GMU: Can assistive technology compensate for poor web accessibility?

If 97.4% of websites fail accessibility, can assistive technology bridge the gap?

In 2021, WebAIM analyzed the top 1,000,000 most visited websites and found that 97.4% of homepages contained features that don't conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). This places a significant burden on assistive technologies — tools primarily designed to work with accessible websites, not compensate for inaccessible ones.

This study investigated two research questions:

1. If a website adheres to WCAG accessibility guidelines, is costly assistive technology (such as magnification software) necessary?

2. If a website doesn't adhere to WCAG accessibility guidelines, can assistive technology compensate for the lack of accessibility?

Assistive technology is unnecessary for accessible websites — but cannot compensate for inaccessible ones.

Participants were successful when using the accessible website, without needing assistive technology. However, when navigating an inaccessible website, they faced significant challenges and required assistive technology.

While tools like magnification software can aid users with macular degeneration, they cannot fully compensate for poor website accessibility. The author advocates for the industry to adhere to accessibility guidelines to better support individuals with low vision.

Vision disability is the fifth most common disability in the U.S.

Severe vision loss presents problems with reading, navigating, using assistive technology, and using the internet. U.S. adults with a disability are 3× less likely to use the internet (Pew Research Center, 2017), are over 3× less likely to be employed (BLS, 2022), and report higher levels of social isolation compared to their abled counterparts.

Pain Points of Assistive Technology

Most assistive technologies are expensive and hard to use for browsing websites, which could affect low-vision users' employment status and social integration. Screen magnifiers, a commonly used assistive technology, have three significant problems:

1. They impede screens globally
2. They disrupt spatial orientation
3. They lead to excessive scrolling

Running a rigorous eye-tracking study with real constraints.

• Limited budget to recruit real low-vision participants
• Strict timeline with just one week to conduct the experiment
• The topic is broad — hard to propose focused, defensible research
• Had to set up the Tobii eye-tracking system from scratch with no prior lab infrastructure

Simulating macular degeneration — the most common cause of low vision.

To simplify this experiment, I selected the most common cause of low vision, macular degeneration, and simulated its symptoms — a central scotoma with blurred vision — using the Silktide Disability Simulator Chrome extension.

I employed a within-subjects experimental design, where each participant completed the same tasks on both website types to control for extraneous variables. To mitigate order effects, two participants initially completed tasks on the accessible website, while one participant began with the inaccessible website.

Tools

• Tobii eye tracker — tracking eye movements on both websites to observe behavioral differences visually
• Silktide Chrome extension — simulating a central scotoma and blurred vision attached to mouse movements
• Zoom magnification software — positioned at the top of the screen to prevent screen occlusion, magnifying text at the mouse's location

One accessible, one intentionally inaccessible — identical information, different WCAG compliance.

I selected a website crafted from top to bottom with WCAG web accessibility principles (the New South Wales Government Website) and created a redesigned mockup website identical in information but with no accessibility principles.

Three Key Visual Differences

1. Homepage — The accessible site had sufficient contrast, readable font and font size, and was developed from WCAG guidelines. The inaccessible version used insufficient contrast, cursive fonts, and all-caps text.

2. Dropdown Menus — The accessible site used multicolumn/multirow dropdowns with hover-state color changes and highlighted tab headers. The inaccessible site used single-column dropdowns with no visual feedback on hover or selection.

3. Column Layout — The accessible site had even, single-column layouts easy to read under a magnification lens. The inaccessible site had uneven/unnecessary columns that were difficult to read using magnification.

Think Aloud method with eye-tracking — observing real struggle in the lab.

Participants arrived at the laboratory and verbally agreed to be recorded. They calibrated their pupils with the Tobii eye tracker, which compiled screen recordings of their eye-tracking fixation locations on the websites.

Participants were shown the Silktide disability simulator (scotoma attached to mouse movements) and the Zoom magnifier at the top of the screen. They were instructed to navigate and read as they normally would, using the Think Aloud Method.

Tasks

1. Find a place to get swabbed for COVID-19
2. Look up regulations about COVID-19 in the area
3. Find support for people with a disability in COVID-19

I took notes as participants completed the tasks, recording their thoughts, reactions, and behaviors.

Participants completed tasks 6 minutes faster on the accessible website.

Task Completion Time

Participants averaged 6 minutes faster on the accessible website across all three information-finding tasks.

Task Completion Rates

• 3/3 participants completed all 3 tasks on the accessible website
• 2/3 participants failed to complete at least one task on the inaccessible website

System Usability Scale (SUS)

• Industry average: 68 (according to usability.gov)
• Accessible website scored 88.33 — well above the industry average
• Inaccessible website scored 64.17 — falling below the industry average

The data confirms: the accessible website is indeed more accessible, and assistive technology alone cannot bridge the gap.

What participants actually said — and what their eyes revealed.

On the Accessible Website

Participants reported finding the site "pretty easy" and "clearer." They navigated without needing the magnification reader, using their peripheral vision to read around the simulated scotoma. The dropdown "isn't flying around everywhere" — multicolumn layout allowed scanning without losing context.

On the Inaccessible Website

Participants struggled significantly. "I'm using the shadow to see." When they tried the magnifier, it did not help — "I'm not sure what this is so I would definitely need the magnification for this part. Which really doesn't help considering that it's still really small." The dropdown "was the same color as the background," making navigation nearly impossible.

Eye-tracking data showed larger, more erratic fixation patterns on the inaccessible site — participants' eyes were searching, not reading. The bigger the red fixation dots, the longer a participant stared at something they couldn't understand.

Three actionable findings from accessible vs. inaccessible comparison.

Accessible Website

• All participants reported they thought they completed every task
• All participants reported the site was easy to read — scotoma off to the side, no magnification reader needed
• Dropdowns with multicolumn/multirow format worked significantly better than single-column

Inaccessible Website

1. Contrast is the primary barrier. It directly affects the ability to read and gather information, accounts for the 6-minute average task time difference, and is one of the easiest accessibility issues to fix.

2. Dropdown format matters for low vision. Vision issues, especially scotomas, hinder the effectiveness of single-column dropdowns. Multicolumn/multirow is substantially more usable.

3. Small graphics and fonts fail even with magnification. Not even magnification readers can clarify undersized elements — the problem is in the design, not the tool.

Expanding the study to validate findings at scale.

• Expand the study to real low-vision users — replace the simulator with actual visually disabled participants for more accurate insights
• Expand to other types of assistive technologies such as screen readers
• Get 5+ participants (Jakob Nielsen recommends qualitative testing with 5 users)
• Replace the SUS questionnaire with a dedicated accessibility instrument (SUS measures overall usability rather than accessibility, and requires 12+ users for validity)
• Switch to Eyelink eye tracker from Tobii — supports heat map generation and area-of-interest analysis via Weblink software

Research rigor meets real-world constraints.

Participant Demographics

The usability testing participants consisted solely of college students in their early 20s. This skewed the data since younger participants tend to be more comfortable with technology and more receptive to adopting new tools. A more representative study would switch from a visual disability simulator to actual visually disabled participants across age groups.

Effective project management is crucial

In a complex research project, no plan is flawless. While preset timelines matter, it's more important to adjust the plan to meet the project's needs — adopting agile methodologies wherever possible. The strict one-week testing window forced rapid iteration and prioritization of the most impactful research questions.