The Feature Capabilities We Discuss

Our analysis of various accessibility related capabilities is organized by the primary coding technology expected for that capability as follows:

• Content—Usually HTML
• Presentation—Usually CSS
• Functionality—Usually JavaScript

We next discuss capabilities related to Management of accessible web service delivery that can be accomplished with edge technologies. This is followed by a discussion of capabilities and edge services we consider aspirational because they are yet to be realized in the web world. Lastly, we append a discussion of the value of Human Centered Design to our analysis followed by a review of typical roles and responsibilities that belong to various players in the web world user experience ecosystem.

How We Evaluate Each Feature Capability

Each capability we examine is considered from the following perspectives:

1. Source—Identifies how the original source code can introduce accessibility issues that require post-source remediation.
2. Trade-Offs—Examines the implications of performing remediation post-source, including potential redundancies or limitations compared to fixing issues at the source.
3. Benefit—Highlights the accessibility improvements delivered to end users and any added control they gain from post-source adaptation.
4. Automatability—Evaluates whether the capability can be automated based on the presence of programmatically recognizable patterns conducive to automated adaptation.

Provide Alternative Text

Alternative text is a fundamental and well established accessibility accomodation (dating to the era of HTML 3.2). No good reason for missing alt text remains, yet far too many sites are missing alt text today.

Source

WCAG has always expected sites would supply alternative text for all images—yet missing alt text is still pervasive in web content. Images and other graphical elements within many modern web pages are set as editable elements that can be added to templates and web pages by different team members, such as Marketing, after the core website structures have been coded. This often leads to situations where images are added by non-technical people who are not required to enter alternative text or are unfamiliar with authoring appropriate alternative text. So, while there's every reason to expect alternative text in source, it remains missing far too often.

Trade-Offs

It is reasonable to expect source provided alternative text will be superior in quality. Post-source provided alt likely will not engage the content authors and therefore may fail to properly communicate the functional import of graphical objects.

Benefit

Post-source methods can engage the services of experts in proper alternative text authoring. But, however the alternative text is provided, there's no longer any excuse for missing alt text.

Automatability

In many cases—Alts, as they are static and do not require the state property to be set and checked in the accessibility tree, are among the most likely nodes on the accessibility tree to benefit from post-source automation. This includes identifying decorative images missing a null attribute.

Provide Tooltips

This capability supplies a small pop-up window that appears on hover to display additional information about an element on the page for users who benefit from enhanced contextualization or clarification.

Source

Source content can, and sometimes does provide this functionality.

Trade-Offs

This is not a redundant capability. It is an innovation only available from edge technology in situations where the enhanced content is not intended for all page visitors, but for certain audiences only, such as additional contextualization or clarification for some users living with cognitive or learning disabilities.

Benefit

Supports comprehension for users who require the enhanced support in a manner that does not interfere with the fundamental functionality of the content.

Automatability

Many cases

Indicate Language

This capability correctly specifies the primary language of a web page when the declaration is incorrect or missing entirely.

Source

It is expected source content will correctly specify the page's language using proper language declaration coding.

Trade-Offs

There's no particular advantage to performing this task post-source.

Benefit

Content lacking correct programatic language declaration will not be correctly rendered by TTS or braille for screen reader users, nor read-aloud users.

Automatability

Many cases

Provide Titles

This capability provides for meaningful titles for pages and/or iFrames within pages and provides screen reader users a more efficient and meaningful browsing experience.

Source

Though there's every reason to expect appropriate titles will be provided in source, titles are often overlooked or automatically generated by CMS platforms, leaving them generic, duplicated, or irrelevant. This is common in systems where non-technical team members are responsible for adding new pages or content.

Trade-Offs

Sometimes the content author may not have prioritized or fully understood the significance of a page title's role in accessibility (and SEO). While post-source remediation typically lacks the content author's contextual understanding, it can still provide accurate and meaningful title content.

Benefit

Post-source methods can engage the services of experts in proper accessible title authoring. But, however titles are provided, there's no longer any excuse for missing title content.

Automatability

In many cases—Post-source automation can identify pages with missing or duplicated titles and insert improvements. However, generating contextually accurate titles often requires manual input or review to ensure relevance.

Provide Video Captions

This capability provides caption text displaying along with the video and synchronized with it. HTML also supports an Enhanced Caption mechanism.

Source

It has long been expected that source will provide human edited captions, as the content provider is presumed most knowledgeable about the content, and human editors best able to assure caption accuracy.

Trade-Offs

The cost of generating human-edited captions is prohibitive, promoting the use of automated captions. However, automation often makes mistakes.

Benefit

Because the cost of generating human-edited captions is prohibitive, automation is almost universally relied upon. Most significantly, captions can always be provided post source because HTML 5 was designed to support post-source caption provisioning.

Automatability

Many cases

Provide Descriptions of Video

This capability provides descriptive narration of key visual elements designed to make visual media accessible to people who are blind or visually impaired. Most commonly descriptions are provided as an additional audio track timed not to interfere with spoken dialog. Creating descriptions that both enhance the audio experience and do not obscure dialog requires skill. Both a text based mechanism and an extended mechanism are supported by HTML specifically to make it easier for third parties to provide helpful descriptions post-source.

Source

It is generally assumed that source will provide descriptions of video.

Trade-Offs

There is no intrinsic benefit to providing descriptions post-source.

