Web accessibility is often discussed from the perspective of developers, designers, accessibility professionals, and organizations. But there is another perspective that matters just as much: the experience of people who actually use assistive technology.
WebAIM’s Screen Reader User Survey provides valuable information about how screen reader users access websites and digital content, which technologies they use, and which accessibility problems they experience.
The latest survey, Screen Reader User Survey #11, was conducted in July and August 2026. WebAIM received 1,780 valid responses. This is the eleventh survey in the series, following surveys conducted between 2009 and 2024.
It is important to remember that the survey sample was not controlled, so the results should not be treated as representing every screen reader user around the world. However, the findings provide useful insight into the experiences and preferences reported by the people who participated.
Listen to this article
Loading voices…
Who participated in the survey?
Most respondents were from North America, which accounted for 54.1% of responses. Europe represented another 27.7%. Asia accounted for 6.2%, while Africa and the Middle East together represented 5.1%. South America accounted for 3.7%, Australia and Oceania for 2.7%, and Central America and the Caribbean for 0.5%.
The survey was largely made up of people who use screen readers because of a disability. About 94.8% of respondents said they use a screen reader because of a disability.
Blindness was the most commonly reported disability, with 83.2% of respondents identifying it. Low vision or visual impairment was reported by 18%. Some respondents reported other disabilities, including deafness or hard of hearing, cognitive or learning disabilities, and motor disabilities. WebAIM also reported that 16.9% of respondents had multiple disabilities.
This is important because screen reader users are not one uniform group. People have different disabilities, different levels of experience, different devices, and different ways of navigating digital content.
JAWS is again the most commonly reported primary desktop screen reader
One of the most interesting findings concerns desktop and laptop screen readers.
Among respondents, 55% reported JAWS as their primary desktop or laptop screen reader. NVDA was the primary screen reader for 32.9%, followed by VoiceOver at 6.5%. Other screen readers represented much smaller percentages.
This represents an important change from the previous survey. In 2024, NVDA had overtaken JAWS in primary usage. The 2026 survey shows JAWS returning to the leading position.
However, this does not mean that JAWS is the only screen reader that accessibility professionals should test with.
In fact, the survey shows that many users work with more than one screen reader. About 70.3% of respondents said they commonly use more than one desktop or laptop screen reader. More than one-third use three or more, while 15.4% use four or more.
For accessibility testing, this is an important reminder: testing with only one screen reader does not provide a complete picture of the user experience.
Screen reader usage is different across regions
The results also show significant regional differences.
In North America, JAWS was reported as the primary desktop screen reader by 72.5% of respondents, compared with 15.6% for NVDA. In Australia, JAWS also had higher primary usage than NVDA.
Europe was much more evenly divided, with JAWS at 42.8% and NVDA at 42.3%.
The pattern was very different in Africa and the Middle East. NVDA was reported as the primary screen reader by 83% of respondents, while JAWS accounted for 13.6%.
Asia showed a similar pattern, with NVDA at 77.4% and JAWS at 17%. South America also showed higher NVDA usage, at 67.2%, compared with 18.8% for JAWS.
These differences matter when organizations decide which assistive technologies to include in accessibility testing. A testing strategy designed around one region may not reflect the technologies commonly used in another region.
Chrome remains the leading browser for screen reader users
When respondents used their primary screen reader on a desktop or laptop, Chrome was the most commonly used browser.
Chrome was used by 52.3% of respondents, followed by Microsoft Edge at 23.6% and Firefox at 15.9%. Safari accounted for 4.8%.
The most common screen reader and browser combination was JAWS with Chrome, used by 31.2% of respondents. NVDA with Chrome followed at 17.3%, while JAWS with Edge accounted for 17%.
This shows why accessibility testing should consider combinations of assistive technologies and browsers rather than testing each technology in isolation.
Windows dominates desktop screen reader usage
Windows continues to be the main operating system reported by screen reader users.
About 90.7% of respondents said they use Windows with their primary desktop or laptop screen reader. Mac accounted for 6.3%, while Linux represented 1.6%.
For organizations developing websites and web applications, this means Windows-based screen reader testing remains particularly important.
Most users are experienced with screen readers
The survey also provides an interesting picture of screen reader proficiency.
About 57.8% of respondents described their screen reader skills as advanced, while 38.8% described themselves as intermediate. Only 3.4% considered themselves beginners.
This is useful to remember when designing accessible websites.
Experienced screen reader users often navigate websites very differently from someone who is learning to use a screen reader. They may use keyboard commands, headings, landmarks, links, forms, and other structural features to move quickly through a page.
Accessibility therefore isn’t only about making a page technically available. The structure of the page also affects how efficiently people can use it.
