Patrick Perdue, who is blind, regularly shops for equipment through the website of Ham Radio Outlet. He was able to use his keyboard and screen reader to navigate through the sections of the website.
When the store started using an accessibility tool, it changed everything. The site became too hard for Mr Perdue to navigate. The code introduced by accessiBe was supposed to fix coding errors and make it easier to use. Checkout and shopping cart buttons were hidden from Mr. Perdue's screen reader when the page was re-formatted. There were incorrect labels for buttons. He couldn't find the site's search box or the information he needed to navigate the page.
Mr. Perdue is one of hundreds of people with disabilities who have complained about issues with automated accessibility web services, whose popularity has risen sharply in recent years.
Companies give these tools. AudioEye and User Way are both publicly traded and have reported revenues in the millions. According to their websites, some charge monthly fees ranging from $50 to $1,000, while others charge annual fees of several hundred dollars or thousand dollars. Depending on the number of pages a site has, pricing is presented in tiers. Hospitals and local governments are listed as clients by these companies.
It is built into their pitch that their services will not only help people who are blind or low vision use the internet more easily but also keep companies from facing litigation if they don't make their websites accessible.
It is not working out like that. Users like Mr. Perdue say the software doesn't offer much help, and some of the clients that use AudioEye, accessiBe and User Way are facing legal action anyway. According to data collected by a digital accessibility provider, more than 400 companies had an accessibility add-on on their site last year.
Mr Perdue said that he had not found a single one that would make his life better. He said that he spends more time working around the overlays than he does on the website.
Last year, over 700 accessibility advocates and web developers signed an open letter calling on organizations to stop using these tools, writing that the practical value of the new features was overstated. Many blind users already have screen readers or other software to help them while online.
The goal of making websites more accessible was shared by AudioEye, User Way and accessiBe. The chief operating officer of UserWay apologized for the issues with its tools and promised to work to fix them. Josh Basile, a spokesman for AccessiBe, said that the open letter was pushing the conversation in the wrong direction. The company was willing to listen to feedback.
AudioEye and UserWay both said they were investing in research and development to improve their artificial intelligence abilities.
David Moradi, the chief executive of AudioEye, said his automated service and others like it were the only way to fix the internet's millions of active websites. There has to be automation. This is a huge problem and we will never fix it.
The accessibility experts would prefer not to use automated accessibility. They want organizations to hire and train full time employees to oversee these efforts. It can be hard to do so.
Adrian Roselli, who has worked as a digital accessibility consultant for two decades, said there is a need for people with accessibility experience. It's been a niche industry for so long that the skills aren't there yet.
He said that this gap has given the companies selling accessibility tools a chance to grow, offering websites seemingly quick solutions to their accessibility problems while sometimes making it harder for people who are blind to navigate the web.
The Department of Justice made clear in recent guidance that a client's page will be "accessible and compliant" with the American With Disabilities Act after accessiBe's Javascript code is installed.
The company advises its customers to use an automated tool and accessibility experts to fix any errors. AudioEye can't tell whether clients follow its advice. He thinks a hybrid solution that combines automation and manual fixes is a good idea.
We try to be very transparent about the fact that automation won't do everything. He said that it would get better and better.
People with low vision and blind can't understand why it's unreasonable to ask them to wait for automated products to get better. Brian Moore, who is blind and lives in Toronto, can't order a pizza because buttons and images that aren't labeled can be a problem.
In addition to poorly labeled images, buttons and forms, blind users have documented issues with overlays that include being unable to use their keyboards to navigate webpages either because headings on the page are not properly marked or because certain parts of the page are not searchable or selectable Automated tools have turned every piece of text on a page into a heading, preventing users from jumping to the section they want to read.
Mr. Moore said he had trouble completing tasks such as buying a laptop, claiming his employee benefits, booking transportation, and completing banking transactions on websites that had overlay.
He said that if the object is to make it more accessible, what value are you adding?
It can be difficult for people to do their jobs. Automatic Data Processing was sued by LightHouse for the Blind and visually impaired for using an automated accessibility tool. Bryan Bashin said there were many instances where blind employees could not do their jobs. The lawsuit was settled through an agreement in which the company agreed to improve its accessibility.
The company said it values digital inclusion.
Mr. Bashin said that the quality of the accessibility software could vary widely.
LightHouse for the blind and visually impaired was not against these types of tools. He imagined a future in which automated software would vastly improve online experiences for blind people.
He believes that A.I. will get this right even if it is a mixed bag. If you notice, I am not driving one at the moment.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
