Equal Entry

Is AI deskilling accessibility work?

2026-10-01T13:10:37Z

/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/EPI37-AI-Deskilling-Accessibility.m4a

In 2025, a study in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology found that experienced doctors detected fewer precancerous growths on their own after their clinics started using AI during colonoscopies. Their detection rate without AI fell from 28.4% to 22.4%. Ken sent Thomas an article about that study, and it started this conversation.

An accessibility audit is also a judgment task. A tester has to know the WCAG success criteria and decide when something passes or fails. If AI does that work first, testers may lose the ability to question what it reports. Thomas is already seeing AI-generated code fail WCAG in ways he had not seen in 20 years of audits.

Ken and Thomas discuss using AI as a second reviewer instead of the first pass, why the field needs clear pass and fail examples that AI can learn from, and how remediation tools could lock in decisions an expert has already reviewed.

Transcript

This transcript has been edited to remove filler words and repeated phrases while keeping each speaker's meaning.

How AI Deskilling Shows Up in Accessibility Work

Thomas Logan: Hello, everyone. This is Thomas Logan from Equal Entry here with Ken Nakata of Converge Accessibility. In this episode of A11yInsights, we're back and talking to you about AI deskilling: what happens to accessibility skills when AI does the work first, and how to keep human judgment in the loop. Ken, how did we decide to start talking about this topic?

Ken Nakata: Well, Thomas, as I recall, it was a fairly funny discussion. I was talking not just about accessibility, but about how AI makes us all dumber because we don't have to use the same skills that we used before. I sent you an article from Medium that quoted an article from The Lancet about doctors losing their skills when they look over X-ray or colonoscopy results to find potential tumors. They're relying more on AI because it's reliable, but they're also losing the ability to visually discern those things by themselves.

Thomas Logan: When you sent me that article, I started reading it and thinking about all the ways it applies to my day-to-day work at Equal Entry. That includes training people and often auditing technology to determine if it meets the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. That's a cognitive task: you have to remember all the success criteria and understand when things pass or fail.

There hasn't been a study of it in accessibility, but I thought that research was showing evidence across a broad set of industries that this is happening. I would say the same thing is happening in accessibility, and it's a risk for our industry, just like it is in the healthcare situation you mentioned. If we become too reliant on this tool to identify that an accessibility issue exists, we may lose the ability to independently reason and challenge that assertion.

Ken Nakata: Yeah. When you said that, I was amused because I didn't think about it in terms of accessibility at all. I was just thinking about how we're losing our cognitive abilities. But when you mentioned it, I started thinking, "Well, yeah, it definitely has an impact on my writing," because I rely on it for writing client reports and proposals, the same things most of us use AI for. This conversation has also made me think about how it could be affecting accessibility professionals who do the actual testing, because AI can do a pretty good job of going through web pages and finding problems. Maybe that's going to affect humans' ability to do the same thing.

Thomas Logan: Right. It's both positive and negative. There are so many success criteria and so many points of view to consider that, on the human side, it was always difficult to weigh all of them when doing an audit. That's where I can see the AI superpower of getting a perspective like, "Hey, you missed this," or, "You missed that," which we didn't have before.

On the flip side, from my direct experience with AI over the last couple of years, and even more in the last six months with people using it as part of their accessibility strategy, I've been seeing lots of new ways to fail the criteria when you check manually. The code may pass an automated check. AI is good at getting through those. But the mistakes it makes in the code, when you check it manually, are almost all new things that I haven't seen in my twenty years of doing accessibility audits.

So we have new ways to find things and new ways to fail things. And it comes back to this: if we automate all the learning away, where will we be in the future? Will we even be able to have the opinion, like I do, that says, "Hey, that's actually a failure," when it's not something that used to be seen in accessible documents?

Ken Nakata: Yeah, exactly. If we rely too much on AI, I think it also blunts our sensitivity to the issues. For instance, if you have heading structures that don't follow 1.3.1, AI can catch all those things. And if I'm just going to rely on AI, then I won't even think about the screen reader implications of that failure over time.

