<blog>
The False Promise of Accessibility Overlays

Image credit: Original image

Originally appeared in LinkedIn AccessABILITY

Digital accessibility has been gaining the attention it deserves, and it's encouraging to see organizations and agencies prioritize it. However, as it becomes an urgent focus, many are turning to what vendors present as a silver bullet: automated overlay solutions that promise instant compliance with minimal effort. These third-party tools typically inject JavaScript code into the website to modify its content and functionality in real time. The rapid adoption of these tools across industries is a trend that should give us pause.

Selling on the Benefits

While the market appeal of these solutions is obvious at first glance, organizations should consider the legal landscape. For example, in the Domino's Pizza case, even the use of accessibility features did not prevent a lawsuit because fundamental accessibility issues were ignored. Similarly, the Eyebobs lawsuit demonstrated that overlays can interfere with assistive technology, rendering it ineffective and exposing companies to legal action. The growing number of cases involving accessibility overlays — such as multiple suits against AccessiBe — highlights the fact that these solutions cannot be relied on to meet legal standards.

Consider an organization that's suddenly facing a need to meet accessibility requirements without the immediate resources to address them properly. When vendors offer the prospect of achieving compliance through a few lines of code, it's easy to see why organizations might opt for these solutions. Their marketing highlights an attractive package of features: screen reader adjustments, navigation tools, visual controls for contrast and font size. Everything a team might want, supposedly available without requiring deep accessibility expertise.

Yet these overlay solutions consistently fail to deliver on their considerable promises. The core problem isn't in their feature set, but in their fundamental approach to accessibility. They treat it as something that can be layered onto an inaccessible foundation - equivalent to applying a fresh coat of paint over crumbling walls while ignoring the structural damage beneath.

The technical problems stack up quickly. Not only can these overlays burden websites with heavy JavaScript overhead, degrading performance and slowing page loads. But they routinely interfere with the actual assistive technologies that people with disabilities rely on daily. Screen readers can become confused by the modified DOM structure. Page content can behave unpredictably across different browsers and devices. Basic functionality can break in ways that may render sites unusable for the very people these solutions claim to help.

Accessibility Limitations

If the technical considerations aren't enough to give you concern, the accessibility limitations of these solutions are even more problematic. While an overlay might adjust color contrast or font sizes, it simply cannot address fundamental structural issues in the HTML. No automated solution can provide meaningful alternative text for images - that requires human understanding of context and purpose. The same goes for proper heading structure, descriptive link text, and countless other essential elements of truly accessible design. At the heart of these limitations is a simple truth: you can't automate human understanding. Providing meaningful alternative text for images, establishing proper heading structures, and crafting descriptive link text requires human judgment–something no algorithm can replicate.

The way overlays attempt to replicate features that users already have access to is possibly the most concerning. Modern operating systems, browsers, and assistive technologies include tried-and-true tools for adjusting text size, contrast, and other display options. Screen reader users carefully chose and mastered their preferred assistive technology. However, overlays frequently override these personal preferences, disrupting the carefully calibrated tools that users depend on. This not only compromises their experience but can also lead to frustration and confusion as they are forced to abandon familiar settings for unfamiliar, ineffective substitutes. Consider a screen magnifier user who has carefully set their zoom preferences, only to have an overlay hijack and change them without their knowledge.

Equally concerning are the implications for security and privacy. Overlays can detect when people use assistive technology without their knowledge or consent - a major privacy concern for many users. The implications are even more serious when you consider that overlays frequently require extensive permissions to modify page content, potentially opening up new security vulnerabilities.

Common accessibility issues that overlays claim to fix, but often times make worse, include:

• Navigation menus can become harder to use with screen readers due to injected ARIA labels
• Form fields can lose their proper labeling when overlays attempt to "enhance" them
• Page content can become difficult to parse when overlays add redundant heading levels
• Custom keyboard shortcuts may conflict with built-in screen reader commands
• Color contrast adjustments can make text unreadable instead of more visible

Business Implications

Beyond the technical shortcomings, the business implications of relying on overlays are troubling. The Domino's Pizza case shows that simply adding superficial fixes does not protect businesses from legal exposure. In fact, as seen in the AccessiBe lawsuits, using overlays can increase the likelihood of litigation.

Organizations often develop a dangerous false sense of security, believing they've addressed their accessibility obligations. This misplaced confidence can actually increase legal exposure rather than providing the promised protection. The resources spent on overlay solutions represent a missed opportunity to invest in proper accessibility implementation, which could provide long-term benefits. Furthermore, as awareness of genuine accessibility grows, organizations that rely on superficial fixes risk alienating customers and partners who value inclusivity and compliance, jeopardizing both their reputations and their long-term success.

The Right Path Forward

Achieving genuine digital accessibility demands a fundamental shift in mindset. Rather than seeking shortcuts, organizations must commit to building accessibility into their development process from day one. Start with semantic HTML that provides a proper foundation. Train development teams in accessibility principles and best practices. Most critically, include people with disabilities in testing and gather real feedback about user experiences. The most successful implementations typically begin during the design phase and maintain that focus throughout development.

As seen in key legal cases like Domino’s Pizza and Eyebobs, courts have consistently ruled that accessibility overlays and superficial fixes do not meet ADA requirements. Relying on these quick fixes leaves companies vulnerable to lawsuits, while also failing to serve the very users they aim to help. By building accessibility into the foundation of their websites, organizations can not only avoid these legal pitfalls but also create a more inclusive and sustainable user experience from the ground up.

Successful accessibility implementations consistently follow proven practices: building accessibility into the process from the ground up. Organizations taking this approach discover benefits extending far beyond basic compliance - improved code quality, enhanced SEO performance, better mobile experiences, and increased usability for everyone. This comprehensive strategy demonstrates authentic commitment to inclusion while avoiding the technical debt and legal risks that come with overlay solutions.

Those of us in technology leadership positions bear a particular responsibility. We must advocate for solutions that genuinely serve all users, even when facing pressure to implement quick fixes. The temporary appeal of automated overlays must be weighed against the very real harm they can cause to users who rely on properly implemented accessibility features. When the next vendor pitches their accessibility overlay solution, remember this: genuine accessibility isn't achieved by adding layers of automated fixes. It comes from building a solid foundation that serves everyone from the start. Your users deserve that level of commitment - something no overlay can provide.