Cuatro razones por las que las capas de accesibilidad no funcionan

En 4 Reasons Why Accessibility Overlays Don’t Work se explican cuatro razones por las que las capas de accesibilidad no funcionan:

1. Accessibility overlays need to be found and activated
   For an accessibility overlay to even begin to be effective, the user must first be able to activate it. Occasionally, the activation and deactivation methods for accessibility overlays are not keyboard accessible, meaning only a mouse can turn them on and off. This design leaves mobile and keyboard-only users unable to access the overlay at all.
   
   Some overlays also can’t be found by screen readers and other assistive technologies. As a result, users relying on those technologies will not be able to find the overlay, rendering it useless.
2. Accessibility overlays may not be compatible with the user’s preferred settings
   People with disabilities usually have their own preferred assistive technologies to help them perform tasks. For example, a user with low vision who uses a screen magnifier probably uses that same screen magnifier when browsing any website and can turn it on and off easily.
   
   Accessibility overlays, however, have their own predefined actions and functions. They do not conform to the user’s preferred technologies and settings. In the example of the user with low vision, this user must figure out how to turn on and configure the overlay’s magnifier tool rather than being able to use the already-configured preferred tool.
3. Accessibility overlays are not universally consistent
   The incompatibility of accessibility overlays with individual user settings might not be as much of a problem if accessibility overlays were universally consistent. However, accessibility overlays created by different companies must each be used differently as well.
   
   Companies should not burden their customers with figuring out how to use each new accessibility overlay. Instead, company websites should be built to conform to current web and accessibility standards. These standards empower all users to access and navigate the website using their preferred devices.
4. Accessibility overlays can’t detect most accessibility issues
   To make a website accessible, a wide variety of criteria must be evaluated across the entire site. Some of these can be automatically evaluated, such as color contrast. However, many items must be evaluated manually to be fully tested.
   
   For example, automated testing can determine if all images across the website have alt tags or if any are missing alternative text. Unfortunately, automated testing cannot determine if the text within each tag is appropriate for each image or not, which is where accessibility overlays fall short and manual testing is required.
   
   Automated testing can usually detect about 20-30% of accessibility issues, meaning accessibility overlays can only detect and address 20-30% of issues. This leaves 70-80% of accessibility issues completely undetected, never mind remedied, posing a significant legal risk to your company.

Una tesis de maestría sobre las capas de accesibilidad

En The Impact of Web Accessibility Overlays on the Usability and User Experience for People with Permanent Visual Impairments podemos leer en el resumen la conclusión de esta tesis de maestría:

The research shows that accessibility overlays, in their current form, do not effectively improve the usability or UX for individuals with permanent visual impairments. Although there is a slight improvement when users are unaware of the overlay’s presence, overall, UX and usability are considered marginal at best and deteriorate upon recognition and interaction with an accessibility overlay. Furthermore, the research displays that accessibility overlays in their current form cannot meet WCAG 2.1 AA standards. The study also finds that users with permanent visual impairments are generally hesitant to engage with accessibility overlays and prefer to rely on their existing access technologies. However, they are willing to use accessibility overlays under improved conditions, which are discussed in the thesis. The empirical knowledge gained guides future technology, designs, policies, and research to create a more inclusive digital world.

Multa a accessiBe por publicidad engañosa

En FTC Approves Final Order Requiring accessiBe to pay $1 Million podemos leer:

The Federal Trade Commission has approved a final consent order against accessiBe Inc. and accessiBe Ltd. (accessiBe). AccessiBe claimed the plug-in accessWidget can make any website compliant with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). The order prohibits accessiBe from making misleading claims and requires the company to pay $1 million.

The FTC’s January 2025 proposed complaint alleged that despite the company’s claims, accessWidget did not make all user websites WCAG-compliant and these claims were false, misleading, or unsubstantiated. In addition, the complaint alleged that accessiBe deceptively formatted third-party articles and reviews to appear as if they were independent opinions and failed to disclose the company’s material connections to the supposedly objective reviewers.

