CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesUsability and User Interface DesignAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

Constructing Websites with Generative AI Tools: The Accessibility of Their Workflows and Products for Users With Disabilities

Open access
Palmer, Zsuzsanna B., Oswal, Sushil K.·2025·Journal of Business and Technical Communication
DOI 10.1177/10506519241280644
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Generative AI tools allow anyone without web-design experience to have a business website created when the user provides a few specifications about the business, such as its name, type, and location. But the resulting websites not only fall short of the business's basic needs but they also raise major concerns about their accessibility for disabled users. This study specifically examines whether these AI generated websites are accessible to screen-reader users with visual disabilities. It presents data about the usability and accessibility of the products of three generative AI website builders, highlights the specific problems found by an expert screen reader test along with an automated machine scan of these sites, and discusses some causes of and recommendations for solving these problems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/10506519241280644

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Accessibility is not an inherent capability of current LLMs but a specialized constraint that is frequently overridden by training biases toward common, and often inaccessible, web design patterns.

    “This finding aligns with recent evidence that accessibility is not an inherent capability of current LLMs but a specialized constraint that is frequently overridden by training biases toward common, and often inaccessible, web design patterns [43, 51, 58].”

    From A Multi-Agent Framework for Accessible Web Code Generation (2026) · cites this paper as [58]

    In “Progress or Regression,” the paper reports that two of three AI website builders produced sites with no or only nominal screen-reader accessibility, and links some problems to insufficient disability- and accessibility-related training data. “To Sum Up” likewise identifies that data gap as a major culprit. The paper does not establish that accessibility is frequently overridden by training biases toward common web-design patterns, and its findings concern the tested builder tools rather than current LLMs generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Accessibility must be operationalized as a system-level constraint rather than a stylistic preference.

    “and supports recent arguments that accessibility must be operationalized as a system-level constraint rather than a stylistic preference [58].”

    From A Multi-Agent Framework for Accessible Web Code Generation (2026) · cites this paper as [58]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 42 · Cited by 22

