Travel booking websites usability and accessibility review
UX Research · July 2016
The UK spends £31 billion on international tourism annually — the fourth highest in the world. Between 2014 and 2015, 89 percent of UK holidaymakers booked at least one holiday online. With consumers parting with hundreds or thousands of pounds through these platforms, travel websites carry a particular obligation to provide experiences that are usable, accessible, and trustworthy. We wanted to know whether they were meeting that obligation.
We tested 10 of the UK’s top travel websites across four dimensions: general usability, search functionality, multi-device performance, and accessibility. Each site was scored out of 35 points. We then assessed nine of the ten for booking process quality, scored separately out of 10. We also worked with independent accessibility consultant Molly Watt — who lives with Usher syndrome, causing deafblindness — to conduct in-depth testing for users with visual and hearing impairments.
The results revealed a sector that broadly understands usability but is failing significantly on accessibility — particularly for the two million people in the UK living with sight loss.
10
Travel websites tested
23/35
Average score across all sites
2 of 10
Sites that were screen reader friendly
2M
People in the UK living with sight loss
The Overall Rankings
Each website was scored across usability (7 points), search functionality (12 points), multi-device performance (5 points), and accessibility (11 points) for a maximum of 35. Booking process was scored separately out of 10.
Usability, Device & Accessibility League Table (out of 35)
| Rank | Website | Usability (7) | Search (12) | Device (5) | Accessibility (11) | Total (35) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | Skyscanner | 7 | 10 | 4 | 7 | 28 |
| 2nd | Expedia | 4 | 9 | 3 | 10 | 26 |
| 2nd | Virgin Atlantic | 6 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 26 |
| 4th | Booking.com | 5 | 10 | 2 | 7 | 24 |
| 4th | On the Beach | 6 | 11 | 3 | 4 | 24 |
| 4th | Laterooms.com | 5 | 8 | 4 | 7 | 24 |
| 7th | Lastminute.com | 6 | 9 | 5 | 2 | 22 |
| 8th | Airbnb | 5 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 21 |
| 9th | British Airways | 3 | 6 | 3 | 7 | 19 |
| 10th | Co-operative Travel | 7 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 17 |
Skyscanner topped the table with 28 out of 35, performing consistently across all categories. Co-operative Travel came last with just 17 — scoring only 1 out of 11 for accessibility. The spread is telling: the gap between best and worst was 11 points, revealing significant inconsistency across the industry. While most sites scored reasonably well for basic usability, the accessibility category exposed the deepest failures.
Booking Process Scores (out of 10)
| Rank | Website | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 1st | Booking.com | 9 |
| 1st | Laterooms.com | 9 |
| 3rd | On the Beach | 8 |
| 3rd | British Airways | 8 |
| 3rd | Virgin Atlantic | 8 |
| 6th | Co-operative Travel | 7 |
| 6th | Airbnb | 7 |
| 8th | Expedia | 6 |
| 9th | Lastminute.com | 5 |
Skyscanner was excluded from booking scores as it redirects users to third-party sites. Booking.com and Laterooms.com tied for first with 9 out of 10. Lastminute.com — despite strong general usability — scored worst for its booking process at just 5, with unclear form labels, no obvious distinction between required and optional fields, and a progress indicator that functioned more like a breadcrumb than a progress bar.
The Accessibility Gap: Where the Industry Is Failing
Accessibility was the weakest dimension across all ten sites. Only two of the ten — Expedia and Virgin Atlantic — were judged screen reader friendly. Only four contained ARIA roles. Only four had skip links. Many sites had disabled the zoom function entirely, removing a critical tool for partially sighted users. Multiple sites used identical alt text and heading text, causing screen readers to stutter as they read the same phrase twice. On the British Airways site, a screen reader announced a button as “Next step disabled” — giving the user incorrect information about what they could do.
| Accessibility Feature | Sites passing | Sites failing |
|---|---|---|
| Screen reader friendly | 2 | 8 |
| Contains ARIA roles | 4 | 6 |
| Contains skip links | 4 | 6 |
| Clear focus area when tabbing | 2 | 8 |
| Descriptive alt text on images | 5 | 5 |
| Sufficient colour contrast | 6 | 4 |
| Zoom enabled on iPad | 7 | 3 |
| Forms accessible to keyboard users | 4 | 6 |
| Avoids sliders requiring dual focus | 4 | 6 |
| Clear two-column layout | 3 | 7 |
The pattern is clear: basic accessibility features that have been documented in guidelines for years are still missing from the majority of major travel platforms. RNIB’s Terry Hawkins put it directly in his foreword to our report: considering the user experience of a website is valuable, but not when accessibility is left out of the conversation. Total digital inclusion is now required to ensure all members of society have equal access to services.