Benefit

The HTML 5 markup mechanisms supporting video descriptions were specifically designed to support post-source descriptions in order to support post-source use cases. Different descriptions are needed, for example, when a video is described for general entertainment purposes as opposed to a university course on set design.

Automatability

In no significant way—While AI is becoming quite competent at plausibly describing still images, it is not yet competent at describing moving imagery.

Optimize Cursor Size

Some users require a more visible cursor and appreciate the capability that can increase the standard cursor size by up to 400% to ensure the pointer always remains visible to them. This facilitates faster and more accessible navigation through hyperlinks, tabs, and form elements.

Source

It is possible to support this feature in source content directly.

Trade-Offs

There is no particular benefit to performing this mediation at the edge.

Benefit

This capability is critical to the users who require it.

Automatability

In many cases

Optimize Hyperlink Visibility

Some people require greater clarity regarding which spans of text or graphics in web content are functioning as hyperlinks. This capability facilitates selecting the text or image that serves as a hyperlink and causing it to be displayed in a different, more perceivable way to help users more easily identify the hyperlinks on a page.

Source

By definition this capability is needed because source is too frequently unclear about its hyperlinks, at least for significant user segments.

Trade-Offs

There is no particular benefit to performing this mediation at the edge.

Benefit

This capability is critical to the users who require it.

Automatability

In many cases

Ensure Keyboard Access to Interactive Elements

Source

Many web applications rely on mouse-driven events, which can exclude users who depend on keyboard navigation due to physical limitations or personal preference.

Trade-Offs

Providing comprehensive keyboard support may require significant restructuring of event handlers in web applications, potentially increasing development time and complexity.

Benefit

Ensuring keyboard accessibility for all interactive elements significantly improves the usability of web applications for users with motor disabilities and those who require or prefer keyboard navigation.

Automatability

In no significant way—Automatically ensuring keyboard access involves modifying event handlers and potentially the DOM structure, which can affect existing page scripts and styles. Autonomous verification of these changes without impacting user experience or other functionalities is not currently feasible.

Manage Focus Through Interactive Processes

Source

Focus management is critical in dynamic web applications where elements are constantly updated. Poor focus control can disorient users, particularly those who rely on screen readers.

Trade-Offs

Implementing robust focus management involves complex event handling and state tracking, which can complicate application code.

Benefit

Proper focus management ensures a smoother navigation experience for all users, allowing them to maintain context and control through dynamic changes.

Automatability

In some cases—While focus management can be scripted, verifying that automated focus adjustments do not disrupt user experience or interfere with other interactive elements typically exceeds the capabilities of current autonomous systems.

Supply a Reading Guide

Some users benefit from a horizontal line that appears below the text they're reading in order to help them keep their place as they read. This facilitates staying focused.

Source

While it could be supported in source content, this capability is rarely (if ever) available in source.

Trade-Offs

There is no particular benefit to performing this mediation at the edge.

Benefit

This capability is critical to the users who require it.

Automatability

In many cases

Provide Accessible Fonts

Not all users are able to read any font a web content publisher may choose. This capability allows the publisher's content to be reformatted in a user-chosen font the user is comfortable using.

Source

While it could be supported in source content, this capability is rarely (if ever) available in source.

Trade-Offs

There is no particular benefit to performing this mediation at the edge.

Benefit

This capability is critical to the users who require it.

Automatability

In many cases—Provided a valid, user-selected font choice is known.

Provide Dyslexia Friendly Fonts

Fundamentaly this capability differs from the Fonts section above only in that the proffered fonts are understood to be particularly usable by many people living with dyslexia. Typically, these fonts provide more distinctive symbols intended to avoid user confusion through font design approaches such as increased baselines, thinner tops, and a larger x-height. Frequently they are proprietary fonts requiring licensing arrangements.

Source

Websites typically rely on standard system or decorative fonts that are rarely optimized for persons living with dyslexia.

Trade-Offs

Switching to dyslexia-friendly fonts may slightly alter the visual appeal or branding of the site. Designers and stakeholders may need to approve font changes.

Benefit

Using dyslexia-friendly fonts reduces cognitive load and improves the reading experience for users living with with dyslexia, making the site more inclusive.

Automatability

In no significant way—Automated tools can suggest dyslexia-friendly fonts and flag instances of inaccessible typefaces. However, proper invocation may require human expertise.

Make Pricing Comparisons Accessible (Strikethroughs)

This capability insures that screen reader users can understand the prior price of an item. Displaying the prior price using strike-through or crossed-out fonts, and then providing the new price immediately next to these does not work for screen reader users. These users will have no idea which is the prior and which the current price without additional content and tagging.

Source

Pricing details are often designed with an emphasis on visual appeal, such as small text or complex layouts, making them inaccessible to screen reader users and users with visual impairments.

Trade-Offs

Simplifying pricing layouts may require adjustments to existing design templates, which could impact aesthetic preferences or marketing strategies.

Benefit

Accessible pricing ensures all users can clearly understand product costs and options, improving transparency and trust.

Automatability

In some cases—Automated tools can identify issues such as insufficient text contrast or missing semantic elements in pricing sections. However, optimizing the presentation of pricing information requires developer intervention.

Optimize Text Size

Some users need enlarged, or perhaps diminished fonts in order to read content comfortably. This capability allows increased or decreased font size adjustments through an interactive widget.

