Why bad Quality Articles on Accessibility are dominating the Web
Because digital accessibility is becoming increasingly important, there are a growing number of poor-quality posts, both on Google and on social media. Poor quality information is deliberately disseminated. Many posts serve a clear sales purpose: enticing you to purchase a product, usually an overlay or a service, from the author.
In my opinion, the line between fraud and scams is crossed very quickly in this area, even if it may legally qualify as marketing. However, there are always two sides: the scam artist and the gullible. Some people make it easy for themselves because they want to get the complicated topic off the table and are then particularly susceptible to nonsense.
Sales is okay, false information is not
Sales-based Posts are not the problem. Many persons who writes about accessibility at least are living from selling accessibility services. Incorrect assessments can also creep in, or people can have different opinions. What is unacceptable is deliberately spreading false information. Anyone who acts like that is not trustworthy. The problem is that such posts are pushed either through SEO or purchased ads and are then often easier to find than good posts. This is particularly noticeable in German, because there are relatively few high-quality posts in German. Most posts repeat the same old stuff in a slightly new guise and optimized for SEO.
Signs of Bad Posts
Let's look at the most common signs of bad posts.
They incite panic. For example, they threaten heavy fines or that the website could be shut down if violations occur – both of which are not wrong, but extremely abbreviated.
Incomplete or false information is communicated. Posts also tend to be superficial. For example, they suggest that all apps or the entire website must be accessible for the European Accessibility Act.
Unfounded promises are made about products or services. For example, they promise that Product X will make the website 100 percent accessible or protect it from lawsuits. Or it's suggested that the website can be made accessible within a few days, which is quite untenable for complex websites.
The article was written by someone with no qualifications in digital accessibility. If the author, who is usually a man, is a CEO or head of something, the article is often trash. They know best how to sell nonsense to gullible people.
The publishing portal otherwise contains no content on digital accessibility. That's always a bad sign; it clearly indicates a lack of expertise.
I would also include articles that don't provide any new information. After reading the 30th explanation of what the European Accessibility Act requires, at some point, it's enough. Adding another article without added value is superfluous.
I would not include articles that are simply outdated. Some portals are getting on in years, and not all of them have time to keep their articles up to date. As long as a publication date can be found, that's fine in my opinion. Readers must also take responsibility for themselves. Somehow, you might think that a post from 2019 might be outdated. This isn't always the case; some posts are timeless, but this is where the searcher's task begins.
Why Bad Posts Dominate
Because bad posts are often written with sales intent, they are often optimized by professionals: keywords, technical structure, text layout—everything follows Google's guidelines. Most accessibility freelancers or other professionals have neither the time nor the know-how for such optimizations. Their websites are often technically outdated; they're more like individual portals. The posts aren't constantly updated because it's unnecessary.
This is the main reason: Google's algorithms don't reward posts that are comprehensive and well-founded. Google prefers organizations over individuals, newer publishing datess, and technical optimization, which is why posts that follow Google's rules dominate. You can write a completely irrelevant post. If you optimize it for Google and publish it on a technically well-designed website, it will dominate searches.
What you can do
Fact-check a post using neutral sources. When it comes to legal information, check the laws and regulations, even if it's tedious. If you have a lawyer on staff, consult her. This may seem expensive at first glance, but it's usually cheaper than spending money on the wrong things. Of course, you shouldn't purchase services or tools from such websites.
Information: Check facts using neutral sources. These include laws and regulations, portals of public bodies, and also websites of people who specialize in accessibility.
Services: Check 1) the provider's credibility and 2) their references. Even newcomers can be competent, but if there are no references, no proven experience, and false information is spread, this service provider is no good.
If it's a product, check its quality. If the guidelines require it (very unlikely), is it precisely described what the tool does or where its limitations lie? Are there subscription traps? How easy is it to integrate it into the workflow or remove it again if something better is available? We generally advise against purchasing tools without the expertise of a neutral person. What to look for when purchasing accessibility tools.
Unfortunately, AI or GenAI is of no help in these cases. They have been trained with both good and bad sources. If the models haven't been specifically trained for the topic of digital accessibility with high-quality contributions, they can be ignored.