Why So Many Accessibility Programs Still Fall Short

There is no shortage of commitment to digital accessibility. Over the last decade, organizations have invested in accessibility tools and compliance programs.

And yet, after years of effort, the underlying problem remains stubbornly unchanged.

Across the world’s largest websites, the average number of accessibility barriers per page has barely moved in six years. Legal claims continue to rise, especially in state courts.

For the hundreds of millions of people who navigate the web with a disability, the hope of a more accessible internet remains largely that — a hope.

The problem is systemic. Most organizations approach accessibility the same way they did a decade ago, using tools and processes that were never designed for the scale and velocity of the modern web.

Understanding why requires a closer look at how most accessibility programs actually work.

The Accessibility Treadmill

Most accessibility programs follow a familiar cycle:

1. A website is audited by internal teams or consultants who test key pages and user actions.

2. A list of issues is logged. Often, teams are left to fix the issues themselves, even when partnering with a consultant.

3. Fixes enter a long queue, often sitting for weeks or months as internal teams focus on other priorities.

Then the site changes.

Suddenly, there’s a new list of pages and user actions to audit. Some of the improvements a team just made become obsolete.

From inside an organization, this cycle can feel unavoidable. Without a better system in place, throwing more resources at the problem can feel like the only option.

Over time, however, accessibility programs built like this start to feel like a treadmill: teams run hard and feel productive, only to step off and realize they never left the room.

Collage with a man thinking deeply, bar and pie charts, and accessibility icons

Why Most Accessibility Programs Don’t Scale

When I talk to business leaders and prospective customers, they often share frustration that their accessibility efforts don’t seem to be sticking.

They’re doing a lot of work, but the results aren’t matching the effort.

In almost every case, it’s easy to diagnose the core problem: they’re relying on an incomplete approach. They’ve either gone all-in on a fix-at-source approach that asks their team to do the heavy lifting, or they’re relying on automation alone to find and fix everything.

Both approaches can be part of the solution. But neither is sufficient on its own for most organizations.

The Limitations of Fixing Accessibility Issues In-House (Fix-at-Source)

In this model, organizations rely on internal development teams to implement accessibility fixes, based on in-house testing or external audits.

In theory, this reflects ownership and accountability. But there are a few inherent problems with this approach:

• Expertise is hard to sustain internally. Accessibility is a specialized discipline. Most teams don’t have deep training in accessibility requirements or assistive technology, which hinders their ability to implement fixes.

• Accessibility competes with every other engineering priority. Accessibility fixes often sit in the same queue as product features, bug fixes, and infrastructure work.

• Automated scans don’t catch everything. Some teams rely solely on automated tools to detect issues and add them to their backlog. However, no tool can catch everything, and teams that only adopt this approach leave plenty of WCAG A/AA criteria untested.

• Point-in-time audits don’t scale. A site that passes an audit today may introduce new barriers tomorrow. Without continuous monitoring, teams are always catching up.

That’s not to say that a fix-at-source approach can’t work. For small websites that aren’t updated often, periodic audits and spot fixes can be enough. But for larger organizations with sprawling websites, distributed teams, and constant change management to navigate, it simply doesn’t scale.

The Limitations of Automated Tools

In this model, organizations rely primarily on automation to scan sites and fix issues.

For many teams, this feels like the fastest, most affordable path to accessibility. Especially given the glut of false marketing claims out there that automation alone can make a website fully compliant.

In reality, automation is an essential but incomplete part of the solution. No automated tool can detect every issue, and detection quality varies widely across tools. Worse, automated tools often miss high-risk barriers (such as keyboard navigation issues) that are often cited in web accessibility lawsuits.

When organizations rely solely on automation, they often end up with a partial view of risk — and a misplaced sense of compliance.

Why Neither Path Delivers on Its Own

On the surface, both approaches look productive. Teams are certainly working hard enough.

But activity is not the same as progress.

In the end, organizations that rely on automation or manual work find themselves in the same position: struggling to remain compliant.

Collage featuring a man pointing at a chart, with doodles and icons

What Actually Works at Scale

Over time, most effective accessibility programs converge on the same model: powerful automation and human expertise, working together.

At AudioEye, we call this the gold standard of accessibility. The basic principle — automation for scale and 24/7 monitoring, with human experts to identify high-risk barriers and achieve full compliance — is at the heart of our core offering.

But the principle extends beyond any single platform and focuses instead on three complementary capabilities: automation, human expertise, and dedicated legal support.

1. AI Automation

AI Automation is the foundation of any scalable accessibility program. There’s no other way to keep pace with the sheer size or changing nature of most websites today.

However, it’s important to recognize that not all automation is created equal. Some tools detect only a narrow set of issues, while others provide broader, more dependable coverage, giving teams a clearer picture of risk.

Independent testing shows that AudioEye’s platform detects up to 2.5x more issues across WCAG levels than competing tools.

When it comes to accessibility compliance, that difference is decisive. It’s not just that more powerful tools help teams find and fix more issues; broader testing also lets them operate from a more accurate view of legal risk.

2. Expert Testing and Custom Fixes

Expert testing and custom code fixes fill in the gaps that automation leaves behind.

At AudioEye, our certified experts work alongside people with disabilities to evaluate key areas of a site, focusing on barriers that automated scans often miss but can surface later in complaints and legal claims.

Once identified, these issues are resolved through custom, code-based fixes that are automatically delivered via platforms like AudioEye, enabling organizations to address up to 97% of accessibility barriers before involving internal teams.

3. Dedicated Legal Support

Finally, scalable programs include built-in support for legal and regulatory challenges.

That means having experienced legal experts involved in the event of a web accessibility claim. When legitimate issues arise, they can be addressed quickly and credibly. When claims lack merit, organizations have the evidence to respond with confidence.

When all these things are in place, accessibility compliance becomes a routine part of enterprise risk management rather than a source of anxiety.

A Realistic Assessment of Risk

In the spirit of transparency, it’s important to acknowledge that no accessibility program eliminates legal risk entirely.

Some organizations with strong programs still get sued. Some organizations with weak programs never receive anything more than a demand letter. The relationship between technical compliance and legal exposure is real, but not absolute.

We analyzed more than 1,500 accessibility claims to determine whether the issues cited in each one represented real accessibility barriers — and thus warranted the claim.

The results were stark:

• Organizations with no accessibility solution in place faced valid claims in 68% of cases.

• Organizations with an accessibility solution in place — including those using traditional accessibility consultants and fix-at-source approaches — faced valid claims in 56% of cases.

• By contrast, organizations relying on AudioEye’s combined approach saw dramatically lower rates. Today, valid claims among these customers occur in fewer than 10% of cases.

A Different Way to Think About Accessibility

For leaders navigating accessibility today, the goal is to build the right solution for your organization’s needs, capabilities, and risk profile.

For smaller websites that don’t change often, a fix-at-source approach might be enough. For larger sites with thousands of pages and constant releases, automation and outside support are often the only way to keep pace.

The organizations that make lasting progress aren't necessarily the ones working hardest. They're the ones who built a system that doesn't depend on heroics to keep running. That means the right combination of automation to catch issues at scale, human experts to address what automation misses, and legal support to manage risk when challenges arise.

When those pieces are in place, accessibility stops feeling like a treadmill and starts functioning like infrastructure.