Source

This capability is sometimes provided by source.

Trade-Offs

Text size is typically configurable in the operating system. However, not all applications consistently honor the setting and can defeat the user's intent.

Benefit:

Learning how to make such changes in browser and/or operating system configurations is challenging for many, and particularly challenging for the communities that most need it. Offering overlay access raises awareness that such capabilities are present and does not prevent users from learning how to configure it in other places. Overlays are site-specific, making such accommodations on the sites where they are requested. An overlay can propagate such preferences across sites, browsers, operating systems and/or devices to manage the complete experience including injected and/or dynamic content.

Automatability

In many cases—Provided a valid, user-selected font size is known.

Optimize Text Spacing (Whitespacing)

Some users require additional white-space between lines of text content in order to read comfortably. Some require adjustment between individual characters in and between words. This capability supports personalizing these adjustments to individual user's needs.

Source

Like all aspects of text design, the source determines the experience they think is best for the content.

Trade-Offs

This capability may be configurable in the operating system to provide defaults across all applications on the device—to the extent third party applications honor those settings.

Benefit:

Learning how to make such changes in browser and/or operating system configurations is challenging for many, and particularly challenging for the communities that most need it. Offering overlay access raises awareness that such capabilities are present and does not prevent users from learning how to configure it in other places. Overlays are site-specific, making such accommodations on the sites where they are requested. An overlay can propagate such preferences across sites, browsers, operating systems and/or devices to manage the complete experience including injected and/or dynamic content.

Automatability

In many cases—Provided a valid, user-selected spacing is known.

Optimize Line Height

Some users benefit greatly by simply increasing white space in between lines of text.

Source

While it could be supported in source content, this capability is rarely (if ever) available in source.

Trade-Offs

There is no particular benefit to performing this mediation at the edge.

Benefit

This capability is critical to the users who require it.

Automatability

In many cases—Provided a valid, user-selected line height spacing is known.

Drop Cap Implementation

Source

Drop caps are used to enhance the visual start of a paragraph and can be problematic for screen readers if not implemented correctly.

Trade-Offs

The decorative nature of drop caps may conflict with text clarity and readability for users utilizing text-to-speech technologies unless additional descriptive tags or styles are used.

Benefit

Properly implemented drop caps can provide both aesthetic value and maintain readability, enhancing the user's visual and cognitive experience.

Automatability

In no significant way—Automating the implementation of drop caps that do not disrupt reading devices or other design elements involves nuanced design decisions that currently require human artistic and technical evaluation.

Animation Control

Some users require the ability to stop animations or other moving elements on a web page from playing entirely. Others may wish to see them under direct user control, i.e. as a series of steps.

Source

It is possible to support this feature in source, e.g. using CSS Media Queries 5.

Trade-Offs

There is no particular benefit to performing this mediation at the edge.

Benefit

This capability is critical to the users who require it.

Automatability

In some cases—Because we're uncertain we have all relevant use cases under consideration.

Auto-play Videos

Some users are impeded when media begins playing on page load. Screen reader users may need playback paused until they've assured themselves they've heard all the information their TTS can provide on any given page. Others will seek to enable captions (and possibly even automated language translation) before playback begins. It is also necessary to support a mute function which can be invoked by touch, mouse, keyboard, or other control mapped for such purposes.

Source

It is possible to support this feature in source using native HTML.

Trade-Offs

There is no particular benefit to performing this mediation at the edge.

Benefit

This capability is critical to the users who require it.

Automatability

In some cases

Optimize Color Contrast

Color and contrast adaptations such as Light Mode, Dark Mode, Inverted Colors, Color Desaturation, and related contrast pigmentation adaptations have proven highly useful to many people with a wide range of visual disabilities, and frankly to most users of the web in various distinct situations. They modify the difference between the lightest and darkest parts of a web page, reverse colors, or reduce their intensity.

Source

Color contrast decisions typically arise during the design phase, where other priorities may overshadow accessibility considerations. The implementations are often embedded in CSS or dynamic styling applied at runtime.

Trade-Offs

Adjusting color contrast may slightly alter the original branding or design intent. Designers may need to approve changes to ensure consistency with visual identity.

Benefit

Optimized contrast improves readability and usability for all users, including especially those with low vision or color blindness, while maintaining compliance with accessibility standards.

Automatability

In some cases—Automated tools can flag insufficient contrast ratios and define alternative colors. However, fine-tuning these adjustments to balance accessibility with branding often requires developer input.

Personalize Color Palette

Source

Color palettes are often defined during the branding phase and may not account for accessibility requirements. Dynamic sites may also use inconsistent palettes across different components or pages.

Trade-Offs

Refining a color palette can require significant collaboration with branding and design teams. Post-source updates may introduce inconsistencies if not carefully managed.

Benefit

A standardized, accessible color palette ensures visual consistency across the site while improving usability and readability for all users.

Automatability

In many cases—Automated tools can analyze existing palettes and identify inaccessible combinations. Some implementation and standardization, however, require manual adjustments and testing.

Styled Lists

Source

Lists are fundamental for structuring content but can be problematic if list markers are not recognized by assistive technologies.

Trade-Offs

Ensuring that custom-styled lists are accessible may require overriding default styles, which can complicate design consistency across platforms.