As far as I can tell, there are two ways you could use AI: at the front end or at the back end. If you use it at the front end, you're using AI to do the initial check of a web page, and then a human comes along and double-checks the AI's work. Clearly, deskilling is going to happen in that instance.

But there's another way you can use AI, which is as an auditor, a follow-up to make sure that you actually caught everything. I think that's a more promising way to use AI because you're still required to use that human touch up front. I think it can also lead to better outcomes for our clients because it makes sure that we actually caught everything. There's somebody else looking over our shoulder.

But what I found really interesting about that article is that deskilling happens no matter which way you do it. It probably happens more in the first instance, where you're relying primarily on AI for the first cut. But strangely enough, it also happens in the second instance, even when AI is acting as an auditor. I found that really strange, because I would have thought your skill set would improve because somebody's double-checking your work. Instead, humans still deskill even when they have a machine looking over their shoulder.

Why Accessibility Needs Agreement on What Fails

Thomas Logan: Right. It's very interesting that even when you have those skills, there's such a tendency to start relying on the tool and feeling great about going faster and being more efficient. It's a natural part of what this technology dangles out there: "Look, now you can do more in the same amount of time." Potentially what's happening in some of those cases is that the shortcut becomes ingrained: "Oh, wow, I'm able to process a higher number of things than I could with my manual processes." That's where things get left out and forgotten.

Something that's come up quite a bit on our podcast is the complexity of all the different success criteria mandated under WCAG 2.1 AA, and hopefully we have a new law coming next year with state and local governments needing to meet that. We've discussed severity: when an issue needs to be raised as a significant issue versus a minor one. My feeling is that there's really not broad consensus among accessibility experts on a lot of those topics.

That's another risk with AI tools. What today's LLMs give as the decision on those points is based on what's been posted on the web and what conversations have been made public, and I don't think we've really had those broad discussions as an industry. What do you think?

Ken Nakata: Yeah, I agree. If we're going to rely on AI, and it seems inevitable that we will, then I think we need some consensus around creating a model for AI to reliably use to know which things are failures and which are not. AI is really good at figuring out the difference between something that's good and something that's bad, but we have to be the ones to tell it those differences.

When you get a bunch of accessibility experts in a room, we have enough trouble figuring out what good alt text is, or what the meaning or purpose of content really is. It's such a human-based decision that we can get lost in the weeds. But I think we need some really clear examples for AI to use where we can all agree and say, "Okay, this thing violates 1.3.1, or this thing violates 1.1.1. This other example does not, even though it looks very similar." If we can come to agreement on those basic examples, I think that's what will really help in guiding these AI agents.

Thomas Logan: And ideally, that consensus can be used to build that opinion across all the different models. There are so many companies making these models, and all of them have the potential to opine on what's accessible or not. So the benefit of having human consensus is that it could also bring consensus to competing models when they analyze these topics.

Keeping Human Oversight in AI Remediation

Thomas Logan: Lastly, I want to talk about the role of human oversight in, let's say, automated remediation. We touched on it in the first question, but I think it's worth taking as a given that AI is going to be used in a lot of accessibility work today and going forward. So it's also up to the expert practitioners in our industry to have a conversation about the best ways to build human oversight into that process. Do you have any thoughts on what works well right now in an accessibility workflow with AI and humans?

Ken Nakata: Well, I think a key thing is making sure that there are different types of entities in the loop. When I give something to AI, there's a natural tendency for it to hallucinate. One of the things I've found the most benefit from is using a different model as an auditor agent. If you have a different model, such as Claude Fable, as the auditor, and Claude Sonnet or Opus as the writer, and the auditor reviews what the writer produced in a clean session, the chances of hallucination are a lot lower.

The same thing extends to humans. We're basically an agent too [laughs], whether we like to think of ourselves that way or not. We have AI producing content, and of course, we're the human auditor looking over that content. We don't share the same context or the same learning as an LLM, so we can provide that quality oversight.

I guess the bottom line is that when we as a society first looked at LLMs and AI, we immediately distrusted what came out. I think that's largely because we were just letting one model do one thing. So use multiple models within the AI, but also human and AI as part of that workflow. This is one of those rare situations where the more chefs you have in the kitchen, the better.

