Accessibility ≠ Overlay: the National Federation of the Blind warns about the limitations of overlays
An overlay can modify a website. That does not mean it can understand it. NFB Resolution 2021-04 gives concrete examples of why automation alone cannot guarantee complete nonvisual access.
What does the National Federation of the Blind say?
In 2021, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) adopted Resolution 2021-04, Regarding the Use of Overlays to Make Websites Accessible to the Blind. The resolution examines what overlays try to do, their limitations, and what would be required for them to genuinely improve nonvisual access.
What an overlay tries to fix
NFB explains that these tools may attempt to describe unlabeled graphics, enable keyboard activation of controls incorrectly coded for mouse-only use, and insert heading tags where a system infers a heading. These are useful goals, but automating them does not mean understanding the content correctly.
An image’s context cannot always be inferred
An automated description may identify two people in front of a building without knowing who they are or which building matters in context. NFB uses this kind of example to show the difference between recognizing visual elements and understanding their meaning.
Headings, tables, video and CAPTCHA
The resolution identifies further limitations: an overlay can apply headings incorrectly, misinterpret table structure, cannot automatically provide adequate audio description for video, and cannot accurately solve an inaccessible visual CAPTCHA.
Partial access is not complete access
NFB’s conclusion is especially important: overlays may help make certain parts of a website accessible, but they alone cannot guarantee full nonvisual access to every website where they are deployed. A one-time code installation does not guarantee complete, lasting accessibility.
When accessibility controls are themselves inaccessible
NFB describes websites that ask users to activate a screen-reader mode with a keyboard shortcut without clearly identifying the overlay, explaining how to disable it, or providing a clear way to report problems. Some controls and accessibility profiles of the overlay itself may be inaccessible to screen-reader users.
Accessibility requires a lifecycle
Accessibility should be a priority throughout the product lifecycle, from design through implementation and maintenance. Automation and artificial intelligence can be part of that process, but they do not replace correct structure, accessible interaction, appropriate content and real testing with assistive technologies.
Critical of shortcuts, not innovation
NFB does not say that every overlay technology is without value. The resolution welcomes solutions that provide genuine nonvisual access and calls on developers and customers to work with blind people and accessibility specialists to evaluate and improve these technologies.
Accessibility ≠ Overlay
The question should not be whether a website has an accessibility widget, but whether a person can navigate, understand the content, operate controls, complete forms and perform the same tasks using their own assistive technology. Real accessibility is designed, developed, tested and maintained.
Original source
National Federation of the Blind — Resolution 2021-04: Regarding the Use of Overlays to Make Websites Accessible to the Blind.
Adopted at the NFB National Convention on July 10, 2021.