Benefit

Accessible lists ensure that all users can understand content structure and order, and are critical for instructions, key points, and navigation cues.

Automatability

In some cases—Standard list implementations are highly automatable; however, custom styles and interactions with other text or elements may not be autonomously verified for non-interference and accessibility without human input.

Text Box Framing

Source

Text box framing involves visually distinguishing text boxes from other elements on the page, which can aid in navigation and readability.

Trade-Offs

Custom frames and borders may need specific management to ensure they do not interfere with text readability or screen reader performance.

Benefit

Well-implemented text box frames can guide users' attention effectively and improve the aesthetic and functional usability of the site.

Automatability

In some cases—While framing can be automatically applied, ensuring that these styles do not clash with other page elements or affect readability requires manual checks, especially with complex layouts.

Shadow and Outline Effects

Source

Shadows and outlines effects are used to enhance text visibility and distinguish foreground content from the background, Proper considerations are crucial for users with visual impairments.

Trade-Offs

Incorrectly implemented shadows or outlines might blur text or create distracting visuals, reducing accessibility.

Benefit

Properly used shadow and outline effects can significantly improve text legibility, benefiting users with low vision and enhancing overall user experience.

Automatability

In some cases—Shadows and outlines can be applied autonomously, but verifying their impact on usability and interaction with other visual components typically exceeds the capabilities of current automated systems.

Text Transparency Control

Source

Text transparency often serves design aesthetics. However, it can leave text unreadable to those with visual disabilities or to most anyone under less than ideal viewing conditions. These effects frequently violate WCAG color contrast minimums.

Trade-Offs

Balancing text transparency with legibility can challenge designers aiming to maintain a particular visual style while also ensuring content remains accessible.

Benefit

Proper management of text transparency ensures that all users can read text comfortably, regardless of their visual capabilities, thus enhancing usability and accessibility.

Automatability

In some cases—Adjusting text transparency can be automated based on background contrast ratios; however, ensuring that these changes do not affect other visual elements or the overall visual integrity of the site often requires human verification.

Rebuild an Interactive Component

Reconstruct components retaining the original UI/UX to maintain their original appearance and functionality while ensuring accessibility.

Source

Many components, such as navigation menus or sliders, are created using frameworks or libraries that lack full accessibility support. These components often require significant work to meet accessibility standards.

Trade-Offs

Rebuilding components while retaining their original design requires detailed technical effort and close alignment with design teams to avoid deviations from the intended user experience.

Benefit

This approach preserves the site's original look and feel while ensuring that components are fully accessible, improving usability for all users.

Automatability

In no significant way—Automation can assist in identifying accessibility issues within components but cannot rebuild them. Developers must rewrite or refactor the code to meet accessibility requirements.

Replace an Interactive Component

Replace inaccessible components with redesigned alternatives that improve both accessibility and usability providing new UI/UX.

Source

Legacy components or third-party libraries often fail to support accessibility requirements, necessitating the use of entirely new components.

Trade-Offs

Replacing components may require stakeholders to approve updated designs, which could differ significantly from the original UI/UX.

Benefit

New components provide an opportunity to enhance both accessibility and user experience, offering improved functionality and compliance with modern standards.

Automatability

In no significant way—Automation can highlight issues in legacy components but cannot design or implement replacements. Developers must create new components that align with both accessibility and branding requirements.

Form Labels

Forms are the fundamental interface of the interactive web. Programmatic labels for each data entry field or option selecting widget on any form are critical for many users requiring accessibility support. Furthermore, consistent grouping and form controls on screen location is also critical.

Source

Far too many sites fail to use available markup to associate date entry fields and status selection control widgets with the labels that print to screen. These sites expect non-disabled users will simply understand what label applies to what field and widget by virtue of how the two are printed to screen. The user who relies on programmatic association is thus disadvantaged. The problem is amplified by the use and re-use of frameworks and low code forms that lack this support.

Trade-Offs

Clearly source should be performing this function. The fact that it is missing from so many sites cries out for remediation technology on the edge.

Benefit

Well built edge technologies can introduce missing programmatic associations. Advanced strategies to sequence completion of complex forms for persons who are easily overwhelmed by on screen complexity are frustrated when these programmatic associations are missing. Furthermore, they are the only technologies that can bring consistent organization to a form.

Automatability

In many cases

Validate Accessibility of Forms Interaction

This capability ensures that screen reader users and other users requiring enhanced status support receive clear feedback on the status of a form being completed along with concise error messages. This includes the colors used, the proximity to the form field, and the time-sensitive nature of the screen reader announcement.

Source

Source content can, and sometimes does adequately provide this functionality.

Trade-Offs

This is not a redundant capability. It is an innovation only available from edge technology in situations where the enhanced content is not intended for all page visitors, but for certain audiences only, such as screen reader users for some users living with cognitive or learning disabilities.

Benefit

Supports more efficient interaction with forms for users who require the enhanced support. Makes completing forms much easier to accomplish.

Automatability

In some cases

Managing Time Outs

Source

Client-side scripts often control session time-outs to manage server load and security. However, not all scripts are designed with accessibility in mind, which can inadvertently lock out users who need more time to interact with web content.

Trade-Offs

While time-outs are necessary for security and efficient resource use, they can disproportionately affect users with disabilities who may require more time to read and interact with content. Extending time limits, or supporting users in requesting more time, can mitigate these issues but might slightly increase the risk of attacks like session hijacking.