Thomas Logan: Right. One of my observations here is about being able to annotate and mark when an expert human review was performed in this sequence. From what I've seen to date, remediation is often a start-over process. The human may have made some great remediations and, as we said, missed some other things, but it's a difficult workflow if the AI can overwrite the human effort. You get stuck in a loop where you always need to fully review all of the output.

Instead of one review and a round of fixes, you're now going into two, three, four, because you're always wondering whether it hallucinated or changed something else in the content that you didn't check the fourth time. So when I publish it, even though I thought I'd nailed the image descriptions, for example, it actually changed one of them along the way.

It would be nice to have a way to lock in certain decisions and have a change log, or a side-by-side view of the last iteration that says, "Hey, the only things that changed in this review were these one or two things." Right now, my experience is having to start back over and test everything again. That's not saving time.

Ken Nakata: Yeah, that's definitely not a time-saver, and it also loses quality. That seems to be a really common model with PDF remediation. I haven't seen it as much in web accessibility, but PDFs are such an easy place to say, "Oh, let's just start over," because PDFs are such a discrete thing.

Thomas Logan: We'd love to hear from you. Let's continue the conversation. Please add comments, and we'll be happy to respond. Thank you so much for your time, and we'll see you in our next episode.

References

Endoscopist deskilling risk after exposure to artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: a multicentre, observational study, The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, August 2025
Extension of Compliance Dates for the ADA Title II Web Rule, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Register, April 20, 2026. Governments serving 50,000 or more people must comply by April 26, 2027, and smaller ones by April 26, 2028.
Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.1: Info and Relationships, W3C
Understanding Success Criterion 1.1.1: Non-text Content, W3C
Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Rules, W3C
Converge Accessibility

Related A11yInsights Episodes

Get Help Keeping Experts in the Loop

Using AI in your accessibility testing or remediation? Equal Entry's audits pair tools with expert human review, so every finding is checked by someone who knows why it fails. Contact us to talk about your next audit.

How Slack built simplified layout mode for accessibility

2026-09-29T15:00:54Z

This article is based on a presentation at Accessibility New York City (A11yNYC) by Lena Wang, Kaili Liang, and Chris Xu.

Digital workspaces often present more information than people can comfortably process at once. Many tools rely on multicolumn layouts, hover-based interactions, and small controls that assume precise mouse use. The initial barriers identified for this redesign came specifically from people who use eye tracking and head‑mouse technology, because the work began in anticipation of the needs within the ALSTogether community. These users highlighted how dense layouts, hidden actions, and precision‑based interactions created unnecessary strain.

A complex interface can make it difficult to stay oriented. When several sections scroll independently, it becomes easy to lose track of where you are. Hover-only menus add another layer of difficulty. They require precise movement and can disappear before someone has time to act. These challenges show how traditional workspace design can unintentionally limit autonomy for many users.

Simplified Layout Mode was created to address these issues by rethinking how navigation, content, and controls appear on screen. It offers a single-column structure, larger targets, visible actions, and predictable movement patterns. These changes support people with physical, visual, and cognitive needs while also benefiting anyone who prefers a cleaner workspace.

Through further user testing, it was revealed that Simplified Layout Mode also delivered improvements for screen reader users and neurodivergent people. This led the team to build more functionality specifically for these user groups and expand the impact of this feature.

Rethinking workspace complexity

Many communication platforms rely on dense layouts that place several panels side by side. Slack’s standard interface includes a workspace switcher, a tab rail, a channel list, a message list, and a thread pane. Each area scrolls independently, and each contains its own set of controls. This design gives experienced users quick access to many tools, but it also creates cognitive load and physical strain for people who rely on assistive technology.

Hover-based actions add complexity. Message actions such as adding reactions or starting threads appear only when someone hovers over a message. For eye-tracking or head-mouse users, this movement is hard to perform with accuracy. Small targets require more precision than these tools can reliably provide. Hidden controls cause people to search for them. This increases fatigue and slows down daily work.

A simpler structure helps reduce these barriers. Showing one content area at a time allows people to focus on the task in front of them without scanning across multiple columns. Larger targets reduce the precision required to activate controls. Visible actions remove guesswork and support consistent interaction. These changes create a more predictable environment that supports autonomy and reduces strain.