Most respondents are satisfied with their screen reader
The survey found a high level of satisfaction with primary screen readers.
About 66.3% of respondents were very satisfied with their primary screen reader, while another 28.8% were somewhat satisfied. Only 0.8% said they were not satisfied.
WebAIM also reported high satisfaction levels among users of the three most commonly discussed screen readers. The combined “very satisfied” and “somewhat satisfied” responses were 96.7% for NVDA users, 95.9% for JAWS users, and 90.3% for VoiceOver users.
This suggests that accessibility problems cannot simply be explained by dissatisfaction with screen reader software. In many cases, the problem is the digital content itself.
Free screen readers are considered viable by many users
The survey asked whether free or low-cost screen readers such as NVDA and VoiceOver are viable alternatives to more expensive commercial screen readers.
About 74.6% of respondents said yes. Another 14.7% said no, while 10.7% were unsure.
The results differed considerably between users of different screen readers. Among NVDA users, 94% considered free or low-cost screen readers viable alternatives. The figure was 91.2% among VoiceOver users and 61.9% among JAWS users.
Cost therefore remains relevant when considering access to assistive technology, particularly for people and organizations with limited financial resources.
Screen readers are also an important part of mobile access
Screen reader use is not limited to computers.
About 91.8% of respondents said they use a screen reader on a mobile device. Among respondents with disabilities, the figure was even higher at 93.4%.
Apple’s iOS platform was the primary mobile platform for 73.3% of respondents, while Android accounted for 24%. Other platforms represented only a small percentage.
VoiceOver was the most commonly used mobile screen reader, reported by 72.2% of respondents. TalkBack was reported by 29.5%. Commentary/Jieshuo was used by 8.2%, while other mobile screen readers accounted for smaller percentages.
These numbers are particularly relevant for organizations that provide mobile websites or applications. Mobile accessibility needs to be treated as an important part of the overall accessibility strategy.
People use both mobile devices and computers
The survey does not show a simple replacement of computers by mobile devices.
About 42.6% of respondents said they use screen readers most often on a desktop or laptop. Almost half, 49%, said they use desktop and mobile screen readers about equally. Only 8.3% said they use mobile or tablet devices most often.
This suggests that accessible digital services need to work across different environments.
A website may be accessed with JAWS and Chrome on Windows in one situation and with TalkBack and Chrome on Android in another. Accessibility testing should account for these different experiences.
Mobile apps are slightly more common than websites for some tasks
When respondents were asked whether they were more likely to use a mobile application or a website for common online activities such as banking and shopping, 54.8% selected mobile apps, while 45.2% selected websites.
This is relatively close.
It means organizations should not assume that making a website accessible is enough. Mobile applications also need to be designed and tested for accessibility.
Many screen reader users do not see recent web accessibility improvements
One of the most important findings concerns people’s perception of progress in web accessibility.
Only 32.2% of respondents felt that web content had become more accessible during the previous year. Nearly half, 44.9%, felt that accessibility had not changed. Another 22.9% felt that web content had become less accessible.
In other words, the majority of respondents did not perceive an improvement.
There was also a difference between respondents with and without disabilities. About 31.8% of respondents with disabilities thought the web had become more accessible, compared with 41% of respondents without disabilities.
These findings are a useful reminder that accessibility progress should be measured by the experiences of people using digital products, not only by the number of accessibility initiatives or technical improvements organizations report.
Better websites are seen as more important than better assistive technology
The survey asked respondents what would have a greater impact on improving web accessibility: better assistive technology or more accessible websites.
A large majority, 83.9%, selected better websites. Only 16.1% selected better assistive technology.
This is a powerful message for web developers, designers, content creators, and organizations.
Screen readers are important, but assistive technology cannot fully compensate for inaccessible websites.
If a website has poor headings, inaccessible forms, unlabeled buttons, confusing navigation, missing alternative text, or keyboard accessibility problems, the screen reader has limited ability to solve those problems.
Accessible technology and accessible websites need to work together.
Headings remain one of the most important navigation tools
For people who use screen readers, headings are much more than visual formatting.
When respondents were asked how they first look for information on a long web page, 67.8% said they navigate through headings. This was by far the most common approach. Another 12.5% use the Find feature, 9.7% read through the page, and 6.7% navigate through links. Only 3.4% primarily use landmarks or regions to find information on a lengthy page.
The results also show that experience matters. Advanced screen reader users were much more likely to use headings than beginners.
This demonstrates why a logical heading structure is essential.
A webpage should not simply make text appear large or bold and call it a heading. Developers should use proper HTML heading elements, such as H1, H2, and H3, in a meaningful hierarchy.
Heading levels are useful
The survey also asked how useful heading levels are when navigating a webpage.
