that point to the same URL but use different link text. For example, you might link to your company’s HR policy page in one place as “Employee Directory” and elsewhere as “Contacts List,” both going to the same URL. While not an outright accessibility error, it can be considered a consistency and usability issue – users might not realize those links lead to the same content, and it may clutter the experience.

This is somewhat the inverse of the repeated link text problem: here the destinations are identical, but the anchor text varies.

How SWOOP Identifies It: SWOOP will log instances of this as well, often as a note or low-severity issue. If it detects that the same URL is hyperlinked with different texts on the same page, it might flag a “Repeated URLs” or similar issue in its report. For example, SWOOP’s report might highlight that the URL https://intranet.company.com/Directory is linked from two different phrases, suggesting a standardization opportunity. (This check is more about content quality; SWOOP treats it as a “bad practice” alert rather than a strict accessibility violation.)

Why It’s Important: Inconsistent link text for the same destination can confuse users. One user might not realize two differently-named links go to the same place and wonder if they are separate resources. It’s also a maintenance issue – if the target page changes, you have to remember to update multiple differently-named links. From an accessibility standpoint, consistency helps cognitive understanding. WCAG has a principle about consistent identification (e.g., if the same functionality is repeated, it should be labelled the same way) – this is more of an AA/AAA level consideration, but it’s a good practice to follow.

Also, when a screen reader user pulls up a list of links, seeing the same URL behind two links with different names might be perplexing (“Am I being sent to the same place or not?”). It doesn’t violate a specific WCAG success criterion at level A/AA, but it relates to Understandable and Predictable content.

How to Fix: Standardize your link text for identical destinations where possible:

  • If you find that “Employee Directory” and “Contacts List” on the same page both go to the company directory, choose one naming convention and use it consistently. For instance, change all instances to “Employee Directory” (if that’s the preferred term).
  • Sometimes, you might have a corporate style guide to follow for naming. Adhering to one term for one resource across your intranet not only helps users but also looks more professional.
  • If there was a reason to use different labels (perhaps due to different context), consider adding a descriptive parenthetical. However, in general, a single resource should have a single name in your content.

After editing the page so that the same URL isn’t referenced by wildly different texts, SWOOP’s repeated URL warning will resolve. All links to that resource will look uniform.

WCAG Reference: There isn’t a direct WCAG 2.1 criterion that says “use the same wording for the same thing” at level A or AA. However, Consistent Identification is addressed in WCAG (Criterion 3.2.4, Level AA) which says components with the same function should be identified consistently. Links could be seen through this lens[1]. In any case, it’s a best practice: consistent link text for the same destination can be seen as supporting the spirit of WCAG’s Understandable principle. It reduces potential confusion and cognitive load.

Working with SharePoint’s Accessibility Checker

It’s worth noting how SWOOP’s accessibility checks complement the built-in Accessibility Checker in SharePoint. SharePoint’s own checker runs in the page editor and flags certain issues (like missing alt text or low colour contrast) while you are editing a page. However, it works one page at a time, and editors must manually run it. SWOOP operates at a higher level across all pages and catches issues in bulk, including some things the SharePoint checker might not currently flag (such as unclear or repeated link text).

Scope: SharePoint’s checker is great for instant feedback on a single page. SWOOP, on the other hand, can scan many pages (e.g., an entire site or hub) and compile a report of all accessibility issues found. This “eagle-eye view” lets intranet managers track the overall accessibility health of the whole intranet. For example, SWOOP can tell you that 20 pages on your site have images with no alt text. This might reveal patterns that suggest a need for content training (e.g., “We have dozens of pages missing alt text – perhaps our training needs to emphasize adding alt text”). Without SWOOP, those issues on old or seldom-edited pages might go unnoticed.

Proactivity: SWOOP doesn’t require someone to open the page for the check to happen. Even older pages that haven’t been touched in a while get scanned. This means issues can be caught and fixed proactively, rather than only when an editor happens to revise the page. Also, SWOOP’s checks include semantic issues (like link text quality) that SharePoint’s native tool currently doesn’t highlight.

However, the two tools are complementary, not replacements for each other. A suggested workflow:

  1. Use SWOOP to identify problematic pages and issues. For instance, SWOOP might alert you to a specific news article page that has two unclear link texts and a missing image description.
  2. Then use SharePoint’s editor checker when fixing those pages. When you edit that page in SharePoint, run the built-in Accessibility Checker. It might catch additional things SWOOP focuses less on, such as colour contrast or heading order. For example, SharePoint’s checker could say “This text has insufficient contrast” – something SWOOP doesn’t check for yet.
  3. Fix issues using guidance from both. SWOOP tells you what to fix and where; SharePoint’s tool (and editor interface) often shows you how to fix it (e.g., providing a field to add alt text, or highlighting exactly which text needs better contrast).

In summary, SWOOP acts as an automated auditor across your intranet, and SharePoint’s checker is an on-the-spot assistant for each page. Together, they significantly reduce the chance of accessibility issues slipping through. We recommend using SWOOP’s Accessibility dashboard regularly to monitor compliance, and using SharePoint’s checker during content creation and updates for a thorough approach.

