| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to accessibility overlays has happened again at the organization Ham Radio Outlet. The website of Ham Radio Outlet started using an automated accessibility tool from accessiBe, which caused issues for users with disabilities, including a blind radio enthusiast named Patrick Perdue [129868].
(b) The software failure incident related to accessibility overlays has also happened at multiple organizations. Over 400 companies with an accessibility widget or overlay on their websites were sued over accessibility issues, despite using tools from companies like AudioEye, accessiBe, and UserWay. Additionally, the nonprofit organization LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired sued the human-resources software company Automatic Data Processing for issues related to accessibility despite using an automated accessibility tool from AudioEye [129868]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident in the articles is related to the design phase. The incident occurred due to the implementation of automated accessibility tools, specifically overlays, by companies like accessiBe, AudioEye, and UserWay. These tools were intended to fix original coding errors and enhance accessibility features on websites. However, the implementation of these tools led to issues such as reformatting pages, hiding important elements like checkout buttons from screen readers, and incorrectly coding labels for images and buttons. Users with disabilities, like Patrick Perdue and Brian Moore, faced significant challenges in navigating websites due to these design-related failures introduced by the automated accessibility tools [129868].
(b) The software failure incident is also related to the operation phase. Users, including blind individuals like Brian Moore, experienced difficulties in completing tasks like ordering a pizza, buying a laptop, claiming employee benefits, booking transportation, and completing banking transactions on websites that had implemented the automated accessibility overlays. These operational challenges stemmed from issues such as poorly labeled images, buttons, and forms, as well as the inability to use keyboards to navigate web pages effectively. The operational impact of these failures was evident in scenarios where blind employees at companies like Automatic Data Processing (ADP) faced obstacles in performing their job duties despite the presence of accessibility overlays. This led to a lawsuit against ADP by LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired, highlighting the operational implications of the software failure incident [129868]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident discussed in the articles is primarily within the system. The failure was caused by the introduction of an automated accessibility tool, specifically an accessibility overlay, by companies like accessiBe, AudioEye, and UserWay. These tools were intended to fix original coding errors and enhance accessibility features on websites. However, the introduction of these overlays led to issues such as reformatting pages, hiding important elements like checkout buttons from screen readers, incorrectly coded labels for images and buttons, and difficulties in navigation for users with disabilities like blindness [129868]. The failure originated from within the system as a result of implementing these automated accessibility tools that did not effectively improve website accessibility for users with disabilities. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the articles is primarily related to non-human actions. The incident occurred due to the introduction of automated accessibility tools, such as overlays, by companies like accessiBe, AudioEye, and UserWay. These tools were designed to automatically fix coding errors and enhance accessibility features on websites. However, the implementation of these tools led to unintended consequences, such as reformatting pages, hiding important elements from screen readers, and introducing accessibility problems for users with disabilities like blindness or low vision [129868].
(b) While the software failure incident was primarily caused by non-human actions related to the implementation of automated accessibility tools, there were also human actions involved in the response to the incident. For example, the companies behind these tools, such as UserWay and accessiBe, acknowledged the issues with their products and worked to address them. UserWay's chief operating officer apologized for the problems and pledged to fix them, while accessiBe's spokesman criticized the backlash against overlays but expressed willingness to learn from feedback. Additionally, there were calls from accessibility advocates and web developers urging organizations to stop using these automated tools and instead hire and train full-time employees with accessibility expertise to ensure website accessibility [129868]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The articles do not provide information about a software failure incident occurring due to contributing factors originating in hardware.
(b) The software failure incident discussed in the articles is related to software itself. The incident involves the use of automated accessibility tools, specifically overlays, by companies like accessiBe, AudioEye, and UserWay. These tools were intended to improve website accessibility for people with disabilities, but they introduced coding errors and formatting issues that made it difficult for users like Patrick Perdue, who is blind, to navigate websites effectively. Issues included hidden buttons, incorrectly coded labels, and reformatted pages that hindered accessibility for users relying on screen readers. The incident highlights how the software itself, in this case, the automated accessibility tools, contributed to the failure in providing a truly accessible online experience for users with disabilities [129868]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to malicious intent to harm the system. [129868]
(b) The software failure incident discussed in the articles is non-malicious. It is related to the unintended consequences of using automated accessibility tools like overlays, which were meant to improve website accessibility for users with disabilities but ended up causing difficulties and hindrances for those users instead. The failure was due to contributing factors introduced without the intent to harm the system, highlighting the challenges and limitations of relying solely on automated solutions for accessibility. [129868] |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident related to poor decisions can be seen in the case of the automated accessibility tools provided by companies like accessiBe, AudioEye, and UserWay. These tools were intended to improve website accessibility for people with disabilities by automatically fixing coding errors and adding accessible features. However, users like Patrick Perdue and Brian Moore reported that these tools actually made websites more difficult to navigate for them. Issues included hidden buttons, incorrectly coded labels, and reformatted pages that hindered accessibility rather than enhancing it [129868].
