ACCESS: Prompt Engineering for Automated Web Accessibility Violation Corrections
Open accessAbstract
With the increasing need for inclusive and user-friendly technology, web accessibility is crucial to ensuring equal access to online content for individuals with disabilities, including visual, auditory, cognitive, or motor impairments. Despite the existence of accessibility guidelines and standards such as Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and the Web Accessibility Initiative (W3C), over 90% of websites still fail to meet the necessary accessibility requirements. For web users with disabilities, there exists a need for a tool to automatically fix web page accessibility errors. While research has demonstrated methods to find and target accessibility errors, no research has focused on effectively correcting such violations. This paper presents a novel approach to correcting accessibility violations on the web by modifying the document object model (DOM) in real time with foundation models. Leveraging accessibility error information, large language models (LLMs), and prompt engineering techniques, we achieved greater than a 51% reduction in accessibility violation errors after corrections on our novel benchmark: ACCESS. Our work demonstrates a valuable approach toward the direction of inclusive web content, and provides directions for future research to explore advanced methods to automate web accessibility.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
AI-generated educational content can become substantially more accessible when the generating tool is deliberately configured.
“when generative AI tools are given explicit, operationalized accessibility instructions, through carefully engineered prompts [15,16], structured remediation pipelines [17,18], or context-aware generation conditioned on the surrounding material [19], measured compliance improves substantially compared to unconfigured use of the same tool.”
From A Protocol for Evaluating the Accessibility of AI-Generated Educational Materials: Prompt Configuration, WCAG-Derived Criteria, and Content Overload (2026) · cites this paper as [16]
The Results section reports that a prompt-engineered GPT pipeline reduced accessibility-violation severity scores for website HTML; Table 2 shows a 51.303% decrease with ReAct prompting. The paper studies correction of existing web pages, not generation of educational content, and compares scores before and after correction rather than against unconfigured use of the same tool. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe temporal efficiency is directly attributable to the Specification Agent, which injects accessibility guidelines prior to code generation.
“It is important to note that this temporal efficiency is directly attributable to the Specification Agent, which injects accessibility guidelines prior to code generation [35].”
From A Multi-Agent Framework for Accessible Web Code Generation (2026) · cites this paper as [35]
Section 3 (ACCESS Agent; page unavailable) says a system message provides guidance about the accessibility error before the model generates a corrected HTML tag. It calls this component ACCESS Agent, not Specification Agent. The Results evaluate reductions in violation severity, not time saved, so the claimed direct cause of temporal efficiency is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThese tools can support concrete accessibility tasks when properly configured.
“The complementary finding is that these tools can support concrete accessibility tasks when properly configured”
From A Protocol for Evaluating the Accessibility of AI-Generated Educational Materials: Prompt Configuration, WCAG-Derived Criteria, and Content Overload (2026) · cites this paper as [16]
The improvement observed under Condition B extends to educational content specifically findings already reported for web code, PDF tagging, and alt-text generation individually.
“The improvement observed under Condition B (Section 4.1) would extend, to educational content specifically, findings already reported for web code [15,16], PDF tagging [18], and alt-text generation [17,19] individually.”
From A Protocol for Evaluating the Accessibility of AI-Generated Educational Materials: Prompt Configuration, WCAG-Derived Criteria, and Content Overload (2026) · cites this paper as [16]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Jenny Craven. Web accessibility: a review of research and initiatives. 2006. URL https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:107165316.
- Xiang Deng, Prashant Shiralkar, Colin Lockard, Binxuan Huang, and Huan Sun. Dom-lm: Learning generalizable representations for html documents, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2201.10608.
- E. A. Draffan, Chaohai Ding, Mike Wald, Harry Everett, Jason Barrett, Abhirami Sasikant, Calin Geangu, and Russell Newman. Can a web accessibility checker be enhanced by the use of ai? In Klaus Miesenberger, Roberto Manduchi, Mario Covarrubias Rodriguez, and Petr Peňáz (eds.), Computers Helping People with Special Needs, pp. 67-73. Springer International Publishing, 2020. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58796-3_9. · DOI
- Clayton Lewis and Lisa Seeman. Policy and Standards on Web Accessibility for Cognitive and Learning Disabilities, pp. 281-299. Springer London, 2019. URL https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-1-4471-7440-0_16. · DOI
- Helen Petrie, Christopher Power, and Gerhard Weber. Web accessibility -automatic/manual evalu- ation and authoring tools. In Klaus Miesenberger, Joachim Klaus, Wolfgang Zagler, and Arthur Karshmer (eds.), Computers Helping People with Special Needs, pp. 334-337. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70540-6_49. · DOI
- Kathrin Wille, Reiner R. Dumke, and Cornelius Wille. Measuring the accessability based on web content accessibility guidelines. In 2016 Joint Conference of the International Workshop on Soft- ware Measurement and the International Conference on Software Process and Product Measure- ment (IWSM-MENSURA), pp. 164-169, 2016. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ document/7809604.
- Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models, 2023. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2210.03629.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AccessGuru: Leveraging LLMs to Detect and Correct Web Accessibility Violations in HTML Code
Fathallah, N., Hernández, D., & Staab, S. (2025) · International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) · doi:10.1145/3663547.3746360 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
How an LLM Can Improve Automatic Web Accessibility Validation ?
Paternò, F., Vinci, M., Manca, M., & Iannuzzi, N. (2025) · Biannual Conference of the Italian SIGCHI Chapter (CHItaly) · doi:10.1145/3750069.3750310 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Dynamic Web Page Modification for Accessibility Using AI and Large Language Models
Lin, W., Adewale, B., Li, M., Nasir, M., Sultana, A., Khokhar, R. H., & Zhang, Y. (2025) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-82606-1_3 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
A Multi-Agent Framework for Accessible Web Code Generation
Aljedaani, W., Shaik, M. A., & Aljohani, A. (2026) · Proceedings of the 23rd International Web for All Conference · doi:10.1145/3800424.3800453 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Leveraging Large Language Models for Alt-Text Evaluation in E-Commerce: A Data-Driven Study
Leonardi, N., Manca, M., & Paternò, F. (2026) · International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI) · doi:10.1145/3811427.3811431 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Amado-Salvatierra, H. R. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.00749
“The improvement observed under Condition B (Section 4.1) would extend, to educational content specifically, findings already reported for web code [15,16], PDF tagging [18], and alt-text generation [17,19] individually.”
Influential
- Authors
- Huang, C., Ma, A., Vyasamudri, S., Puype, E., Kamal, S., Garcia, J. B., Cheema, S., & Lutz, M.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- Taipei American School (TW)
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2401.16450
- OpenAlex
- W4391420752
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web Data Mining and Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Keywords
- web accessibility, prompt engineering, large language models, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, 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