Más información: FTC Order Requires Online Marketer to Pay $1 Million for Deceptive Claims that its AI Product Could Make Websites Compliant with Accessibility Guidelines 

Un estudio sobre las capas de accesibilidad: promesas y trampas

Jonathan Chacón ha publicado la entrada Investigación sobre la promesa y los peligros de las accessibility overlays para usuarios ciegos y con baja visión en la que se hace eco del artículo The Promise and Pitfalls of Web Accessibility Overlays for Blind and Low Vision Users que en breve se presentará en el congreso 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’24).

Solo por el título, "la promesa y las trampas de las capas de accesibilidad web", podemos percibir que este artículo no ensalza las bondades de las capas de accesibilidad, si es que tienen alguna bondad.

El título de este artículo me ha recordado otro con un título similar, Accessibility Overlays: Promises and Pitfalls, de la American Foundation for the Blind, que es bien claro: 

Website accessibility overlays are becoming increasingly common because of the quick and easy accessibility fix they are often promised to provide. However, they not only fail to serve assistive technology users with an effective user experience but also fail to protect website owners from litigation, which is often a principle premise for their usage. At the AFB Talent Lab, we strongly recommend that you do not use any third-party scripts to try to fix your site’s underlying accessibility issues. It might sound like a good solution, but as with many shortcuts, it’s absolutely too good to be true.

Por cierto, Jonathan me comenta que allá por el año 2012 publicó el artículo Ventajas y peligros de la accesibilidad, en el que decía:

Otras soluciones como Web anywhere, ReadSpeak o Inclusite consisten en una aplicación Java, Flash u otra tecnología similar que proporcionan un método de acceso alternativo a los contenidos y funcionalidades de una web.

En el caso de Readspeak se confunde accesibilidad con mejor experiencia del usuario ya que el servicio consiste en una función para que el navegador nos lea la página web que estamos visitando por si no nos apetece hacerlo ya que una persona ciega que haya accedido a esa página de forma autónoma no necesita dicho servicio ya que disfruta de la voz ofrecida por su lector de pantallas.

Pero en el caso de Web anywhere e Inclusite su función va más allá ya que intentan sustituir al producto de apoyo habitual del usuario ya que, en muchos casos, estos servicios son incompatibles con algunos lectores de pantalla o sistemas de reconocimiento del habla dejando al usuario con discapacidad en un limbo de indefensión en el momento de pasar al uso de su producto de apoyo al de estos servicios ya que, aunque estos servicios satisfagan las necesidades de algunos usuarios no contemplan una serie de problemas básicos.

[...]

Estos servicios proporcionan un método de acceso más que suficiente para algunas personas ya que satisfacen sus necesidades por completo pero no solucionan las necesidades de todos los usuarios.

Todos estos servicios, actualmente, deben aceptarse como una alternativa opcional para algunas personas con discapacidad. En ningún caso deben presentarse como soluciones completas y reales para conseguir una web accesible.

La opinión de la American Foundation for the Blind sobre las capas de accesibilidad

En Accessibility Overlays: Promises and Pitfalls:

These accessibility overlays can also break your website completely by applying automatic fixes to the few issues mentioned above, which means risking your website’s user interface as changing the structure impacts how the page is being rendered. Though some vendors do claim to provide manual testing and remediation, often the remediation is only applied to the overlay script and not to the inaccessible underlying code. If the overlay is blocked by the user, the inaccessible underlying code is fully exposed.

[...]

Unfortunately, the accessibility overlays generally don’t fix many issues, and they can even make things significantly worse. Only a small subset of problems can be detected automatically, and many of those still require human judgment to evaluate. We’ve also seen some examples where the overlay UI controls themselves were inaccessible.

Las capas de accesibilidad deberían ser para los usuarios finales, no para los sitios web

Una reflexión muy interesante sobre las capas de accesibilidad en Overlays Misunderstand Accessibility:

To talk about this subject, let’s start with a hypothetical. We’ll hypothesize that accessibility overlays perfectly solve all accessibility problems on a site. Let’s imagine a future world where the technology used by an accessibility overlay is able to magically transform a user’s experience on a website from a completely blocking experience to something absolutely delightful.

Yeah, it’s a long-shot hypothesis. But work with me, here.

Even in that situation, I would continue to oppose accessibility overlays, for one simple reason:

If it’s so amazing, why isn’t it sold to people with disabilities as assistive technology?

Otra opinión (negativa) sobre las capas de accesibilidad

En Accessibility overlays are not for disabled people:

An accessibility overlay (or accessibility widget) is one of those wee icon-only buttons you sometimes see floating over a web page; usually in the bottom-right corner. When you press them, they give you a bunch of options to make the website ‘more accessible’.

Why did I use inverted commas? Well, they profess to make a website more accessible, but do little-to-nothing of any real use; in fact, they can actually hinder a disabled user’s experience of a website!

[...]

Accessibility overlays are for non-disabled people by non-disabled people. The only way to properly address accessibility issues is at the product development level: carefully considered designs and well written code. Adding a single line of JavaScript to your website or app is not the answer.

Cuatro razones contra las capas de accesibilidad

En 4 Reasons An Overlay Widget Will Not Solve Your Accessibility Woes se explican cuatro razones muy convincentes.

¿Las capas de accesibilidad sirven para algo?

Según la tesis de maestría  The Impact of Web Accessibility Overlays on the Usability and User Experience for People with Permanent Visual Impairments, realizada en el marco del Master's Programme in Digital Service Innovation de la Salzburg University of Applied Sciences, parece que las capas de accesibilidad no ayudan, sino todo lo contrario:

The research shows that accessibility overlays, in their current form, do not effectively improve the usability or UX for individuals with permanent visual impairments. Although there is a slight improvement when users are unaware of the overlay’s presence, overall, UX and usability are considered marginal at best and deteriorate upon recognition and interaction with an accessibility overlay. Furthermore, the research displays that accessibility overlays in their current form cannot meet WCAG 2.1 AA standards. The study also finds that users with permanent visual impairments are generally hesitant to engage with accessibility overlays and prefer to rely on their existing access technologies. However, they are willing to use accessibility overlays under improved conditions, which are discussed in the thesis. The empirical knowledge gained guides future technology, designs, policies, and research to create a more inclusive digital world. 

Cuatro empresas de capas de accesibilidad han amenazado con denunciar a sus críticos

En Ethical Problems with Overlays and How to Overcome Them podemos leer:

Overlay vendors engage in attacks against their critics, including lawsuits and threats of legal action.

To date, I am aware of four overlay vendors who have threatened to sue their critics, and two of those have done so. Both FACIL'iti and AudioEye have filed lawsuits against critics. These lawsuits have been characterized by some in this field as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), which is a tactic specifically used to not only silence the critic being sued but to also create a chilling effect on future criticism.

Retirada la denuncia contra Adrian Roselli por parte de AudioEye

Adrian Roselli, experto en accesibilidad web, fue denunciado por hablar de las capas de accesibilidad (accessibility overlays).

Ahora, el propio Adrian Roselli cuenta en su blog que la denuncia ha sido retirada: #AudioEye Has Dropped Its Suit Against Me.

Las partes han llegado a un acuerdo que es confidencial, pero una de las cláusulas del acuerdo que se ha hecho pública es lo siguiente:

As part of this settlement, and with the hopes of continuing to work toward digital accessibility, AudioEye has agreed to make a financial contribution of no less than $10,000 to National Federation for the Blind.

Dos expertos en accesibilidad web denunciados en Francia por una empresa de capas de accesibilidad

Un caso similar al de Adrian Roselli, experto en accesibilidad web, denunciado por hablar de las capas de accesibilidad (accessibility overlays), pero ahora en Francia: Accessibility Advocates Sued by French Overlay Company. El artículo dice:

FACIL’iti  is a French accessibility overlay company. The company sued two accessibility leaders who participated in a conversation about accessibility overlays alleging defamation. On the side of the defendants, many describe this as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation  (SLAPP). 