Furthermore, despite the criticisms and legal actions faced by companies using these automated tools, the companies behind the tools acknowledged that their products were not perfect but claimed that they were working to improve them over time. The Chief Executive of AudioEye, David Moradi, emphasized the necessity of automation in fixing the accessibility issues on the internet but also advocated for a hybrid solution that combines automation with manual fixes. However, the lack of control over whether clients follow the advice to use manual fixes highlights a potential gap in the decision-making process regarding the implementation of these tools [129868]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is evident in the case of the automated accessibility tools provided by companies like accessiBe, AudioEye, and UserWay. These tools were intended to enhance website accessibility for individuals with disabilities, but they introduced new issues and made it harder for users like Patrick Perdue, who is blind, to navigate websites. The tools introduced coding errors, hid important elements from screen readers, and overall failed to provide the promised accessibility improvements ([129868]).
(b) The software failure incident related to accidental factors is seen in the unintended consequences of using automated accessibility overlays. Despite the intention to improve website accessibility, these tools inadvertently created more barriers for users with disabilities. For example, the overlays reformatted pages, hid essential buttons, and incorrectly labeled images, making it challenging for individuals like Brian Moore, who is blind, to perform everyday tasks online ([129868]). |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident described in the articles is more likely to be categorized as a temporary failure rather than a permanent one. This is because the issues with the automated accessibility tools, such as accessiBe, AudioEye, and UserWay, introduced by the overlays were causing difficulties for users like Patrick Perdue and Brian Moore in navigating websites and completing tasks. These issues included hidden buttons, incorrectly coded labels, reformatted pages, and other accessibility problems introduced by the overlays [129868].
Furthermore, organizations like LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired sued companies like Automatic Data Processing (ADP) for using automated accessibility tools that were not effectively enabling blind employees to perform their jobs. The lawsuit resulted in a deal where ADP agreed to improve its accessibility and not rely solely on overlays, indicating a recognition of the temporary nature of the failure and the need for improvement [129868]. |
| Behaviour |
omission, value, other |
(a) crash: The articles do not mention any instances of a system crash as a result of the software failure incident. Therefore, it can be inferred that a crash was not the behavior exhibited in this case. [129868]
(b) omission: The software failure incident in this case can be categorized under omission. The automated accessibility tool introduced by companies like accessiBe, AudioEye, and UserWay omitted to perform its intended functions correctly, leading to issues such as hidden buttons, incorrectly coded labels, and difficulties in navigation for users with disabilities. This omission resulted in the system failing to provide the necessary accessibility features. [129868]
(c) timing: The articles do not indicate any timing-related failures where the system performed its intended functions but at incorrect times. Therefore, timing is not a behavior exhibited in this software failure incident. [129868]
(d) value: The software failure incident in this case aligns with the value behavior. The automated accessibility tools introduced by companies like accessiBe, AudioEye, and UserWay performed their intended functions incorrectly, causing more difficulties for users with disabilities rather than enhancing their accessibility. Users like Mr. Perdue expressed that these tools did not make their lives better and actually made navigating websites harder. [129868]
(e) byzantine: The articles do not mention any instances of the system behaving with inconsistent responses and interactions, which would align with a byzantine behavior. Therefore, it can be inferred that a byzantine behavior was not exhibited in this software failure incident. [129868]
(f) other: The other behavior exhibited in this software failure incident is the introduction of automated accessibility tools that were supposed to enhance website accessibility for users with disabilities but ended up making navigation more challenging. This unexpected outcome of the software's behavior falls under the "other" category as it was not explicitly described in options (a) to (e). [129868] |