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.
AmershiS.WeldD.VorvoreanuM.FourneyA.NushiB.CollissonP.SuhJ.IqbalS.BennettB.InkpenK.TeevanJ.Kikin-GilR.HorvitzE. (2019, May). Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 Chi Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–13).
2.
BarocasS.GuoA.KamarE.KronesJ.MorrisM. R.VaughanJ. W.WadsworthD.WallachH. (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.
BenderE. M.GebruT.McMillan-MajorA.ShmitchellS. (2021, March). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623).
4.
BighamJ. P.BrudvikJ. T.ZhangB. (2010, October). Accessibility by demonstration: 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).
5.
CardonP.GetchellK.CarradiniS.FleischmannC.StappJ. (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.
6.
ChandrashekarS.BenedykR. (2006). Accessibility vs. usability: Where is the dividing line?In P. D. Bust (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics 2006 (pp. 231–235). Taylor & Francis.
7.
CleggG. M. (2018). Unheard complaints: Integrating captioning into business and professional communication presentations. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 81(1), 100–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490617748710
8.
Costanza-ChockS.RajiI. D.BuolamwiniJ. (2022, June). Who audits the auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystem. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 1571–1583).
9.
DobrinD. N. (2019). What’s technical about technical writing? In New essays in technical and scientific communication (pp. 227–250). Routledge.
10.
DuinA. H.PedersenI. (2023). Augmentation technologies and artificial intelligence in technical communication: Designing ethical futures. Taylor & Francis.
11.
GiraudS.ThérouanneP.SteinerD. 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
12.
GlazkoK. S.YamagamiM.DesaiA.MackK. A.PotluriV.XuX.MankoffJ. (2023). An autoethnographic case study of generative artificial intelligence's utility for accessibility. In Proceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (pp. 1–8).
13.
HeiligL. (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.
14.
HortonS.QuesenberyW. (2014). A web for everyone: Designing accessible user experiences. Rosenfeld Media.
15.
HuntsmanS. (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
16.
HutchinsonB.PrabhakaranV.DentonE.WebsterK.ZhongY.DenuylS. (2020). Social biases in NLP models as barriers for persons with disabilities. ArXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.00813.
17.
HutterL.LawrenceH. 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
KongY.DingH. (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/10.1177/10506519231199478
20.
LeutholdS.Bargas-AvilaJ. A.OpwisK. (2008). Beyond web content accessibility 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
21.
LightB.BurgessJ.DuguayS. (2018). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society, 20(3), 881–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816675438
22.
LongD.MagerkoB. (2020, April). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–16). https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727
23.
MarkauskaiteL.MarroneR.PoquetO.KnightS.Martinez-MaldonadoR.HowardS.TondeurJ.De LaatM.ShumS. B.GasevicD.SiemensG. (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
24.
MelonçonL. (2014). Rhetorical accessability: At the intersection of technical communication and disability studies. Baywood.
MorrisonC.CutrellE.DhareshwarA.DohertyK.ThiemeA.TaylorA. (2017, October). Imagining artificial intelligence applications with people with visual disabilities using tactile ideation. In Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (pp. 81–90).
27.
OswalS. K. (2014). Participatory design: Barriers and possibilities. Communication Design Quarterly Review, 2(3), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/2644448.2644452
28.
OswalS. K. (2018). Can workplaces, classrooms, and pedagogies be disabling?Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 81(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490618765434
29.
OswalS. K. (2019, October). Breaking the exclusionary boundary between user experience and access: Steps toward making UX inclusive of users with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication (pp. 1–8).
30.
OswalS. K.PalmerZ. B. (2022). A critique of disability and accessibility research in technical communication through the models of emancipatory disability research paradigm and participatory scholarship. In SchreiberJ.MelonçonL. (Eds.), Assembling critical components: A framework for sustaining technical and professional communication (pp. 243–267). WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado.
31.
PalmerZ. B.PalmerR. H. (2018). Legal and ethical implications of website accessibility. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 81(4), 399–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490618802418
32.
ParkJ. S.BraggD.KamarE.MorrisM. 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).
33.
PedersenI. (2013). Ready to wear: A rhetoric of wearable computers and reality-shifting media. Parlor Press.
34.
PradhanA.MehtaK.FindlaterL. (2018, April). “Accessibility came by accident”: Use of voice-controlled intelligent personal assistants by people with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–13).
35.
RømenD.SvanæsD. (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
36.
SchwartzR.VassilevA.GreeneK.PerineL.BurtA.HallP. (2022, March). Towards a standard for identifying and managing bias in artificial intelligence. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1270
37.
SherrillJ. T.SalvoM. 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
38.
SilvaC. A.de OliveiraA. F.MateusD. A.CostaH. A. X.FreireA. 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).
39.
SmithP.SmithL. (2021). Artificial intelligence and disability: Too much promise, yet too little substance?AI and Ethics, 1(1), 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-020-00004-5
40.
TrewinS.BassonS.MullerM.BranhamS.TreviranusJ.GruenD.ManserE. (2019). Considerations for AI fairness for people with disabilities. AI Matters, 5(3), 40–63. https://doi.org/10.1145/3362077.3362086
41.
TroegerJ.BockA. (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
42.
WaldenA. 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
43.
WangA.RamaswamyV. V.RussakovskyO. (2022, June). Towards intersectionality in machine learning: Including more identities, handling underrepresentation, and performing evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 336–349).
