Creating an Accessible and Inclusive Website

Why Responsibility Can’t Be Outsourced, and Why Shortcuts Cost More in the End

Accessibility has been part of my work for a long time. Long before it became something vendors tried to package as a shortcut, it was simply part of building websites that real people could actually use. That hasn’t changed.

What has changed is the number of businesses being told that accessibility can be handled by a tool, a plugin, or a third-party promise. Recently, a federal district court decision out of Florida made it very clear how fragile that assumption is.

Accessibility is not a feature. It’s a responsibility.

Inclusive web design means creating websites that people can navigate and understand regardless of ability. That includes people who are blind or visually impaired, people with hearing, cognitive, or motor disabilities, seniors, and anyone relying on assistive technology to interact with the web.

When a website isn’t accessible, it doesn’t just create inconvenience. It blocks access entirely.

A recent federal court decision made this explicit.

In Herrera v. Grove Bay Hospitality Group, a blind plaintiff sued a restaurant under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act because its website was not accessible to screen readers. The business attempted to shift responsibility to its website vendor, arguing that the vendor had assured accessibility compliance.

The court rejected that argument at the federal district court level. Why? Because ownership of the website means ownership of accessibility responsibility. The vendor’s marketing language didn’t carry legal weight. The contract language did. The vendor’s terms explicitly disclaimed ADA compliance, and the court enforced that disclaimer. Liability stayed with the business owner. This wasn’t a technical ruling. It was a responsibility and governance ruling.

While this decision does not create nationwide precedent, it reflects how federal courts are currently analyzing website accessibility, vendor contracts, and ADA responsibility.

Where accessibility overlays make the problem worse.

This is where accessibility overlays enter the conversation, and where things often go sideways. Overlays are typically sold as fast, automated solutions. Add a widget. Flip a switch. “Become compliant.”

That’s not how accessibility works.

Overlays sit on top of an existing website and attempt to modify behavior after the fact. They do not fix underlying structural issues. They don’t correct broken navigation, missing labels, inaccessible forms, or poorly structured content. Most importantly, they assume the user can reach the overlay in the first place.

Here’s a very real scenario…

A blind user arrives on a website using a screen reader. The navigation is not properly labeled. The menu link is unreachable. The “Accessibility” button exists visually, but cannot be accessed via assistive technology.

The overlay cannot be activated.

At that moment, the website had already failed. The presence of the overlay doesn’t change that outcome.

From a legal standpoint, overlays introduce additional risk. Most overlay vendors broadly disclaim ADA compliance and legal responsibility in their terms. That means the same logic applied in the Grove Bay case applies here too.

1. The business still owns the site.
2. The business still owns the risk.
3. The overlay vendor exits early.

In some cases, the overlay itself becomes evidence that the business was aware of accessibility obligations but relied on an insufficient solution. That’s not protection.

The real cost question (and why it’s often misunderstood).

One of the most common questions I hear is some version of:
“Can we just add a plugin?”

That question comes up so often that even law firms focused on ADA defense now address it directly. As outlined by Samuel Law Firm, there’s no single price tag for accessibility, but there is a predictable cost structure, and ignoring it is almost always more expensive.

What actually drives the cost of ADA website compliance?

It usually comes down to:

• how large your site is
• how complex the templates and flows are
• how far from compliance you already are

Based on real-world remediation work, typical cost components look like this:

• Accessibility audit: roughly $1,000–$5,000
  Manual testing for screen readers, keyboard navigation, content structure, and alt text
• Fixing code and design issues: often $2,500–$25,000
  Depending on whether you’re correcting a few templates or rebuilding core user flows
• Accessible documents and forms: $500–$5,000
  PDF remediation, labeled forms, accessible downloads
• Ongoing monitoring and updates: $500–$1,500 per month
  Accessibility isn’t static. Content changes. Standards evolve.

Some sites can get where they need to be with a few thousand dollars of focused work. Others need more. The cost depends on where you’re starting and how much control you have over your tech stack.

The cost of doing nothing is higher.

What’s often missing from the conversation is the cost of not addressing accessibility.

According to ADA defense attorneys, businesses that delay frequently face:

• demand letter settlements in the $5,000–$50,000 range
• legal fees that can easily exceed $10,000
• rushed remediation under pressure, which is almost always more expensive
• reputational damage that’s hard to quantify but very real

Ignoring accessibility doesn’t save money. It just postpones the bill and adds interest.

Why automated tools don’t change that math.

Some tools promise to “solve” accessibility in one click. They don’t.

They can’t:

• fix poor code
• write meaningful alt text that requires context
• guarantee compliance
• change legal responsibility because the underlying site is still broken

If you want actual accessibility, it takes more than a widget.

What actually works:

Truly inclusive websites are built, not bolted on.

That means:

• designing with accessibility in mind from the start
• using semantic HTML and proper labeling
• ensuring keyboard navigation works everywhere
• testing with real assistive technology
• reviewing content for clarity and comprehension
• treating accessibility as ongoing, not “done”

It also means being honest about what tools can and cannot do.

At Smack Happy, we approach accessibility for websites the same way we approach everything else: structurally, transparently, and with humans involved. We don’t sell shortcuts, and we don’t pretend responsibility can be outsourced without consequence.

Going beyond compliance…

Legal guidelines like the ADA and WCAG establish a baseline. Inclusive design goes further. It requires understanding how different people interact with the web and respecting that those experiences are not edge cases. They are normal use cases.

Accessibility is about intention, accountability, and follow-through.

If your website needs to serve real people, it needs to be built for real use. No overlay can replace that.