Why Fixing These Issues Matters

Improving these accessibility issues isn’t just about pleasing a tool – it has real benefits for your organization and employees:

  • Inclusivity and Equality: An accessible intranet ensures that all employees, including those with disabilities (visual, auditory, motor, cognitive), can access and benefit from the content[1]. For example, adding alt text means a blind colleague can understand a chart’s content through a screen reader. Using clear link text means someone with a cognitive disability can navigate more easily. When your intranet is accessible, you’re not inadvertently excluding anyone from important information or services. This fosters a culture of inclusion and demonstrates that your organization values every employee’s needs.
  • Legal and Policy Compliance: Many organizations (especially in government, education, finance, and other regulated industries) are required to meet accessibility standards (like WCAG 2.1 AA) for their internal content, not just public websites. Missing alt text or non-descriptive links are common violations cited in audits. By systematically fixing these, you reduce legal risk and ensure compliance with regulations (such as the ADA, Section 508 in the US, or similar laws elsewhere)[1]. SWOOP’s checks map to known WCAG criteria (e.g., 1.1.1, 2.4.4), so addressing them helps you pass any internal or external accessibility audits.
  • Quality of User Experience: Interestingly, many accessibility best practices improve the intranet experience for all users, not just those with disabilities[1]. Descriptive link texts aren’t only for screen reader users – everyone prefers clearly labelled links because it’s easier to scan and find information. Providing alt text not only helps the blind; it also benefits people on slow connections or devices that can’t load images. Consistent link labelling avoids confusion for all readers. So by fixing these issues, you make your intranet more usable and clear for the average user as well. A well-structured, accessible page is often a well-organized page in general.
  • Efficiency and Productivity: From the content manager’s perspective, catching issues via SWOOP can save huge amounts of manual effort. Without an automated tool, you might have to rely on content editors to individually remember to check accessibility on each page – something that easily falls through the cracks. SWOOP automates the discovery of problems (it’s like having a diligent assistant who never tires). This frees up your time to focus on actually remedying issues rather than searching for them. One SWOOP user noted it was “like having an extra QA team member focused on accessibility”, constantly monitoring pages and flagging what needs attention. It’s much less labour-intensive to fix issues during the normal publishing process than to do a rushed overhaul later when someone reports a problem.
  • Maintaining Corporate Standards: If your organization has a commitment or policy around accessibility, using SWOOP to continuously monitor and fix issues keeps you aligned with those goals. It prevents the slow creep of bad habits. Instead of accessibility being a one-time project, it becomes an ongoing quality metric for your intranet content. Over time, as authors see these issues flagged and fix them, they learn to create accessible content by default – improving overall content quality.

In essence, an accessible intranet is a stronger intranet. It ensures every employee can engage with and benefit from internal content, reflecting an organization that cares about every voice and perspective. By leveraging SWOOP to identify gaps and taking action to resolve them, you’re investing in a more effective and equitable digital workplace.

Best Practices for Maintaining Accessibility on SharePoint Pages

Keeping your intranet accessible is an ongoing effort. Here are some best practices to help maintain accessibility, many of which align with the issues discussed:

Provide Alt Text for Images

Always add meaningful alternative text to images (or mark them decorative if they serve no informative purpose). This ensures that non-sighted users understand the content of visuals.

Use Descriptive Link Text

Avoid generic phrases like "click here". Make link text self-explanatory about the destination or action. For example, use “Download Annual Report” instead of “Click here”.

Keep Link Usage Consistent

If multiple links lead to the same page, use the same link text for each, and if multiple links have the same text, ensure they truly serve the same purpose. Consistency prevents confusion.

Leverage Accessibility Tools

Use SWOOP’s Accessibility dashboard regularly to catch issues across pages, and run SharePoint’s built-in Accessibility Checker when editing pages. These tools will highlight problems for you to fix.

Train and Educate Content Authors

Educate your intranet authors about accessibility guidelines. Share these best practices and emphasize things like adding alt text and using proper headings. An informed team will create accessible content from the start.

 

Additional Tips:

  • Use Proper Headings and Structure: Structure your page content with clear headings (H1, H2, H3…) in logical order. This helps all users navigate and is required for screen reader users to jump through content. For instance, use headings to break up topics rather than just bold text. (While SWOOP’s current checks focus on links and images, good heading structure is flagged by SharePoint’s checker and is part of WCAG 1.3.1.)
  • Ensure Colour Contrast: Make sure text has sufficient colour contrast against its background. SharePoint’s checker will warn about low contrast. As a rule of thumb, dark text on a light background (or vice versa) should be easily readable. Don’t rely on colour alone to convey information (e.g., don’t say “items in red are overdue” unless there is another indicator like an icon or label).
  • Test with Real Users or Emulators: Occasionally, try navigating your pages with a screen reader (like Narrator or NVDA) or only using the keyboard (try tabbing through links). This can reveal issues like keyboard traps, missing focus indicators, or unclear link order that automated tools might not catch.
  • Keep an Accessibility Log: If SWOOP allows export of issues, consider keeping a log of recurring issues. For example, if “Unclear Link Text” keeps popping up on many pages, it might indicate a need to globally change how people write links (maybe your CMS templates encourage a “Read more” pattern that you need to tweak).
  • Update Templates and Guidelines: Integrate these best practices into your content templates and style guides for the intranet. If all content editors use a common template that already includes prompts for alt text or discourages “click here” links, you’ll prevent many issues upstream.

By incorporating the above practices, you’ll find over time there are fewer issues for SWOOP to catch – because accessibility will be built into your content creation process. Remember that accessibility is a journey, not a one-time task. Continual awareness and improvement are key. With tools like SWOOP Analytics and a committed approach to best practices, maintaining an accessible SharePoint intranet becomes a natural part of your workflow, resulting in a better experience for everyone who uses it.