Imagine hiring someone to build your dream home. You expect expertise, precision, and care. Now imagine that person turns up with only a hammer, insisting it’s all they’ll need to get the job done. You’d probably feel uneasy, wouldn’t you?
The same principle applies when it comes to accessibility auditing. Accessibility overlays – those quick fixes promising to make your website compliant at the click of a button – are the proverbial hammer. They might look the part, but they won’t deliver the structure or functionality your users need.
What’s Wrong with Overlay Tools?
Overlay tools often claim to provide instant compliance with accessibility standards. They position themselves as a one-stop solution, bypassing the need for manual effort. While they might mask some issues superficially, these tools rarely resolve the underlying problems.
Research by WebAIM found that accessibility overlays detected only a fraction of the barriers disabled users face. Common issues like poor keyboard navigation or unclear button labels often slip through the cracks. Worse, overlays can interfere with assistive technologies, creating new barriers where none existed before.
Overlay tools promise simplicity, but accessibility is inherently complex because people’s needs are complex.
Accessibility Requires Expertise
An overlay can identify an image missing alt text, but it cannot tell you if the alt text meaningfully describes the image. A line of code might fix a colour contrast issue, but does it maintain your brand’s visual integrity?
That’s where human expertise comes in. Accessibility professionals understand that tools are only as good as the person wielding them. Automated tools should supplement but not replace manual testing by people who know what to look for and how to fix it.
My own experience has shown me time and again that no tool can replicate the nuanced understanding gained through lived experience and hands-on testing. Disabled people often bring insights no algorithm can generate, making their involvement in testing and design processes crucial.
Why Manual Testing Matters
Manual testing isn’t just about finding problems; it’s about understanding context. For example:
- Keyboard Navigation: An overlay might mark a page as navigable, but only manual testing can confirm whether the flow feels intuitive to a user relying on keyboard input.
- Screen Readers: Automated checks might pass a form as accessible, but manual testing can reveal unclear field instructions or poor screen reader compatibility.
- User Experience: Accessibility isn’t just about compliance. It’s about usability and dignity, which require a human touch to evaluate.
The Right Tools in the Right Hands
This isn’t to say that tools have no place. Automated tools like Axe or WAVE are valuable for identifying common issues and expediting the auditing process. The key is to use them as part of a comprehensive strategy, guided by people who understand the broader picture.
During my career I have learned the importance of pairing tools with expertise. In building robust, user-friendly systems, automated checks give us a strong starting point. However, it was manual reviews and collaboration with diverse users that ensured our systems truly worked for everyone. I have worked primarily in places of crisis, where decisions made quickly can have disastrous results and I know the value of assessing what seems to be a quick fix.
Building an Accessible Future
Accessibility isn’t a checkbox exercise, and it isn’t about shortcuts. It’s about creating equitable, meaningful experiences for everyone. That requires effort, expertise, and yes, the right tools in the right hands.
So before you reach for that shiny overlay promising a quick fix, ask yourself: am I building something functional and lasting, or am I just hammering nails into the air?
If this resonates, let’s start a conversation. What challenges have you faced in balancing tools and expertise? Share your thoughts below.