“Travel sites with bad accessibility have stopped me from making purchases in the past and hampered my experiences. I once booked an excursion for the wrong dates and when I called to change it they were really unhelpful, even though they knew I had a visual impairment. These types of experience knock my confidence when it comes to booking anything. Some of the biggest issues: colours and fonts being too garish, zoom features disabled, content cluttered and laid out badly, and anything with more than one column means I can easily get lost.”
— Molly Watt, accessibility consultant, on her experience booking travel online
Conclusions and Recommendations
The travel sector broadly understands usability — most sites scored well for clear homepages, appropriate GUI components, and secure booking processes. Nine of the ten had a mobile app. All had responsive or adaptive layouts. The fundamentals are in place. But accessibility remains a serious gap. Only two sites were screen reader friendly. Many had disabled zoom. Forms were often inaccessible to keyboard users. Alt text was missing or duplicated. And the consistent colour contrast issues across multiple sites suggest that accessibility is still treated as an afterthought rather than a design priority.
Our recommendations are practical. Travel sites should enable zoom on all devices. They should ensure all interactive elements are keyboard-accessible and introduce skip links and ARIA roles for screen reader navigation. Colour contrasts should be reviewed — particularly on booking forms, where white backgrounds and low-contrast text create glare. Layouts should be simplified. Alt text should be descriptive and distinct from heading text. And the zoom function should never be disabled — for users with sight loss, it is not a convenience, it is a necessity.
This report was produced by Hilary Stephenson, Managing Director at Sigma, with accessibility testing conducted by independent consultant Molly Watt. Foreword contributed by Terry Hawkins, Head of Business to Business Solutions at RNIB.
Frequently Asked Questions
Travel Website Accessibility and Usability
Which travel website scored highest for usability and accessibility?
Skyscanner scored highest overall with 28 out of 35 points, performing consistently well across usability, search functionality, and multi-device experience. For accessibility specifically, Expedia scored highest with 10 out of 11, thanks to its ability to zoom, clear headings, simple two-column layout, accessible calendars, and the option to make special requests such as guide dog accommodation. For booking process quality, Booking.com and Laterooms.com tied for first with 9 out of 10.
What are ARIA roles and why are they important for travel websites?
ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles are HTML attributes that describe the structure and purpose of elements on a web page to assistive technologies like screen readers. They allow users to skip to particular sections — navigation, main content, search forms — rather than tabbing through every link on the page sequentially. For travel websites with complex search forms, date pickers, and multi-step booking processes, ARIA roles are essential for making the experience navigable for users who cannot see the screen. In our testing, only four of the ten sites used ARIA roles.
Why should travel websites never disable the zoom function?
Disabling zoom on a travel website removes one of the most basic and important tools available to partially sighted users. Many people with visual impairments do not use screen readers — they rely on zooming to enlarge text, buttons, and images. When a website disables this function (usually through a meta viewport tag), it forces users to either switch to assistive technology they may not normally use or abandon the site entirely. In our testing, three of the ten travel sites had disabled zoom. Given that two million people in the UK live with sight loss, this represents a significant and unnecessary barrier to booking.
What makes a good booking process on a travel website?
Our research identified several elements that distinguish strong booking processes from weak ones. A clear progress bar showing which step the user is on and how many remain is essential. Optional extras should be presented clearly without disruptive pop-ups — ideally on a single page near the end of the process. Pricing must be transparent at every stage. Form labels should be specific (saying “first name” rather than just “name”), with required and optional fields clearly distinguished. Error messages should explain exactly what needs to be changed. And the process must feel secure throughout. Booking.com and Laterooms.com scored highest because they delivered on all of these criteria consistently.
How many people in the UK are affected by poor website accessibility in the travel sector?
According to RNIB, approximately two million people in the UK live with sight loss — a figure projected to rise to 2.25 million by 2020 and nearly four million by 2050 as the population ages. One in five people aged 75 or over has some form of visual impairment. Beyond sight loss, accessibility barriers affect people with motor impairments, cognitive conditions, hearing loss, and those who rely on keyboard navigation. When travel websites fail on accessibility, they risk excluding a significant and growing segment of the population — along with the friends and family who would travel with them.