“In French the equivalent of a SLAPP suit is ‘poursuites bâillons’ (literally ‘gagging pursuits’). Strategic Prosecutions Altering the Public Debate is a detailed report (in French) on the dangers of and potential reforms for this phenomenon in France,” writes Lainey Feingold in an article about the French Overlay Company lawsuit .

Opinión de la Comisión Europea sobre las capas de accesibilidad

En Accessibility overlays:

Automatically repairing accessibility issues requires that those issues can be found automatically. Claims that a website can be made fully compliant without manual intervention are not realistic, since no automated tool can cover all the WCAG 2.1 level A and AA criteria. It is even less realistic to expect to detect automatically the additional EN 301549 criteria. Moreover, automatic repair is more challenging than the automatic detection of accessibility failures. 

In addition, some overlay tools have been reported to interfere with the assistive technologies used by people with disabilities. In other words, overlay tools may make a website less accessible for some users.

Tools claiming to make a site fully compliant can be distinguished from a different category of tools, namely widgets built into webpages that allow users to adapt certain aspects of a site to their own needs or preferences. These include the ATbar and UI Options These tools do not claim to solve any accessibility issues on a site but assume (and possibly require) a basic level of accessibility.

Neither of the above categories of tools can substitute for the manual work of making a site accessible. DG COMM cannot endorse any tools or products that fall into the categories of overlay tools or widgets.

Lo que piensa Google sobre las capas de accesibilidad

En Inclusive Marketing - Disabled people - Web Accessibility se explica lo siguiente sobre las capas de accesibilidad (accessibility overlay):

Consider the limitations of overlays: Web overlay widgets are a popular way to attempt to improve website accessibility automatically. While these add-ons try to improve certain features, they do not address the root issues necessary to reach full compliance and may even interfere with the website’s proper functioning.

Adrian Roselli, experto en accesibilidad web, denunciado por hablar de las capas de accesibilidad (accessibility overlays)

Muy sorprendente todo lo que se cuenta en New Low in the Accessibility “Industry:” Overlay Company Sues Globally-Recognized Accessibility Expert:

This is an article about a lawsuit filed against a digital accessibility advocate named Adrian Roselli.  Adrian has been outspoken against a type of software called an overlay. This type of overlay promises to make websites accessible for disabled people with just one line of code. Lainey has criticized this software too. Adrian was sued by AudioEye, a company that sells overlays.  It is Lainey’s opinion that this lawsuit is a SLAPP suit. Those initials stand for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.”  Adrian has been part of an urgent global dialogue about harms caused by overlays. And about their failure to meet the promise of website accessibility. Lainey urges AudioEye and its lawyers at a big global law firm called Akin to drop this lawsuit.

Comentarios en Twitter sobre las capas de accesibilidad (accessibility overlay)

Hace unos pocos días pude leer la siguiente discusión en Twitter:

Dios mío, qué puto timo. Una web que dice que con un widget que metes con Javascript en tu página, la conviertes en WCAG 2.1 AA Compliance. Y nadie les cierra el chiringuito ni nada: https://t.co/0vcDMzfG7L
Lo peor es que las empresas se lo creen, y el usuario lo sufre 🤢🤢

— Juanjo (kastwey@mastodon.cat) (@kastwey) March 26, 2023

La industria responde a las críticas contra las capas de accesibilidad

Las capas de accesibilidad (accessibility overlays) es una tecnología que promete solucionar los problemas de accesibilidad de un sitio web con muy poco esfuerzo. Claro, para el propietario de un sitio web que necesite ser accesible, este tipo de soluciones son una maravilla. Pero es como las dietas milagro: pierde peso rápidamente, a veces poniendo en riesgo tu salud, para luego en unos pocos meses volver a recuperarlo.

En el sitio web Overlay False Claims se desmontan varias de las afirmaciones que emplean los fabricantes de este producto para anunciarlo y venderlo.