Designing for predictable interaction

Creating a more accessible layout required clear principles for spacing, visibility, and interaction. The team established a minimum target size of forty-by-forty pixels with generous spacing around each control. This size supports eye tracking and head-mouse technology by reducing the precision needed to activate buttons. It also benefits people who prefer larger targets.

Visibility was another core principle. All essential actions needed to be available without hover. This meant moving message actions into a persistent menu that could be opened with a single click. It also meant ensuring that navigation elements remained stable and easy to reach. These changes reduce the cognitive effort required to locate controls and support more reliable interaction.

Feature parity was a non-negotiable requirement. People using assistive technology need access to the same capabilities as everyone else. Creating a limited interface would restrict participation in workplace channels and workflows. By maintaining full parity, the simplified layout supports equal access and ensures that people can complete all tasks without switching modes.

Engineering choices that support long-term accessibility

Building a separate interface would risk falling out of sync as new features were added. Instead, the simplified layout uses the same underlying components as the standard workspace, arranged in a single-column structure. This approach keeps the experience maintainable and ensures that updates flow naturally into both modes. It also allows teams to refine the layout without creating parallel systems.

The first working prototype demonstrated how existing components could be reorganized into a simpler structure. Over time, the design was polished to improve spacing, corner radius, and visual clearness. This iterative process helped ensure that the simplified layout felt familiar while still offering meaningful improvements. The final structure balanced accessibility needs with long-term maintainability.

What user research revealed

User research played a central role in shaping the simplified layout. Early testing with people who use eye tracking and head‑mouse technology provided the initial guiding principles. This included the need for larger targets, predictable placement, and visible actions. These users also described how hover‑based controls were difficult to access with their tools.

Later rounds of testing with the same group confirmed that the changes made in the simplified layout meaningfully improved their experience. The insights reinforced the importance of reducing precision requirements and removing hover dependencies.

Screen reader users reported that fewer on-screen elements improved orientation and responsiveness. With less content to traverse, screen readers could move through the interface more efficiently. However, users needed clearer ways to understand where they were in the navigation stack. This feedback led to the addition of a breadcrumb bar that provides immediate context and quick access to previous steps.

Screen magnification users identified areas where layout changes conflicted with their assistive technologies. This feedback didn’t lead to additional changes specific to that group. Their experience showed that some structural adjustments didn’t align well with external magnification tools.

The later refinements to max width and the challenges related to scanning across wide screens came from feedback shared by neurodivergent users. They described how the distance between the messages and their associated actions made navigation harder.

Narrowing and centering the content created a more predictable focus area for these users. Custom zoom settings continued to support people who needed different magnification levels in simplified and standard views.

Neurodivergent users described benefits related to reduced visual clutter and improved focus. During periods of heads-down work, the simplified layout helped minimize distractions and made notifications easier to manage. These insights showed that accessible design often benefits people beyond the original target group.

Improving content structure and visual balance

Expanding content across wide screens introduced unintended scanning challenges. Messages appeared on the far-left edge while controls remained on the far right. This separation forced users to scan across empty space to reach the actions they needed. Implementing a maximum width constraint brought content and controls into a central focus area. This adjustment reduced scanning effort and created more intentional whitespace.

Channel lists also needed refinement. When expanded to fill the entire screen, they created large empty areas that created a visually unbalanced view. The shift from the spacious, custom simplified views to the much denser channel list was jarring. This was because the two layouts did not feel consistent with one another.

Restyling the channels with clearer outlines and more defined click targets helped reduce that abrupt transition. These adjustments made the channel list easier to understand at a glance and brought it into better alignment with the rest of the simplified layout.

Persistent message action menus allow people to always keep controls visible. Separate zoom settings let users maintain different levels of magnification in simplified and standard views. A dedicated breadcrumb bar provides quick access to previous steps and helps people stay oriented as they move through the workspace. These features support autonomy by giving users more control over how they navigate and interact with content.