Benefit

Implementing adjustable time-outs on the client side enhances accessibility by allowing users to extend sessions as needed. This flexibility ensures that all users, regardless of their ability to interact quickly, can fully engage with web content without disruption.

Automatability

In no significant way—While detecting user activity and adjusting timeouts might seem automatable, verifying that these adjustments do not affect user experience negatively or interfere with other scripts without human oversight is challenging. Autonomous systems might struggle with context-specific nuances that require human judgment.

Validate Form Content Accessibly

Source

Validation of user input on client-side forms is typically handled via JavaScript. This immediate feedback can be made accessible by ensuring that error messages are communicated through assistive technologies.

Trade-Offs

Client-side validation improves user experience by providing instant feedback; however, it must be designed to ensure that error messages and corrective prompts are accessible to all users, including those using screen readers or other assistive technologies. Designing notifications that are both timely and accessible may require additional considerations, such as user control over timing and the method of dismissal.

Benefit

Accessible client-side validation enhances the form-filling experience for users with disabilities by providing immediate, understandable feedback that assists in error correction without the need for server-side interaction. Accessible notifications ensure that all users, including those with visual or cognitive disabilities, are aware of important updates and can interact with them appropriately.

Automatability

In some cases—The automation of client-side validation can often autonomously detect errors, remediate them by providing feedback, and verify the corrections with high reliability. Frameworks and scripts can be designed to handle a wide range of common input errors, making this capability highly automatable. Notifications are crucial for real-time information but can be inaccessible if they disappear too quickly or are not announced by screen readers.

Expose Structural Semantics

Source

It has long been agreed that published content should contain structural markup as provided by HTML and explained by WCAG. Not only is this critical for accessibility, additional processing to further tailor content presentation to particular user needs will rely on proper structural markup, preferably provided by source content.

Trade-offs

There is no inherent value to creating structural markup in edge technology. Doing so is clearly a remedial action to close a critical gap. On the other hand, and as previously noted, content delivered to end users today is most frequently a composite mashup of multiple input streams and not the simple delivery of content from a single source repository. The very act of mashing together multiple streams introduces a likelihood of semantic incoherency. The very word itself, mashup, strongly suggests a lack of concern for the coherency of the ultimate composite as delivered to the end user. Thus, anything that can be done to introduce greater semantic coherency is of benefit to all users, and especially those users relying on accessibility supporting features such as coherent and explicit structure. Lastly, as also previously noted, emerging strategies to further tailor content interaction to particular users' interaction preferences will rely on good structural markup, and these adaptations will, necessarily, be produced in edge technologies.

Benefit

Whether as a temporary remedial expedient or the advanced personalization adaptation now emerging from W3C accessibility standards, or somewhere in between, users simply deserve the best structural semantics that can be provided them in the moment when they seek to interact with web content. Any and all philosophical should arguments must give way to this simple rubric.

Automatability

In most cases

Handle Dynamic Pages Accessibly

Source

Dynamic pages that update without full reloads (using AJAX and similar technologies) pose challenges for users who rely on screen readers, as these users may not be aware of changes on the page.

Tradeoffs

While dynamic updates provide a smoother user experience, they require careful management to ensure that all users are informed of changes in content or state.

Benefit

Properly managed dynamic pages can offer a seamless experience for all users, including those with disabilities, by providing necessary alerts and updates through assistive technologies.

Automatability

In some cases—Handling updates on dynamic pages using standard technologies like AJAX and implementing ARIA-live regions can be automated. However, ensuring these updates do not affect other aspects of the page's functionality often requires human verification.

correct semantic behavior

Source

Custom components often deviate from standard HTML elements in terms of functionality and accessibility. Ensuring that these components reflect correct semantic behavior is crucial for accessibility tools like screen readers.

Tradeoffs

Aligning custom components with standard semantic behaviors often requires additional development effort and rigorous testing, especially when components are highly interactive or complex.

Benefit

When custom components adhere to proper semantics, they enhance the user experience for individuals relying on assistive technologies, making web interactions more intuitive and predictable.

Automatability

In no significant way—Custom components vary widely in functionality and integration, making it difficult for autonomous systems to apply correct semantics without potential conflicts or errors that could disrupt user experience or other page elements.

Support Semantic Navigation

The ability to navigate pages by semantics alone such as headings, buttons, links. Screen readers, primarily used by blind users, offer this feature.

Source

The means of navigation is not offered by source.

Trade-Offs

This additional navigation aide would not block or hinder other types of access. The only trade-off could be confusion of having an excessive number of choices. Having a sheer volume of options can be mentally exhausting to some.

Benefit

The "curb cut effect" is used to describe a situation where accommodations made to assist people with disabilities end up benefiting everyone. The ability to browse pages by structural semantic features such as headings, links, or buttons promises to allow users to quickly move between different sections or elements of a web page without the need to visually scan the entire page. This can save time, especially on long and complex pages with lots of content. By using semantic navigation options like headings or links, sighted users can easily jump to specific sections or pieces of content they are interested in. This can be particularly helpful when users are looking for specific information or trying to locate a particular topic on a page.

Some users rely on keyboard navigation alone, such as those with motor disabilities or certain types of visual impairments. Semantic navigation options provide a convenient way for keyboard users to move through the content without having to rely on mouse-based interactions, making the website more accessible and usable for them.

