CommonMyths on Accessibility Overlays
Do we need the thirtieth article on accessibility overlays? Not really, somehow everyone has commented on it and everything has been said. On the other hand, there are even large organizations like the VdK or Aktion Mensch that use these tools. They therefore serve as an unfortunately negative role model for organizations that, unlike Aktion Mensch or VdK, cannot know any better.
It is also the case that although the accessibility community is well informed, people outside the field are still uninformed and therefore receptive to the statements of the overlay providers.
A few preliminary remarks
An accessibility or barrier-free overlay is a JavaScript library that is integrated into a website and provides various functions. These usually include contrast modes, zoom, font adjustment and similar functions. More rarely, there are also automatically generated image descriptions, translations into understandable language and similar functions. Such functions can sometimes be booked additionally.
First of all, I would like to say that I only want to criticize the overlay providers who behave as described below. If you sell your solution as a help for people who are not tech-savvy or older people, that is perfectly fine. Anyone who behaves like this need not feel addressed here. Unfortunately, many overlay providers suggest that their solutions make the website fully accessible. They are now a little more cautious and no longer say this openly so that they cannot be held liable for false claims. However, since most customers have no idea about accessibility, they fall for the suggestions of the trained sales people.
It is also true that some overlay providers sell other quite useful tools. Some providers have monitoring tools in their portfolio, which can be useful. If they focus on selling useless overlays, however, that shows where their priorities lie. If they also offer services such as consulting or training, there is a risk that these are disguised sales events.
Myth 1: Accessibility overlays are an interim solution
Accessibility overlays are often advertised as an interim solution before making the website "properly" accessible. This does not work for many reasons.
These tools often only fix superficial aspects of accessibility, such as contrast problems or font size, while structural and deeper problems such as incorrect HTML code, inadequate ARIA labels or poor UX remain untouched. So they do not solve any accessibility problem at all, but offer a few basic adaptation options, especially for visually impaired people. These adaptation options are generally not sufficient for People with strong impairments.
I have observed a number of websites that use these tools. During this time, there has been no visible improvement in accessibility. In fact, the ongoing costs for the overlays make it more difficult to obtain budgets for making the website accessible. Management will ask why you want more money when you have already bought the overlay.
Companies often believe that an overlay will meet the requirements of accessibility guidelines (such as WCAG). In fact, some overlay providers suggest this. This leads to a false sense of security and to no further steps being taken. It is not true that companies see the overlays as a temporary solution; often enough they do not take any further steps because they do not understand the problem or believe it has been solved. That's is not the fault of the customer, but rather the false promises of the overlay providers.
Myth 2: Overlays are aimed at disabled people
The focus of overlays is often on meeting minimal compliance requirements, not on actually improving the user experience for people with disabilities. Some people with mild visual impairments may benefit from zooming or reading aloud capabilities. The majority of disabled people do not benefit because the adjustment options are inadequate. If you tell person with strong visual impairments that they can zoom the web page by 200 percent, they will often laugh and wave it off: they need 400, 700 or 1000 percent zoom.
People with disabilities have very different accessibility needs depending on their disability (e.g. visual impairment, motor impairment, cognitive impairment). Based on this, they use their own tools or strategies that work independently of an overlay.
Myth 3: Developing overlays is expensive
Overlays cause permanent costs that are justified by high development and maintenance costs.
The basic functions of modern overlays are about 25 years old. Even back then there were text versions, style switches and similar things like there are today. However, developing such tools is much easier to implement thanks to modern CSS, Javascript and HTML. Any web development intern can develop the corresponding functions for your website in just a few weeks. It is also the case that all of these tools offer exactly the same functions in the basic version. Did they all develop them themselves or copy them from each other - who knows?
Disabled people have always been involved in the development, haven't they? "My third cousin wears glasses and took a look at them" probably counts as involvement. But why should they be involved at all if all overlays offer the same basic functions?
From what I've observed, no new functions are being added: Apart from bug fixing, little seems to be happening. It's also interesting to note that providers are primarily looking for sales people and not developers.
But all the AI? Well, there are AI-based functions, but they are mainly used for voice transmission, e.g. in easy or simple language. AI is neither necessary nor noticeable in the basic functions. As I said, there has been no noticeable further development in the last five years. Functions such as translations or automatic image descriptions/subtitles are simply purchased, which is fine. But then you don't have to pretend that you developed them yourself.
Myth 4: Overlays help people who are not tech-savvy
This is a common myth that has since been refuted by Daniela Kubesch's master's thesis: Most people who would use such tools do not recognize the functionality of the overlays. Most of the time there is a logo like the a11y man, the logo of the respective company or something similarly abstract on the button to display the function. Okay, people don't know how to zoom the website with the mouse in their browser or change the color schemes in the operating system, but they are supposed to know what these icons stand for?
Myth 5: Overlays are better than nothing
If you can't invest in accessibility, then just use an overlay. That's better than doing nothing, right? Unfortunately not. You're spending money, so you might as well invest in accessibility.
Even though I don't follow the strict definition of accessibility (accessibility = 100 percent conformity with WCAG), none of the requirements state that the provider of a digital service must provide font enlargement or similar functions themselves. Rather, the provider must ensure that settings defined by the user work. So an overlay doesn't bring you any closer to conformity. You can be compliant or not, the overlay has no influence on that.
Myth 6: Overlay providers are part of the accessibility community
Overlay providers would like to be part of the accessibility community, but they are not. No matter how you define the community, a few principles apply to everyone.
- You don't spread false information about digital accessibility to potential customers in order to sell your solution or offer.
- You don't sue your critics or intimidate them with legal maneuvers, as some providers have done in Germany.
- You don't talk nonsense in acquisition talks and you don't use aggressive and fear-based sales tactics, as a German provider likes to do, for example. I have experienced this myself and have heard it credibly from third parties. Anyone who does this, regardless of whether it is an overlay or not, has no place in the community.
One individual provider or its managing director has even been charged with manipulation on the stock market in the USA. A US provider has just recently had to pay $1 million for false claims. So it's fair to say that they are a pretty unpleasant bunch.
Of course, many people (including me) make their money from accessibility. But we are concerned with providing a high-quality service. The overlay providers are concerned with selling as many tools as possible so that they can satisfy their shareholders. That would be fine if their tools were somehow useful, but they are not.
I have also not seen any substantial contribution to the community from any of the overlay providers. They focus primarily on SEO, which they are good at, to boost their unoriginal contributions and spend a lot of money on Google ads and other marketing activities.