Takeaways From WebAIM Million

Since 2019, WebAIM has been conducting accessibility evaluations of the home pages of the top 1,000,000 websites using its automated tool, WAVE. While automated tools are not fully reliable, the WebAIM Million studies are a valuable resource for understanding trends in digital accessibility due to their large sample size. So, let’s take a look at some key findings:

• More Complex Pages, More Errors: Compared to last year, the number of elements on web pages increased by 22.5%, while the number of accessibility errors rose by 10.1%. Although the slower growth in errors compared to page complexity might seem like a small win, it is not sufficient. With “technological revolutions” such as AI, along with legal regulations and a growing focus on inclusion, I would have expected at least a decrease in error rates. Accessibility is not progressing as fast as technology.
• More Visual Pages: The number of images on home pages increased by 13.6% over the past year. Meanwhile, the percentage of pages with missing or incorrect alt text decreased from 55.5% to 53.1%. Considering the increase in images, this is a promising improvement. However, there is another concern. Although it is not covered in this study, the use of images of text seems to be increasing based on my experience. Even when alternative text is provided, images of text create a poor experience for users with low vision. For this reason, the growing visual nature of web pages deserves closer examination. There may be increasing user experience issues that cannot be detected through automation.
• Misuse of ARIA: ARIA usage increased by 27% over the past year, yet pages using ARIA had, on average, 17 more detected errors. This may be because ARIA makes certain errors easier to identify. On the other hand, the study also highlights common mistakes in ARIA implementation. ARIA is often perceived as a “magic solution” for accessibility, but in many cases, it ends up creating more confusion. So, use it carefully.
• “Access to Basic Rights First, the Rest Doesn’t Matter”: Here are the five categories with the fewest -Government (42,4), Non-Profit / Charity (43), Science (45), Personal Finance (45,4), Careers (46,2)- and the most errors -Hobbies and Interests (63,6), Home and Garden (65,9), Styles and Fashion (66,7), Shopping (71), Sports (71,4)-. Except for Science, the categories with fewer errors are all related to access to information, services, and fundamental rights. In contrast, hobby-related websites have 20 more accessibility errors compared to these categories. While it is encouraging that websites related to fundamental rights and services are more accessible, the fact that hobby sites lag so far behind does not support equal participation in society for persons with disabilities. It’s as if we can access our rights, but not engage in enjoyable topics.
• Did Regulations Make a Difference?: Under the European Accessibility Act, we know that concrete steps have been taken in Germany, the Netherlands, and France. In Turkey, an accessibility circular has also been introduced. For this reason, I compared accessibility errors on pages in the languages of these four countries with last year’s data. However, I could not find a meaningful difference. This may be because the sample size includes many websites that are not covered by these regulations, or it may indicate that there is genuinely no impact yet. Perhaps it is still too early for such a comparison.