← Design Research

Study · Updated July 2026

How accessible is AI-generated UI?

We ran a deterministic design audit over 123 public frontends built by AI coding tools. The tools handle what you can see. They miss what you cannot see in a screenshot.

123 frontends analysed165 repos clonedDeterministic and reproducible
123
frontends analysed, from 165 public repos
74%
have an error serious enough to block shipping
52%
have serious accessibility errors
1 in 3
ignore the reduced-motion setting

Where the gaps are, by category

Share of the 123 frontends with a finding in each category, split into serious errors and lower-severity warnings. Only three categories produce errors serious enough to stop code from shipping. Accessibility is by far the largest.

Serious error Warning
Accessibility
Motion
Contrast
Copy
Navigation
Forms
Typography
Spacing

What actually breaks

Accessibility is the biggest category, so here is what specifically failed inside it, and how often across the 123 frontends. Every one is a small, known fix.

What breaksFrontendsThe fix
No skip-to-content link95%Keyboard users tab through the entire nav on every page. Add one hidden “skip to content” link at the top.
No main landmark53%Screen readers can’t jump past the nav to the content. Wrap the page body in a main landmark.
Form inputs with no label49%A screen reader can’t say what the field is for. Tie a visible label to every input.
Broken heading structure42%Multiple or missing h1s break the outline screen readers navigate by. Use exactly one h1, then step down.
Links used as buttons36%A link styled as a button isn’t operable as one by keyboard. Use a real button for actions.
Skipped heading levels29%Jumping from h2 to h4 breaks the document outline. Step down one level at a time.
Icon buttons with no name19%An icon-only button just announces as “button.” Give it an aria-label.

How bad is bad?

Serious errors per frontend. Most projects have only a few. A quarter are clean. A small tail is severe, the worst with 194 errors, which is why the typical (median) project has just one.

0 (clean)
26%
1 to 2
37%
3 to 5
15%
6 to 10
7%
11 to 20
10%
21 or more
6%

Method, and what we actually audited

We searched public GitHub for repositories that self-identify as AI-generated (v0, Lovable, bolt, and similar), across 150+ accounts. Of 165 cloned, 123 had an analysable frontend and form the sample. Every one was checked with the same deterministic tool: no model, no network, no judgement, so the same repository yields the same numbers every time. The sample is large enough that the headline rates hold to within two points if the ten worst projects are dropped.

No model in the loopSame input, same outputFrontend-only denominator

You don’t have to take our word for any of it. See all 123 repositories and their scores → Open any of them on GitHub and check.

“Accessibility error” here means a structural markup failure: unlabelled inputs, non-semantic buttons, missing landmarks, skipped headings, a stricter, narrower definition than a full manual review. The corpus skews toward landing pages, portfolios, and small apps.