In an age where nearly every transaction, service, and interaction begins online, websites serve as digital front doors for public institutions, businesses, and nonprofits alike. But for over 61 million Americans with disabilities, many of those doors remain closed. From unlabeled buttons to poor color contrast, inaccessible navigation to missing alt text, websites across the United States are failing to meet basic standards of inclusivity. For organizations looking to avoid this costly oversight, specialized accessibility solutions for websites are available that help ensure compliance, enhance usability, and promote digital equity.
Accessibility isn’t just about ticking legal boxes anymore—it’s about serving all users with dignity and respect. Yet many organizations remain unaware of how exclusionary their digital experiences are, and even fewer realize what it could cost them. The financial and reputational risks of inaccessible websites are rising fast, particularly as both legislation and litigation evolve. Here are some critical ways in which U.S. websites are falling short on accessibility in 2025—and what it could cost them if they don’t act now.
Design Still Prioritizes Aesthetics Over Functionality
Too many website redesigns still begin with visual appeal as the top priority, rather than inclusive function. From sleek animations to image-heavy hero sections, many of today’s most “modern” sites sacrifice readability, keyboard navigation, or screen-reader compatibility in pursuit of style.
Unfortunately, this leaves millions of users unable to engage with content, submit forms, or access services. In particular, sites that fail to offer focus indicators for keyboard users or use JavaScript-heavy components without ARIA roles are inherently exclusionary.
According to the WebAIM Million Report 2024, 96.3% of homepages still had detectable WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) failures—suggesting that most websites, regardless of their polished nature, are broken by design for users with disabilities.
Alt Text and Visual Metadata Are Often Missing or Incorrect
Images, infographics, and icons are core components of digital communication—but they’re also among the most common accessibility failures. Missing or meaningless alt text, such as “image123.jpg,” offers no value to screen reader users and leaves critical context out of reach.
For blind or low-vision users, meaningful alt text isn’t just helpful—it’s essential. Yet too many U.S. websites rely on automated tools to generate descriptions, often leading to confusing or inaccurate results. Worse, decorative images are often mislabeled as content, further muddying the user experience.
Recent guidance from the National Federation of the Blind highlights this issue, calling on government and education websites to audit visual elements and prioritize proper metadata implementation as part of ongoing compliance.
Mobile Accessibility Remains an Afterthought
While mobile-first design has become the norm, mobile accessibility often falls by the wayside. Elements such as small tap targets, non-responsive modals, and fixed layout components can make navigating a site nearly impossible for users with mobility impairments or those using screen magnifiers.
In 2025, more than 50% of all website traffic in the U.S. comes from mobile devices. That includes students accessing university portals, patients reviewing healthcare documents, and job seekers applying for state services.
Organizations that ignore mobile accessibility risk alienating a significant portion of their audience—and exposing themselves to ADA lawsuits, as seen in the 2024 case Ramirez v. Texas Workforce Commission, which was settled after a mobile employment site failed to work with screen readers.
Forms Are Unusable for Keyboard-Only or Assistive Tech Users
Whether applying for benefits or signing up for newsletters, web forms are a staple of modern interaction. But forms remain one of the most common sources of frustration for users who rely on assistive technologies.
Common failures include unlabeled input fields, unclear error messages, poor tab sequencing, and inaccessible CAPTCHA systems. These issues can make a simple form impossible to complete without sight or a mouse.
In response, states such as Minnesota and Illinois now require all public digital forms to meet WCAG 2.2 Level AA standards, and the ADA Title II Rule Update finalized in 2025 explicitly identifies inaccessible online forms as a civil rights violation.
Color Contrast and Typography Fail Basic Legibility Tests
Aesthetics should never compromise legibility—but they often do. Low-contrast text over images, trendy pastel color palettes, and thin, stylized fonts may look appealing but pose major accessibility issues, particularly for users with color blindness, dyslexia, or cognitive challenges.
The American Printing House for the Blind now publishes an annual audit of state education websites, and their 2025 report found that nearly 40% of school district homepages failed minimum contrast ratio standards.
Ignoring these design fundamentals not only drives users away—it signals a lack of inclusivity. The fix is simple, but the stakes are high: improved contrast and readable fonts could be the difference between access and exclusion.
Accessibility Statements Are Missing, Outdated, or Misleading
An accessibility statement serves as both a public commitment and a legal safeguard. It tells users what to expect, how to request accommodations, and what standards the site adheres to. Yet thousands of U.S. websites lack any such statement—or worse, include outdated versions that reference deprecated WCAG guidelines.
This creates a perception of negligence and can expose organizations to greater legal liability. In recent litigation, including Hernandez v. City of San Diego, plaintiffs cited the absence of a clear accessibility statement as evidence of institutional disregard.
Best practice now involves including a plain-language accessibility statement with real contact information, update timelines, and references to WCAG 2.2 or EN 301 549 compliance standards.
Third-Party Content and Plugins Create Hidden Barriers
From embedded maps to payment processors, third-party integrations are a critical part of many U.S. websites—but they often introduce accessibility issues beyond the control of site owners. Unlabeled iframes, inaccessible widgets, and poorly designed pop-ups can undermine an otherwise compliant site.
Public institutions have learned this the hard way. In 2025, the California Department of Public Health faced scrutiny for an inaccessible vaccine scheduling portal powered by a third-party vendor. Despite the vendor’s responsibility, the department was held accountable under state ADA laws.
Now, organizations are being urged to vet third-party tools rigorously and include accessibility clauses in contracts to ensure end-to-end compliance.
Automated Testing Tools Are Used as a Substitute for Manual Audits
While tools such as WAVE, axe, and Lighthouse offer a quick snapshot of a site’s accessibility, they can’t replace comprehensive manual audits. Automated scans typically catch only 30–40% of WCAG violations, missing critical context, logic errors, and user experience issues.
Relying solely on automation creates a false sense of security. True accessibility testing must include real users—especially those with disabilities—navigating content with screen readers, braille displays, or keyboard-only interfaces.
The U.S. Access Board now recommends hybrid testing approaches, pairing automated tools with expert-led manual reviews to ensure meaningful, real-world accessibility.
Conclusion: It’s Time to Design with Everyone in Mind
Web accessibility is no longer optional, charitable, or futuristic—it’s an urgent, foundational requirement of ethical digital practice. In 2025, broken websites aren’t just poor design choices; they’re active barriers to education, employment, healthcare, and civic engagement.
Public institutions, companies, and nonprofits must stop treating accessibility as an afterthought and start embedding it from the beginning. This means involving people with disabilities in design processes, conducting regular audits, and holding vendors accountable. The question now is whether your website will open doors—or keep them shut.