Automatability

In many cases

Provide Keyboard Navigation Enhancements

Enhance visual indicators that support keyboard navigation such as underlines or color changes; optionally provide other assistance such as mapping interactive elements to keyboard shortcuts.

Source

Some content publishers offer such transformations. Also, some operating systems provide such features which should not be overwritten by browser technology, generally speaking.

Trade-Offs

There is no particular benefit to performing this mediation at the edge.

Benefit

This capability is critical to the users who require it.

Automatability

In many cases

Clarify Interactive Elements Status & Functionality

This capability ensures concise instructions and labels that are clear to sighted, low vision, and non-sighted users alike, and that the elements can be controlled through keyboard navigation. It also provides feedback on the status of the element and on any status changes that may occur.

Source

While source content is expected to provide the same clarity, remediating it to do so isn't always immediately feasible.

Trade-Offs

This is not a redundant capability. It is an innovation only available from edge technology in situations where source is demonstrably less informative than needed for functional accessibility support.

Benefit

Supports more efficient interaction with content for users who require the enhanced support.

Automatability

In no significant way

Ensure External Link Target Notification

This capability:

• Assures users relying on TTS (or braille) that hyperlinks are correctly announced as links;
• Informs them whether the linked content will open in a new tab or window;
• Verifies that links resolve correctly and any broken links are so labeled.

Source

While source content is expected to maintain viable hyperlinks and provide the same clarity about their status, remediating it to do so isn't always immediately feasible.

Trade-Offs

This is not a redundant capability. It is an innovation only available from edge technology in situations where source is demonstrably less informative than needed for functional accessibility support.

Benefit

Supports more efficient interaction with content for users who require the enhanced support.

Automatability

In many cases—[example pending]

Clarify Ambiguous Links

This capability provides descriptive and meaningful link text that accurately reflects the purpose or destination of the link when the source content fails to do so. This is particularly needed for link text such as click here or more.

Source

While source content is expected to maintain viable hyperlinks and provide the same clarity about their status, remediating it to do so isn't always immediately feasible. Click here and more link text is far too common and rarely sufficiently unambiguous.

Trade-Offs

This is not a redundant capability. It is an innovation only available from edge technology in situations where source is demonstrably less informative than needed for functional accessibility support.

Benefit

Supports more efficient interaction with content for users who require the enhanced support.

Automatability

In many cases—We can usually handle the Click here case.

Ensure Nested Text Element Accessibility

Source

Nested text elements like collapsible lists, tabs, and tooltips enhance web interactivity but can pose significant accessibility challenges if not properly managed.

Trade-Offs

While these features enhance site navigation and aesthetic appeal, they require careful implementation to ensure they do not hinder the accessibility for users with disabilities.

Benefit

When nested text elements are accessible, they can greatly enhance navigational efficiency and user experience, providing all users with equal access to site functionalities.

Automatability

In no significant way—While interactive elements can be scripted to include accessibility features, autonomously verifying that these scripts do not interfere with other page functionalities or degrade the user experience typically demands manual oversight.

Support ARIA Roles & Attributes Remediation

Source

Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA) roles and attributes enhance accessibility when native HTML elements cannot fully describe their own function without the additional markup.

Trade-Offs

Incorporating ARIA roles and attributes requires a detailed understanding of ARIA specifications and how assistive technologies interpret these roles. Overuse or incorrect use can lead to more harm than good.

Benefit

Correct application of ARIA roles enhances the accessibility of web applications by providing users with disabilities the necessary information to interact with various components effectively.

Automatability

In some cases—While applying standard ARIA roles and attributes can be automated, verifying that these roles do not interact negatively with other attributes or scripts on the page often requires manual oversight.

Voice Command

Source

Voice command technologies facilitate interaction for users with motor and visual impairments but need to be carefully integrated to recognize diverse speech patterns and accents.

Trade-Offs

Ensuring voice command systems are inclusive of all speech variations can be a complex and ongoing challenge.

Benefit

Well-implemented voice command systems enhance the accessibility and usability of web environments, allowing users to navigate and interact with content hands-free.

Automatability

In some cases—Voice command technologies require extensive training to handle diverse accents and speech.

Support Dictionary On Demand

This capability provides access to definitions of words or phrases that may be unfamiliar to some users, provides pronunciation guidance, and provides synonyms, which can all especially help users living with cognitive and learning disabilities better comprehend content.

Source

There is no particular benefit to providing this service in source.

Trade-Offs

When browsers provide this capability, its functionality is limited to the browser being used though a particular vendor's browser may provide consistent service across multiple devices).

Benefit

Supports enhanced comprehension for users who require the enhanced support in a manner that does not interfere with the fundamental functionality of the content.

Automatability

No significant way

Support Live Site Translations

Offering a user-triggered method to this capability changes the language of a web page in real time, by translating the current page into a language selected by the user.

Source

There is no particular benefit to providing this service in source.

Trade-Offs

When provided by the browser the target language and the manner of invocation will be consistent.

Benefit

Supports greater content comprehension.

Automatability

In many cases

Read Content Aloud

This capability allows a user to hear content spoken aloud by using a cloud (or browser) hosted Text to Speech (TTS) engine. There are now high quality TTS engines and listening while reading on screen is often beneficial for users in general, including and especially users living with certain cognitive and learning disabilities.

