SevirantaOverlay, audit, or code fix: what holds up under scrutiny?
7 juni 2026
Short answer. You have three options to make your site accessible: an overlay widget (a layer of JavaScript), a one-time audit (a snapshot), or fixes in your own code (the real repair, continuously monitored). Only the last one changes your actual source code and stays correct as your site changes — and that is what a regulator or court tests. The overlay offers false security; the one-off audit goes stale; the code fix holds up.
What is the difference between the three options?
| Overlay widget | One-time audit | Code fix + monitoring | |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it does | Puts a layer over your site | Report at one moment | Repairs the real code, continuously |
| Touches your source code? | No | No (advice only) | Yes |
| Does it go stale? | Stays cosmetic | Yes, the moment your site changes | No, it moves with you |
| Holds up under a claim? | No | Partly, only at that moment | Yes |
| Cost | Low per month | High, one-time (often thousands) | Fair, ongoing |
Why does an overlay not hold up?
Because it does not change your code. An overlay promises "compliance" but does not repair the underlying errors — so they remain. Regulators and courts look at that underlying code. In fact, sites with a widget are targeted for lawsuits (more than 1,000 in 2024), and the US FTC fined accessiBe $1 million for deceptive compliance claims. The numbers are in sued despite an accessibility widget.
Why is a one-time audit not enough?
A manual audit is thorough, but it is a photo, not a film. The report is correct on the day it is run. The moment your developer installs an app or your marketing team publishes a new page, accessibility can break again — and your expensive report is out of date. For a store that changes constantly, a snapshot costing thousands is not a durable solution.
What makes a code fix different?
A code fix solves the problem where it originates: in your own HTML and CSS. That is permanent — the layer cannot "fall off" because there is no layer. Combined with continuous monitoring, you also know immediately when a new change breaks something. This way you build not just an accessible site, but a keepable record showing you maintain your site structurally — exactly what counts under scrutiny.
Which option fits me?
- Want a cheap feeling of safety? Choose an overlay — but know it is false security and likely increases your risk rather than reducing it.
- Have a one-off legal moment (for example a tender) and a site that barely changes? An audit may suffice.
- Does your site change regularly and you want it to still be correct tomorrow? Then a code fix with monitoring is the only option that holds up.
Scan your site for free and you will see, per finding, what is wrong in your own code and how to actually fix it — not a layer, but the repair itself.
Source for the FTC case: FTC press release January 2025. Full evidence and lawsuit statistics: sued despite an accessibility widget.