Ahora alguno de los fabricantes, o quizás varios que se han unido, han montado OverlayFacts para contrarrestar el sitio web Overlay False Claims.

Según un tuit de Karl Groves, uno de los máximos gurús de la accesibilidad web, es posible que detrás de OverlayFacts esté AccessiBe, una de esas empresas que vende accessibility overlays:

Afirmaciones falsas sobre las "capas de accesibilidad"

En Overlay False Claims se recogen las siguiente afirmaciones falsas que suelen exponer las empresas que venden "capas de accesibilidad":

Claim: Adding the product is the only thing the customer needs to do for accessibility

Claim: By using the product, the customer's site will become compliant with the ADA and other relevant regulations and standards

Claim: By using the product, the customer's site will attain compliance in an extremely short period of time

Claim: By using the product, the customer's website will be accessible to everyone

Claim: By using the product, the customer will be shielded from litigation

Claim: The product is the only one on the market that can make the customer's site compliant

Claim: The product alone is sufficient in achieving compliance without any other work needed on the underlying code

Claim: Increased conversion rates

Claim: Exaggerated number of customers

Claim: Specific brands as customers which are not

Claim: That the overlay widget is a suitable alternative to assistive technologies

Claim: Collaboration with 3rd parties with whom they have not done so

Posición de IAAP sobre las capas de accesibilidad

Hace un par de meses, la International Association of Accessibility Professionals (IAAP) lanzó una Encuesta de IAAP sobre las capas de accesibilidad.

Ahora, el 25 de febrero pasado, IAAP ha publicado Overlay Position and Recommendations, donde dice:

IAAP believes that Overlays, plugins, or widgets must never impede access to users’ assistive technology, choice of browsers and/or operating system features. IAAP therefore does not support members making false claims about any products or services which could be harmful, either directly or indirectly, to end-users, including people with disabilities, or the integrity of the accessibility profession. More specifically, in relation to Overlay technologies, at this time companies should refrain from using marketing language implying that a website or application can be made fully accessible to all people with disabilities by simply installing a plugin or widget without requiring additional steps or services.

IAAP stands with people with disabilities, accessibility advocates, and accessibility professionals in acknowledging the deceptive nature of marketing claims that a single addition of a line of code, plugin, or widget, on its own, provides full compliance with web accessibility standards, mandates, regulations, or laws currently.

Encuesta de IAAP sobre las capas de accesibilidad

Me ha llegado un correo de International Association of Accessibility Professionals (IAAP) para participar en una encuesta sobre las capas de accesibilidad.

El correo dice:

We are fully aware of the concerns regarding false advertising and deceptive marketing issues by some overlay vendors and the dangers that they may present.

IAAP does not support vendors making false claims or participating in deceptive marketing on or about their own or others’ products and services.

The IAAP Overlays Task Force is currently conducting due diligence on the issue to determine IAAP’s course of action considering experts’ advice and members’ perspectives.

As an association IAAP follows antitrust compliance protocol and best practices, which include:

• Ethics codes should never be created or used to exclude competitors from the market
• Associations should document all complaints or concerns about the code and resolve them as appropriate
• Ethics code should be clear and unambiguous, reasonable, fair, and objective and
• Associations should maintain strict confidentiality with respect to all adverse allegations, complaints, actions, and proceedings.

IAAP is not in the job of censorship or lobbying. Our mission is to expand the accessibility profession through certification, education, and networking. However, IAAP’s leadership recognizes the importance of the role and trust we play as a unified voice for our members. We take this very seriously.

Our goal is to be part of the solution. With that in mind, IAAP’s Task Force of volunteer council members has been working over the last three-month interviewing, reviewing association protocol, and collecting data from members and non-members. The Overlay Task Force will submit its findings to the IAAP Global Leadership Council on February 17th and then follow up with approved next steps including a:

• an organization position statement from IAAP
• review and revision of IAAP’s code of conduct terms
• review process of organization members with alleged false claims
• awareness and education plan around overlay