arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2507.19549

AccessGuru: Leveraging LLMs to Detect and Correct Web Accessibility Violations in HTML Code

Abstract

The vast majority of Web pages fail to comply with established Web accessibility guidelines, excluding a range of users with diverse abilities from interacting with their content. Making Web pages accessible to all users requires dedicated expertise and additional manual efforts from Web page providers. To lower their efforts and promote inclusiveness, we aim to automatically detect and correct Web accessibility violations in HTML code. While previous work has made progress in detecting certain types of accessibility violations, the problem of automatically detecting and correcting accessibility violations remains an open challenge that we address. We introduce a novel taxonomy classifying Web accessibility violations into three key categories - Syntactic, Semantic, and Layout. This taxonomy provides a structured foundation for developing our detection and correction method and redefining evaluation metrics. We propose a novel method, AccessGuru, which combines existing accessibility testing tools and Large Language Models (LLMs) to detect violations and applies taxonomy-driven prompting strategies to correct all three categories. To evaluate these capabilities, we develop a benchmark of real-world Web accessibility violations. Our benchmark quantifies syntactic and layout compliance and judges semantic accuracy through comparative analysis with human expert corrections. Evaluation against our benchmark shows that AccessGuru achieves up to 84% average violation score decrease, significantly outperforming prior methods that achieve at most 50%.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Nadeen Fathallah, Daniel Hernández, Steffen Staab. 2025-07-24. AccessGuru: Leveraging LLMs to Detect and Correct Web Accessibility Violations in HTML Code. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.19549

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE