In a stunning press release, Level Access has revealed that it plans to buy accessibility overlay company UserWay for about $99 Million. For those who are unaware, accessibility overlays are JavaScripts that claim to fix accessibility issues automagically. They claim to use “AI” to analyze the site and then apply accessibility fixes on the fly while the user is using the website.

Of course, it is common knowledge that automated tools for finding accessibility issues can only find a limited number of issues (probably about 30–50%). Fixing issues needs additional context and care. I assume that is one of the reasons why the overlay providers themselves have started to add manual audits and remediation to their portfolio, including UserWay.

This is not a distraction for Level Access CEO Timothy Springer, who writes in a long piece on LinkedIn the following paragraphs:

The chief criticism of accessibility overlays relates to marketing claims.

This is not true. If you look at the Overlay Fact Sheet, none of the outlined problems have to do with the marketing. These are all criticisms based on the merits of these “solutions”:

1. Overlay widgets are unnecessary and are poorly placed in the technology stack.
2. While some automated repair is possible, customers should be discouraged from using an overlay as a long-term solution.
3. While the use of an overlay may improve compliance with a handful of provisions in major accessibility standards, full compliance cannot be achieved with an overlay.
4. Adding an overlay to your site may run counter to end users' preference for privacy and may create risk of noncompliance with GDPR, UK GDPR, CCPA, et al.

Yes, the advertisements are problematic, including UserWay claiming which says:

Our Widget has quickly become the world's leading accessibility plugin and compliance solution, now installed on millions of websites worldwide.

The leading compliance solution is to comply with accessibility law, not installing a widget. The easiest way to integrate accessibility into projects is by thinking about it from the beginning.

(According to UserWay’s 2023 financial report, they also have 6800 paying customers, I guess there are millions of websites out there using it for free?)

Back to Timothy Springers post:

The technology of overlays works. Truth is it actually works very well and does so at scale. In that, it can positively impact the accessibility of millions of sites. The marketing claims, the effective use of that technology as part of an accessibility journey, are what needs work.

It does not.

I linked to the technology criticism above. This is technology that cannot work well enough to cross the threshold from uncanny valley accessibility to real accessibility. Because in the end, this is about humans and how they interact with the web.

The reality, as I see it, is that overlays do very limited things ok, but also miss things that would take less than a minute for a developer to fix.

I recorded a 50-minute walkthrough of the Beyond Meat website, which is advertised on UserWay’s website, using the overlay. In the end, my conclusion was that the website is not substantially better with the overlay compared to without the overlay.

Indeed, when I tried to stop the animation using the overlay (the website does not respect my “do not autoplay preference”), the overlay made the animation flicker rapidly. It was worse than without the overlay.¹

Setting the anti-seizure setting while the animation was playing triggered a potentially seizure-triggering flicker effect.

Now, Timothy Springer claims that users won’t need to use the functionality in the widget anymore in the future:

Some accessibility overlays require a user to click to activate its automated remediation. For us, automated remediation must be active and always on for every user. Every user should get the same, accessible experience.

This is table stakes. But if the website only works on the client side and shares cookies with a third-party domain, a disabled user who would need automated remediation would be forced to accept that. With all the security and privacy implications that using a third-party script brings with it.

Is that an equal experience?

Even if your code runs automatically, a pause button for the animation would need to be provided. And if users use them, and it works badly, then that’s bad luck.

Or, as Timothy Springer says (emphasis his):

Automated remediation and browser-based tools should never interfere with user installed AT. If they do, we will treat this like all engineering issues and address the issue. And, browser-based assistive tools will always be optional.

“We put it in our backlog” is not a suitable way of implementing things. This puts the burden on disabled people to find and report errors and wait for remediation before they might be able to use a site efficiently.

And that is the process we have today in accessibility. But with an overlay, you are not relying on your staff or site builder to fix an issue, you put that into the hands of a third party. A party which can also introduce accessibility bugs at any time (for which the site owner might be liable).

Timothy Springer again:

What gets missed in that, though, is that there are millions of websites whose owners have neither the funds nor technical depth to develop a comprehensive digital accessibility program. Cost is the biggest barrier for these firms. Level Access can either provide a principled, compelling, cost-effective solution they can say “yes” to today, and get started on accessibility, or keep doing little for these firms. If we’re smart about it, that starting point will materially improve the accessibility of these sites today. Now.

While cost certainly plays a role, a widget which at best does little and at worst provides barriers is not “cost-effective”. Quite the opposite. I understand that a company that throws around 99 Million Dollars for an overlay company finds it difficult to do small-scale accessibility.

But that is OK.

The small website widget costs $490/year at UserWay. This can easily pay a developer to go through templates and remove accessibility blockers. Or it can help pay someone to test and recommend an accessible theme for the shop. Those are permanent fixes that will bring you much further than paying for a widget which will have no long-lasting impact.

Accessibility is not expensive, inaccessibility is. And not because you might be sued, lawsuits are still incredibly uncommon, considering how inaccessible the web is. But because you show your customers that you don’t value them if they have a disability.

Investing in permanent change might look slow in the beginning, but always pays off over the long run.

And that brings me to one of the highest impacts of overlay companies on the accessibility community: It drains the money out of smaller assignments which are essential to training up new accessibility people. Sure, as a company you won’t make a massive profit off a $1000 review, but if one of your juniors can use it as an exercise under supervision, it is a wonderful learning opportunity.

There is a lot of discussion that we need automated tools because there are so few accessibility professionals, but imagine Level Access had paid 99 Million Dollars to train their employees or subsidize companies who cannot pay for it. Would that not be a more sound investment in accessibility?

But let's not lose sight of why this is happening: Profit. It’s an already gigantic company that wants to profit from all parts of accessibility. Even from those who are getting tricked into thinking that there is an imminent risk of getting sued and sold a placebo.

Even then, even if you believe there is and should be a market for overlays, then… they already exist. There is nothing here that fundamentally changes them through this purchase in that regard. There are plenty of overlay companies that are already providing this service. Why would you want to be part of it?

The UserWay CEO will be “President of Level Access” in the future, and the UserWay company will continue to operate. It feels hard to believe that the marketing and focus of a company will change, especially if so much money has changed hands. The promises Timothy Springer makes hint to changing UserWay, which leaves the question: why buy them instead of building something better?

Equality now is better than equality later

Accessibility is not a profit business. Sure, it can pay well for people who have expertise, but ultimately, it is a craft that is limited. Yes, some tooling can make aspects easier. Definitely, you can lint and autotest the hell out of your code. But eventually, the only thing that really makes your product accessible and inclusive is thinking about the inclusive experience constantly. Not as an afterthought, not as a bolt-on, not as something extra.

Companies need to decide if they fall for the uncanny accessibility of overlays or start the learning process with a trustworthy non-overlay provider. Starting now, even with little investment, can be the start of building an accessibility understanding that will be beneficial for a long time.

Support Eric’s independent work

I'm a web accessibility professional who cares deeply about inclusion and an open web for everyone. I work with Axess Lab as an accessibility specialist. Previously, I worked with Knowbility, the World Wide Web Consortium, and Aktion Mensch. In this blog I publish my own thoughts and research about the web industry.

Sign up for a €5/Month Membership Subscribe to the Infrequent Newsletter Follow me on Mastodon