Source

While it could be supported in source content, this capability is rarely (if ever) available in source.

Trade-Offs

Users requiring this accommodation will most likely require it across all sites they visit.

Benefit

Only browser edge technology is capable of performing this accommodation across all sites a user accesses.

Automatability

In many cases

Disambiguate Numbers and Strings of Digits for TTS

Not all strings of digits are numbers. Nor should all strings of digits be pronounced as though they were actual numbers. The classic example (which all screen readers and read-aloud services continue to get wrong) is the aural presentation of a telephone number, which is not actually a number, of course, but rather a numeric address. Consider this example of a telephone number as would typically be auralized by TTS: Plus one, two hundred twelve, five hundred fifty-five, onethousand two hundred and thirty-four.

Source

Source has not heretofore had the markup resources needed to correctly disambiguate numeric strings from numbers. Ongoing work at W3C in the Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working Group's Spoken Presentation Task Force may soon provide the required markup tools.

Trade-Offs

While no mechanism currently exists to guide screen readers in appropriate pronunciation, read-aloud tools can be heuristically assisted today by edge technologies.

Benefit

Anyone's comprehension is aided by correct pronunciation.

Automatability

In some cases

Provide Appropriate Acronym Expansion with TTS

Source

HTML has long provided markup to specify the correct expansion of acronyms.

Trade-Offs

While no mechanism currently exists to guide screen readers in appropriate pronunciation, read-aloud tools can be heuristically assisted today by edge technologies whether or not the content has been properly tagged.

Benefit

Anyone's comprehension is aided by correct pronunciation.

Automatability

In some cases

Fully Automated Transformations

Automated transformations applied based on conditions edge technology discovers in the user's technology.

Source

Content providers have long sought to tailor UX behavior based on what capabilities could be discovered about the user's operating environment. What browser is in use? Desktop, mobile or smart watch? Is a screen reader in use? Indeed, Google's automated Recaptcha 3 is deeply dependent on just such data gathering.

Trade-Offs

While a well-crafted remediation technology may be invisible to users, it is both risky and presumptuous to presume there will be no users who will not experience some kind of accessibility challenge even among the best crafted remediation technologies. Matters are made worse when the user is left uninformed and feels a loss of agency.

Benefit

Users do indeed expect their technologies will operate automatically and seamlessly to provide an accessible and functional experience. This is an accepted technological expectation. Content providers do not err in attempting to meet this expectation. An automated UX transformation approach can provide clear benefits. One example is real-time applications such as Real Time Communications (RTC). Immediacy matters. Automated captions may not provide the desired quality, but the alternative may too often be no captions whatsoever. Similarly, missing image descriptions generated by A-I may prove more helpful to the user coping with a substandard page than no alternative text at all. Pages with content that remains unremediated can also tend to encourage users to seek alternative providers.

Automatability

In some cases

Automated Detection and Remediation of WCAG Violations

Algorithmic detection of violations of WCAG 2.x success criteria is considered here as a vector for providing the user a more conformant experience. There is, of course, the other application, where violation detection serves as a step in a source remediation process. We address the former here.

Source

If source got this right (as WCAG 2.x seems to expect), we wouldn't have a need for this capability.

Trade-Offs

In-browser scanners and online scanners are used to detect WCAG violations. This is the business model for many companies. False positives, false negatives, certainty and confidence scores are well-known factors affecting the success and usefulness of this approach. It is unfortunate when such violations remain unremediated in source content, but sometimes this can't be helped. An indication of violations at the edge, however rough, is better than none.

Benefit

Large, complex and highly dynamic source sites are literally unable to reproduce every user experience permutation in their test beds. Automated detection and reporting can help bridge this gap. Something is most often better than nothing, especially in the moment. It looms ever larger as it stacks, and automated detection is often the first step in a chain of capabilities.

Automatability

In some cases

Human Mediated Automated Remediation

While not the glamorous holy grail of technology deployment today, human mediation of A-I identified checkpoints, together with the site owner's active participation to clarify meaning and intent, describes an effective approach to accomplish accessibility remediations where they're needed. No other approach delivers equally effective remediations at such scale.

Source

This is a process approach just as meaningful for remediating accessibility violations in source as it is for remediating at the edge. Though to argue any remediation not done at source or not performed by a human, may describe a theology of accessibility, not a technological solution delivering real benefits to users.

Trade-Offs

It is clearly preferable to remediate violations in source content whenever doing so is feasible. An in-process corrective overlay remediations only make sense when there are good reasons why the source cannot be remediated.

Benefit

The user always benefits when best available remediation approaches are employed. Nor will the user ever care where and how the remediation is accomplished as long as it facilitates the user' s ability to function.

Automatability

Does Not Apply

Accessibility Editing, By Site Owner

This capability describes an interface in the overlay, available to authorized users, facilitating manual editing of source code that affects accessibility, e.g. alt tags for images, or ARIA labels, often with the assistance of linting, wizards and supplemental materials.

Source

Where the source lacks sufficient accessibility supporting markup, this capability provides both analytics and remediation access to properly authenticated persons empowered to perform remediation. Note the assumption is that, for whatever reason, the content technology provided by the hosting environment lacks adequate accessibility supporting technology.

