[1/5]
-
[1/5]
I heard about https://AccessibilityFirewall.com/, promising “No code changes. No overlay. No JavaScript.” It uses “edge” in the same way the Overlay Community Group does.
Red flag emoji.
So I ran it through its own “Live Remediation Engine”:
https://webcraft.inc/#audit-sectionHmmm…
-
[1/5]
I heard about https://AccessibilityFirewall.com/, promising “No code changes. No overlay. No JavaScript.” It uses “edge” in the same way the Overlay Community Group does.
Red flag emoji.
So I ran it through its own “Live Remediation Engine”:
https://webcraft.inc/#audit-sectionHmmm…
[2/5]
When I visited the ‘remediated’ version of the firewall product in two browsers, I got a different number of auto-fixed items.
Maybe you’ll get a different count?
https://vpatcode-worker.webcraft-stephanie-fenton.workers.dev/proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Faccessibilityfirewall.com%2FPointing a tool at the vendor’s site is often a good test.
-
[2/5]
When I visited the ‘remediated’ version of the firewall product in two browsers, I got a different number of auto-fixed items.
Maybe you’ll get a different count?
https://vpatcode-worker.webcraft-stephanie-fenton.workers.dev/proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Faccessibilityfirewall.com%2FPointing a tool at the vendor’s site is often a good test.
[3/5]
The banner introduces WCAG violations, per axe. Though a user should never see the banner.
But I wondered what went from an opaque score of 73% to 100%, or which 3–6 issues were fixed.
Sadly, the banner dismiss button didn’t work. Either way, I saw no change (contrast was false positive).
-
[3/5]
The banner introduces WCAG violations, per axe. Though a user should never see the banner.
But I wondered what went from an opaque score of 73% to 100%, or which 3–6 issues were fixed.
Sadly, the banner dismiss button didn’t work. Either way, I saw no change (contrast was false positive).
[4/5]
I pulled the nodes out for the non-dismissable banner and then grabbed the before and after HTML. An online diff show the changes, or remediations, were minimal.
Moved the `<base>`, added whitespace, 3 contrast ‘fixes’, and suppressing Cloudflare cookie consents and errors.
Nice outlines.
-
[4/5]
I pulled the nodes out for the non-dismissable banner and then grabbed the before and after HTML. An online diff show the changes, or remediations, were minimal.
Moved the `<base>`, added whitespace, 3 contrast ‘fixes’, and suppressing Cloudflare cookie consents and errors.
Nice outlines.
[5/5]
So the numbers feel made up, the remediation feels sketchy, the language feels off, and I feel this might be less than advertised.
But at least the Terms & Privacy policies are brief enough and offer sufficient recourse to make me walk away.
• https://webcraft.inc/terms
• https://webcraft.inc/privacy
-
P pixelate@tweesecake.social shared this topic
-
[5/5]
So the numbers feel made up, the remediation feels sketchy, the language feels off, and I feel this might be less than advertised.
But at least the Terms & Privacy policies are brief enough and offer sufficient recourse to make me walk away.
• https://webcraft.inc/terms
• https://webcraft.inc/privacy[6/5]
I needed to know.
It asserts one issue and a fix, and I think it’s wrong. Not just the issue but also the SC.
Doing the math, there are 14 issues remaining. Though, maybe those are the “13 human-in-the-loop recommended”?
-
[6/5]
I needed to know.
It asserts one issue and a fix, and I think it’s wrong. Not just the issue but also the SC.
Doing the math, there are 14 issues remaining. Though, maybe those are the “13 human-in-the-loop recommended”?
[7/5]
I made archive pages of the Firewall product:
• https://web.archive.org/web/20260501233848/https://accessibilityfirewall.com/
• https://archive.is/wcHGDAnd Webcraft itself:
• https://web.archive.org/web/20260501234507/https://webcraft.inc/
• https://archive.is/KkZvgThese may be useful in future discovery during false advertising litigation. Because they make bold claims (in order):
-
[7/5]
I made archive pages of the Firewall product:
• https://web.archive.org/web/20260501233848/https://accessibilityfirewall.com/
• https://archive.is/wcHGDAnd Webcraft itself:
• https://web.archive.org/web/20260501234507/https://webcraft.inc/
• https://archive.is/KkZvgThese may be useful in future discovery during false advertising litigation. Because they make bold claims (in order):
[8/5]
Firewall claims:
• “Your website is remediated before it reaches the browser.”
• “The user receives mathematically compliant HTML. Fully accessible…”Webcraft claims:
• “…instantly ensuring compliance…”
• “Our full remediation engine processes all 86 WCAG 2.2 criteria…”
• “Certified accessibility experts review the results to ensure legal defensibility.”
• “Our engine patches them at the edge, ensuring compliance and integrity.”
• “…enforcing Section 508 compliance…” -
[8/5]
Firewall claims:
• “Your website is remediated before it reaches the browser.”
• “The user receives mathematically compliant HTML. Fully accessible…”Webcraft claims:
• “…instantly ensuring compliance…”
• “Our full remediation engine processes all 86 WCAG 2.2 criteria…”
• “Certified accessibility experts review the results to ensure legal defensibility.”
• “Our engine patches them at the edge, ensuring compliance and integrity.”