A total of 88.3% of respondents said heading levels were either very useful or somewhat useful.
This is another reason why heading structure deserves careful attention during accessibility testing.
For example, a page might begin with an H1 for its main topic, followed by H2 headings for major sections and H3 headings for subsections.
A meaningful structure allows screen reader users to understand the organization of the page and move directly to the information they need.
Landmarks are useful, but they are not the main navigation method
ARIA landmarks and HTML regions can help screen reader users understand the structure of a webpage.
However, the survey shows that landmarks are not the primary method most respondents use to find information on long pages.
About 28.3% said they use landmarks frequently, meaning they use them always or often. But only 3.4% said landmarks are their first method for finding information on a lengthy webpage.
This does not mean landmarks are unnecessary.
Instead, it shows that accessibility is not about choosing one navigation technique. Headings, landmarks, links, forms, keyboard navigation, and other structural features all contribute to the overall experience.
Skip links still have a role
Skip links allow users to bypass repeated navigation and move directly to the main content.
The survey found that 37.7% of respondents use skip links always or often when they are available. Another group uses them sometimes, while others rarely or never use them.
Their use among screen reader users is mixed, but skip links can provide important benefits, particularly for keyboard users.
For this reason, a well-designed website should still consider providing a properly implemented “Skip to main content” link.
PDF accessibility remains a major problem
One of the clearest findings in the survey concerns PDF documents.
A remarkable 85.6% of respondents said PDF documents were very or somewhat likely to cause significant accessibility problems.
This is much higher than the reported concern about Microsoft Word documents.
Only 31.1% of respondents said Word documents were very or somewhat likely to create significant accessibility problems.
This difference is important for organizations that publish reports, application forms, educational materials, research papers, and other information as PDFs.
Simply uploading a PDF to a website does not make the information accessible.
PDF documents need appropriate structure, headings, reading order, alternative text where necessary, accessible tables, form labels, document language, and other accessibility features.
The survey also found that experienced screen reader users reported PDF accessibility problems at a higher rate than beginners. This suggests that becoming more experienced with a screen reader does not eliminate the accessibility problems created by poorly prepared PDF documents.
AI is becoming part of the screen reader experience
Another new and interesting area in this survey is artificial intelligence.
WebAIM asked respondents how they use AI to improve their online experience.
The most common use was generating image descriptions or alternative text, reported by 60.1% of respondents. Nearly half, 49.7%, use AI for in-depth analysis or descriptions of complex images.
Other uses included getting guidance while performing online tasks, summarizing webpages or documents, generating text or other alternatives for multimedia, generating audio alternatives, and performing accessibility evaluations.
Only 8.2% of respondents did not report using AI in any of the listed ways.
This is a significant development.
AI is becoming another tool that people with disabilities can use to understand and interact with digital content. At the same time, AI-generated descriptions and other accessibility features should not replace proper accessibility practices.
For example, automatically generated alternative text can be useful, but website owners should still ensure that important images have accurate and meaningful descriptions.
What should developers and content creators learn from this survey?
The survey provides several practical lessons.
First, accessibility should be tested with real assistive technology. Automated testing is valuable, but it cannot fully reproduce the experience of someone navigating a website with a screen reader.
Second, developers should pay particular attention to semantic HTML. Proper headings, landmarks, buttons, links, form labels, tables, and document structure can make a significant difference.
Third, testing should include different screen readers and browsers. The survey demonstrates that users do not all use the same technology. JAWS, NVDA, VoiceOver, TalkBack, and other assistive technologies all have significant user communities.
Fourth, mobile accessibility should not be treated as optional. More than nine out of ten survey respondents use screen readers on mobile devices.
Finally, organizations should pay close attention to PDFs and other downloadable documents. An accessible website can still create serious barriers if the documents provided through that website are inaccessible.
Accessibility is about the experience, not only compliance
The WebAIM Screen Reader User Survey #11 provides a useful reminder that accessibility is ultimately about people.
A website can pass many automated checks and still be difficult to use. It can have technically valid HTML and still provide a frustrating navigation experience. It can provide a PDF download while making the information inside that PDF inaccessible.
Accessibility work should therefore combine standards, automated testing, manual testing, assistive technology testing, and, most importantly, an understanding of how people actually use digital products.
The survey gives us a valuable opportunity to listen to those users.
The message from the data is straightforward: people use many different combinations of devices, browsers, and assistive technologies. They rely heavily on meaningful headings and well-structured content. Many continue to experience serious problems with PDFs and inaccessible websites. And while technology such as AI is creating new possibilities, accessible digital content remains essential.
Better assistive technology can help. But according to 83.9% of respondents, making websites more accessible would have the greater impact.
That is an important message for everyone involved in creating the digital world.
Leave a Reply