Trade-Offs

A properly configured content hosting environment should be able to accomplish accessible content publication. Such editing performed at the edge depends on robust IDs and can be more brittle than changes at source.

Benefit

This capability facilitates adding missing accessibility supporting markup to source content. It is unique to overlays of this type, providing an alternative to standard methods of coding the site, either via source code, web platform templates/CSS adjustments, etc. This capability exists to assist sites who fail accessibility, usually for a complex set of reasons where source remediation is expensive or otherwise not readily achievable. This is not a redundant capability. Rather, it is an innovation only available from edge technology. Equivalent technology in source would require the site publisher to establish a complete panoply of content management tooling. While this is certainly feasible, not everyone wishing to make content available online desires to spend time gaining proficiency with content management systems.

Automatability

Does Not Apply

Accessibility Editing, By 3rd Party

This capability functions very much like the Accessibility Editing, By Site Owner immediately above, except that a third party accessibility coding expert is granted access to perform needed remediations.

Source

The only alternative in source is write access for the third party to the source content. On some sites this may require full administrative access.

Trade-Offs

This is not a redundant capability. It is an innovation only available from edge technology.

Benefit

Accessibility edits are provided to the content publisher much like pull requests in version control systems.

Automatability

Does Not Apply

Feature-Bundling Profiles

Site publishers need to support the full spectrum of accessibility features. On the other hand, individual users need certain features and will ignore those they do not need. The types of features individual users need are often group-able into bundles, making it easier to turn on groups of features, e.g. high contrast and larger text size.

Source

As previously noted, users will need the same (or very similar) feature support across all their various devices. This makes supporting even grouped feature profiles in source (and even in the OS) less effective than an edge solution can be, because it requires the user to make the same selections time and again.

Trade-Offs

Grouping related features together into named profiles enables users to find and focus on the ones they need to configure and ignore the rest. The emerging approach aimed at propagating user profile configurations across all of a user's devices makes edge technology the only logical locus for this capability.

Benefit

This is yet another instance supporting Configure Once, Use Everywhere.

Automatability

Does Not Apply

Support Accessibility Statement

Providing an easily located Accessibility Statement has become a widely accepted best practice in the industry. While there is no consensus on what all should be included, it is generally agreed that the formal Statement should define the site's commitment to accessibility of its content and services. Additional content, such as accessibility specific contact data, and accessibility specific help resources are also frequently included.

Source

It is currently a best practice to link to the Accessibility Statement (and related resources) from the site's footer.

Trade-Offs

An Accessibility Statement introduced by edge technologies doesn't add value, though adding locale specific content might be useful.

Benefit

To the extent that locale specific data may be helpful to users, edge technology may be the best means of providing the most timely locale-specific accessibility information.

Automatability

In many cases

Support Accessibility Provider Identification

This capability displays to website users the name (and perhaps the logo) of the primary accessibility provider, who stands behind the accessibility of the site. This may be part of the accessibility statement.

Source

Identifying the provider of accessibility to site source is a matter of transparency and will likely be gladly accomplished by any provider taking pride in the quality of their output.

Trade-Offs

Providing accessibility to content, whether at the source or with in-process transformations, should never be opaque. Users deserve to know who is responsible for their experience of web content.

Benefit

Automatability

In some cases

Provide Accessibility Issue Reporting

This capability provides a form, or an email link, enabling end-users the ability to report barriers they've experienced on a site. Accessibility-specific reporting is an industry best practice.

Source

Clearly, such a form-based reporting mechanism can be in source content. It is another feature that would likely be best provided along with the Accessibility Statement and related resources.

Trade-Offs

While not obviating source based issue reporting, edge technologies are uniquely positioned to attach possibly relevant metadata to such reports.

Benefit

Such a form requires the source provider to think through who should receive and process these reports. Most particularly, they will need to consider what accessibility expertise is available to evaluate and follow-up on such reports.

Automatability

In some cases

Configure Once, Use Everywhere

Users now frequently use several devices. Furthermore, users tend to have the same or very similar accessibility requirements regardless of the device they may be using in the moment. It is therefore an emerging goal in web accommodations to support the user in configuring once and having their configured preference propagate across all their devices. Such a cross-device preference profile should ideally function across all vendors and operating environments.

Source

While technically feasible in source, this is not being done by content source today, and we are not aware of any proposals to add such functionality in content source—likely for a multiplicity of reasons. People, regardless of ability or disability, may often want to withhold this information from a source provider, and would certainly not want it to propagate to source providers outside of their knowledge or control.

Trade-Offs

A privacy-preserving, cross-platform U-I configuring capability is now a long-term goal in the W3C Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working Group. Such a capability has long been desired and is arguably now more achievable than ever before. It would clearly be valuable to users. For example, blind users and people on slow internet connections will benefit from setting their browsers to not download images. It will nevertheless require nuanced implementation, e.g. screen size and consequent decisions over preferred fonts, spacing, and contrasts will likely vary by screen size and environmental conditions. Another example of a nuanced consideration is the likely desire of a screen reader user to operate sometimes with TTS, but other times with braille (or both braille and TTS).

Benefit

Configure once and deploy everywhere, with the setting propagating to other contexts, would constitute a profound efficiency enhancement for users. We note this is already being realized by technology vendors within their own operating environments, but we believe users should be supported even when they mix and match devices across operating environments.

Automatability

Does Not Apply