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Amershi, S., Weld, D., Vorvoreanu, M., Fourney, A., Nushi, B., Collisson, P., Suh, J., Iqbal, S., Bennett, B., Inkpen, K., Teevan, J., Kikin-Gil, R., & Horvitz, E. (2019, May). Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Chi Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-13).
  2. Barocas, S., Guo, A., Kamar, E., Krones, J., Morris, M. R., Vaughan, J. W., Wadsworth, D., & Wallach, H. (2021, July). Designing disaggregated evaluations of AI systems: Choices, considerations, and tradeoffs. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 368-378).
  3. Bigham, J. P., Brudvik, J. T., & Zhang, B. (2010, October). Accessibility by demon- stration: Enabling end users to guide developers to web accessibility solutions. In Proceedings of the 12th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (pp. 35-42).
  4. Cardon, P., Getchell, K., Carradini, S., Fleischmann, C., & Stapp, J. (2023). Generative AI in the workplace: Employee perspectives of ChatGPT benefits and organizational policies. SocArXiv. http://dx.https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/ b3ezyn. · DOI
  5. Chandrashekar, S., & Benedyk, R. (2006). Accessibility vs. usability: Where is the dividing line? In P. D. Bust (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics 2006 (pp. 231-235).
  6. Taylor & Francis.
  7. Clegg, G. M. (2018). Unheard complaints: Integrating captioning into business and professional communication presentations. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 81(1), 100-122. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906 17748710 · DOI
  8. Dobrin, D. N. (2019). What's technical about technical writing? In New essays in technical and scientific communication (pp. 227-250). Routledge.
  9. Duin, A. H., & Pedersen, I. (2023). Augmentation technologies and artificial intelligence in technical communication: Designing ethical futures. Taylor & Francis.
  10. Giraud, S., Thérouanne, P., & Steiner, D. D. (2018). Web accessibility: Filtering redundant and irrelevant information improves website usability for blind users. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 111, 23-35. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.10.011 · DOI
  11. Glazko, K. S., Yamagami, M., Desai, A., Mack, K. A., Potluri, V., Xu, X., & Mankoff, J. (2023). An autoethnographic case study of generative artificial intel- ligence's utility for accessibility. In Proceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (pp. 1-8).
  12. Heilig, L. (2023). Critical disability studies in technical communication: A 25-year history and the future of accessibility. In The Palgrave handbook of disability and communication (pp. 401-415). Springer International.
  13. Huntsman, S. (2021). Addressing workplace accessibility practices through technical communication research methods: One size does not fit all. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 64(3), 221-234. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC. 2021.3094036 · DOI
  14. Hutter, L., & Lawrence, H. M. (2018). Promoting inclusive and accessible design in usability testing: A teaching case with users who are deaf. Communication Design Quarterly Review, 6(2), 21-30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3282665.3282668 · DOI
  15. Kong, Y., & Ding, H. (2024). Tools, potential, and pitfalls of social media screening: Social profiling in the era of AI-assisted recruiting. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 38(1), 33-65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651923 1199478 · DOI
  16. Leuthold, S., Bargas-Avila, J. A., & Opwis, K. (2008). Beyond web content acces- sibility guidelines: Design of enhanced text user interfaces for blind internet users. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(4), 257-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.10.006 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Light, B., Burgess, J., & Duguay, S. (2018). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society, 20(3), 881-900. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1461444816675438 · DOI
  18. Markauskaite, L., Marrone, R., Poquet, O., Knight, S., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Howard, S., Tondeur, J., De Laat, M., Shum, S. B., Gasevic, D., & Siemens, G. (2022). Rethinking the entwinement between artificial intelligence and human learning: What capabilities do learners need for a world with AI? Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 1-16. https://doi.org/10. 1016/jxaeai.2022.100056 · DOI
  19. Morris, M. R. (2020). AI and accessibility. Communications of the ACM, 63(6), 35-37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3356727 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Oswal, S. K. (2014). Participatory design: Barriers and possibilities. Communication Design Quarterly Review, 2(3), 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1145/2644448.2644452 · DOI
  21. Oswal, S. K. (2018). Can workplaces, classrooms, and pedagogies be disabling? Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 81(1), 3-19. https://doi. org/10.1177/2329490618765434 · DOI
  22. Oswal, S. K. (2019, October). Breaking the exclusionary boundary between user experience and access: Steps toward making UX inclusive of users with disabil- ities. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication (pp. 1-8).
  23. Oswal, S. K., & Palmer, Z. B. (2022). A critique of disability and accessibility research in technical communication through the models of emancipatory disabil- ity research paradigm and participatory scholarship. In J. Schreiber, & L. Melonçon (Eds.), Assembling critical components: A framework for sustaining technical and professional communication (pp. 243-267). WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado.
  24. Palmer, Z. B., & Palmer, R. H. (2018). Legal and ethical implications of website accessibility. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 81(4), 399-420. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490618802418 · DOI
  25. Park, J. S., Bragg, D., Kamar, E., & Morris, M. R. (2021, March). Designing an online infrastructure for collecting AI data from people with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 52-63).
  26. Pedersen, I. (2013). Ready to wear: A rhetoric of wearable computers and reality- shifting media. Parlor Press.
  27. Rømen, D., & Svanæs, D. (2012). Validating WCAG versions 1.0 and 2.0 through usability testing with disabled users. Universal Access in the Information Society, 11(4), 375-385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-011-0259-3 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Sherrill, J. T., & Salvo, M. J. (2022). Automated infrastructures: Participation's changing role in postindustrial work. Communication Design Quarterly Review, 10(2), 22-31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3507857.3507860 · DOI
  29. Silva, C. A., de Oliveira, A. F., Mateus, D. A., Costa, H. A. X., & Freire, A. P. (2019, October). Types of problems encountered by automated tool accessibility assessments, expert inspections and user testing: A systematic literature mapping. In Proceedings of the 18th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-11).
  30. Trewin, S., Basson, S., Muller, M., Branham, S., Treviranus, J., Gruen, D., & Manser, E. (2019). Considerations for AI fairness for people with disabilities. AI Matters, 5(3), 40-63. https://doi.org/10.1145/3362077. 3362086 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Troeger, J., & Bock, A. (2022). The sociotechnical walkthrough: A methodological approach for platform studies. Studies in Communication Sciences, 22(1), 43-52. https://doi.org/10.24434/j.scoms.2022.01.3064 · DOI
  32. Walden, A. C. (2022). Necessity is the mother of invention: Accessibility pre, inter, & post pandemic. Computers and Composition, 66, 102740. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.compcom.2022.102740 · DOI
  33. Wang, A., Ramaswamy, V. V., & Russakovsky, O. (2022, June). Towards intersec- tionality in machine learning: Including more identities, handling underrepresen- tation, and performing evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 336-349).
  34. Zuboff, S. (2019, January). Surveillance capitalism and the challenge of collective action. In New labor forum (pp. 10-29). Sage.

Authors
Palmer, Z. B., & Oswal, S. K.
Affiliations
  • Grand Valley State University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Palmer, Zsuzsanna B.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2024-09-28
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
93-114
ISSN
  • 0892-5720 (ISSN-L)
  • 1050-6519
  • 1552-4574
DOI
10.1177/10506519241280644
OpenAlex
W4402940793
Cited by
22
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 1
FWCI
46.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Journal of Business and Technical Communication (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Gulf Research Program (2000-10880)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
generative AI, web development, web accessibility, screen readers, visual impairment, usability, accessibility testing, disabled users

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review