• “…enforcing Section 508 compliance…”[9/5]
Tired: #overlay companies lying about using ‘AI’ for WCAG remediation (accessiBe’s FTC fine, my UserWay tests, etc.).
Wired: ‘AI’ companies lying about not being overlays (sans opt-out).
No accessibility knowledge needed to evaluate these. Basic HTML and reading skills uncovered this.
-
[8/5]
Firewall claims:
• “Your website is remediated before it reaches the browser.”
• “The user receives mathematically compliant HTML. Fully accessible…”Webcraft claims:
• “…instantly ensuring compliance…”
• “Our full remediation engine processes all 86 WCAG 2.2 criteria…”
• “Certified accessibility experts review the results to ensure legal defensibility.”
• “Our engine patches them at the edge, ensuring compliance and integrity.”
• “…enforcing Section 508 compliance…”@aardrian ..."mathematically compliant HTML"? WTF is that...
-
@aardrian ..."mathematically compliant HTML"? WTF is that...
@joedolson Well, it’s just, like… numbers and, sums of elements and… like… how it all adds up to, um, compliance.
-
@joedolson Well, it’s just, like… numbers and, sums of elements and… like… how it all adds up to, um, compliance.
@aardrian Thank you for the sincere and thorough explanation...
-
[2/5]
When I visited the ‘remediated’ version of the firewall product in two browsers, I got a different number of auto-fixed items.
Maybe you’ll get a different count?
https://vpatcode-worker.webcraft-stephanie-fenton.workers.dev/proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Faccessibilityfirewall.com%2FPointing a tool at the vendor’s site is often a good test.
@aardrian I got 5 auto-fixes in the in app browser of Ivory and 3 in Safari directly, which is odd considering the in app browser is just a webview with the safari engine.
Seems a bit… random?
-
[1/5]
I heard about https://AccessibilityFirewall.com/, promising “No code changes. No overlay. No JavaScript.” It uses “edge” in the same way the Overlay Community Group does.
Red flag emoji.
So I ran it through its own “Live Remediation Engine”:
https://webcraft.inc/#audit-sectionHmmm…
@aardrian I've tried with ryanair.com, it's funny because it says "95 %" and the "fixed" version is a completely blank page. Great fix!
-
@aardrian I got 5 auto-fixes in the in app browser of Ivory and 3 in Safari directly, which is odd considering the in app browser is just a webview with the safari engine.
Seems a bit… random?
@Stephanie Yep, feels random and from an arbitrary and opaque set of rules.
-
@aardrian I've tried with ryanair.com, it's funny because it says "95 %" and the "fixed" version is a completely blank page. Great fix!
@tinitun Having flown Ryanair, that seems to fit.
-
[9/5]
Tired: #overlay companies lying about using ‘AI’ for WCAG remediation (accessiBe’s FTC fine, my UserWay tests, etc.).
Wired: ‘AI’ companies lying about not being overlays (sans opt-out).
No accessibility knowledge needed to evaluate these. Basic HTML and reading skills uncovered this.
[10/5]
First post in thread, I found Accessibility Firewall gave itself a 73% ‘score’.
Ashlee checked under 20 minutes later and it jumped to 78%:
https://bsky.app/profile/ashleemboyer.com/post/3mkt2ehq24k24Kevin a couple hours later and it was 83%:
https://bsky.app/profile/kevinpowell.co/post/3mktc6hyqgs2eEither they’re live-fixing or the scores are bunk.
-
[10/5]
First post in thread, I found Accessibility Firewall gave itself a 73% ‘score’.
Ashlee checked under 20 minutes later and it jumped to 78%:
https://bsky.app/profile/ashleemboyer.com/post/3mkt2ehq24k24Kevin a couple hours later and it was 83%:
https://bsky.app/profile/kevinpowell.co/post/3mktc6hyqgs2eEither they’re live-fixing or the scores are bunk.
[11/5]
Using Vercel, Ashlee found the Accessibility Firewall introduced *more* errors:
https://bsky.app/profile/ashleemboyer.com/post/3mkvg3kfjq22gCurious, I checked.
When faced with the simplest error (a disclosure widget), its solution was to remove it — and site navigation for all mobile / narrow viewport users.
Cool.
-
[11/5]
Using Vercel, Ashlee found the Accessibility Firewall introduced *more* errors:
https://bsky.app/profile/ashleemboyer.com/post/3mkvg3kfjq22gCurious, I checked.
When faced with the simplest error (a disclosure widget), its solution was to remove it — and site navigation for all mobile / narrow viewport users.
Cool.
[12/5]
Accessibility Firewall ‘fixed’ one of the 133 issues axe DevTools identified on Vercel’s home page. By adding a useless `aria-label` to the logo link.
Meanwhile, it introduced more WCAG issues, while also removing subnav, login, sign in, “Ask AI”, etc.
Impressive.
-
[12/5]
Accessibility Firewall ‘fixed’ one of the 133 issues axe DevTools identified on Vercel’s home page. By adding a useless `aria-label` to the logo link.
Meanwhile, it introduced more WCAG issues, while also removing subnav, login, sign in, “Ask AI”, etc.
Impressive.
[13/13]
At least with overlays, I have some agency. I can turn them off, block the script. I can see what was made worse.
With Accessibility Firewall, it seems I cannot (based on its marketing). Cannot stop it, cannot see what changed, cannot undo it.
Overlay claims with worse outcomes.
