BUG - sev-2 - Probably all? Definitely iOS - Some links in appeals not announcing as links to screenreader

[TKDickson]

What happened?

On at least one link in the mobile app ("opt in to the new decision review process" for an active appeal with a type of pending_form9), but I'm willing to bet a few more beyond that, we are not announcing the link as a link to screen reader users. Here's a video of it in iOS (the only reason I double-tapped on the link was to show that it IS in fact a link, even though it's not announced as one, not because we could reasonably expect screen reader users to do so)

We read the content of the link, and that's it. So screen reader users won't/can't know that the link is a link, and therefore actionable, and do whatever the link is about (in this case, it's one of the MAIN actions they could do for an appeal in this status)

I don't 100% know what's causing this in code, but there are several MobileBodyLink instances in the AppealCurrentStatus file that are at least suspicious-looking, to me, so I'd be willing to bet they are also impacted.

Specs:

• Device:
• OS:
• User Account:
• Accessibility State:

Steps to Reproduce

• Will need to have an active appeal with a type of pending_form9, or use Charles Proxy to mock one
• Log in as a user with screen reader on, and navigate to ^ appeal
• Swipe through the whole screen, notice the "opt in to the new decision review process" bullet point link is not announced as a link

Desired behavior

All links should be announced with a role of 'link'

Acceptance Criteria

Bug Severity - BE SURE TO ADD THE SEVERITY LABEL

See Bug Tracking for details on severity levels

• Impact: High
• Frequency: Low

• 2 - High

Linked to Story

Found while testing, but not caused by, #5779

Screen shot(s) and additional information

Full JSON response for services related to issue (expand/collapse)

for any appeals details response:

{
	"data": {
		"id": "A1116",
		"type": "appeal",
		"attributes": {
			"appealIds": ["A1116"],
			"active": true,
			"alerts": [],
			"aod": false,
			"aoj": "vba",
			"description": "Tinnitus",
			"docket": {},
			"events": [{
				"type": "ama_nod",
				"date": "2023-02-17"
			}, {
				"type": "distributed_to_vlj",
				"date": "2024-02-15"
			}],
			"evidence": [],
			"incompleteHistory": false,
			"issues": [{
				"active": true,
				"lastAction": null,
				"description": "Tinnitus",
				"diagnosticCode": "6260",
				"date": null
			}],
			"location": "bva",
			"programArea": "compensation",
			"status": {
				"type": "pending_form9",
				"details": {}
			},
			"type": "appeal",
			"updated": "2024-11-17T22:49:53-05:00"
		}
	}
}

Ticket Checklist

• Steps to reproduce are defined
• Desired behavior is added
• Labels added (front-end, back-end, global, Health, relevant feature, accessibility, etc)
• Estimate of 1 added (for front-end tickets)
• Added either to the relevant feature epic (if found during new feature implementation), or the relevant team's bug epic (Global, Health & Benefits, API, QART)

[wavelaurenrussell]

@Sparowhawk answering from refinement: yes I would make that the link component so that SR can interact with it and confidently make a choice.

[Sparowhawk]

For QA the ones that were updated were

statutory_opt_in
pending_form9
merged

those were the only 3 that had links

[DJUltraTom]

@TKDickson @Sparowhawk do we have an account with "pending_form9" or a json for the updated links to validate against?

[TKDickson]

@DJUltraTom
afaik we don't have an account - I found the issue by taking an account with appeals (probably Arfan) and modifying the type of an existing appeal to pending_form9

[DJUltraTom]

using the on demand build for 9800 the link is still not announcing properly
Private Zenhub Video

[TKDickson]

Added sample charles response to ticket

[Sparowhawk]

@wavelaurenrussell @mistymg

We are going to need to redesign that particular view then. The a11y role is specified, it is just not announcing due to using a VABulletList and Textview components.

This section needs to be rewritten to use the link component instead. I just don't know if this should be shelved for a whole redesign of appeals like we did claims. Or if this should be a one off fix.

[wavelaurenrussell]

Yeah, we scoped the Claims work only to Claims. So if you didn't complete any work within Appeals, then that's probably why. Due to the limited scope in Claims.