What organizations or individuals can do next

Teams can begin by reviewing their own digital tools for hidden controls, small targets, and layouts that require precise movement. Testing with eye tracking, head-mouse technology, screen readers, and magnification tools can reveal barriers that are not obvious to mouse users. Keeping controls visible and offering flexible zoom settings helps people tailor the workspace to their needs.

Using shared components across different layouts ensures that accessibility improvements remain stable as the platform evolves. This approach eases maintenance burden and helps teams keep accessible features aligned with new releases. Involving neurodivergent and disabled users early in the process helps identify friction points and refine designs. Sharing updates along the way builds trust and encourages people to continue offering feedback.

Moving forward with accessible design

Accessible design benefits everyone. Options created for eye-tracking users also support screen reader users, neurodivergent users, and people who prefer focused workspaces.

When digital tools reduce clutter and offer predictable navigation, people gain more control over how they work. Building accessible systems requires ongoing refinement and a commitment to listening to the people who use them. A flexible, person-centered approach creates digital environments where more people can participate with confidence.

Video highlights

Watch the presentation

Resources

Slack Community Workspace: A public community space for builders and accessibility discussions.
Slack Accessibility Changelog: A public web page publishing monthly accessibility releases, bug fixes, and platform updates.

Bios

Chris Xu is a director of product management of Slack looking after accessibility and design systems. Outside of product management, they have had a wide-ranging career focused on how technology and communities shape each other. They live in Brooklyn, NY and hold strong opinions about fruit.

Lena Wang is a frontend software engineer at Slack working on accessibility and design systems. Outside of engineering, she’s usually mid-side-quest — whether that’s walking the entire length of Manhattan on a whim, running a Taco Bell 5k, or competing in a city-wide scavenger hunt. She lives in Manhattan, NY.

Kaili Liang is a Software Engineer at Slack, working on accessibility and design systems. In her free time, she loves chasing new eats, diving into books, trying various arts and crafts, and traveling.

FAQ

Is it possible to use the persistent action menu outside of Simplified Layout Mode?

Persistent action menus are only available within Simplified Layout Mode. The team noted that this option is not currently supported in the standard interface, though future consideration is possible.

Does using Simplified Layout Mode create communication gaps between team members?

Both modes share the same features and underlying structure, so people can collaborate without losing functionality. Because the simplified view is optional, users can switch between modes when needed, including during screen sharing.

Does the development team maintain separate specialists for different disability types?

The team works as a single group rather than dividing responsibilities by disability category. They rely on user research, feedback from disabled people, and guidance from external consultants to address specific needs across visual, auditory, motor, and cognitive domains.

How does Simplified Layout Mode differ from the mobile application interface?

Simplified Layout Mode is designed specifically for desktop environments. It reorganizes the existing desktop components into a single-column structure while keeping full feature parity with the standard desktop client.

How did assistive technology users learn about the new layout options?

Information was shared through Slack’s accessibility community channels and public communication spaces where people follow accessibility updates. These channels helped users learn about the new mode and provide feedback.

How long did the design process take, and what was the most difficult challenge?

The project took about two years from early exploration to full release. The most challenging aspect was maintaining long-term parity with the main client while reorganizing the interface into a new structure.

Does Simplified Layout Mode support custom workspace themes and color-related settings?

The simplified layout uses the same core components as the standard client, so theme and appearance settings remain consistent. The design relies on spatial structure rather than color alone to convey information.

Why was the minimum interactive size of 40-by-40 pixels selected?

The team chose the 40-pixel target size during early design explorations to create comfortable, predictable interaction points with enough surrounding space for assistive technology users.

How were conflicting preferences among neurodivergent users addressed?

Feedback from neurodivergent users showed that reduced clutter and focused views were helpful. The team responded by refining spacing, adjusting max-width constraints, and offering customizable options such as persistent actions and separate zoom levels.

How do standard keyboard shortcuts and navigation behave in Simplified Layout Mode?

Keyboard shortcuts remain fully supported. Navigation becomes simpler because the number of stops is reduced, making movement more predictable while preserving access to all interactive areas.

From paramedic to aphasia advocate

2026-08-26T15:58:35Z

This article is based on a presentation at Accessibility New York City (A11yNYC) by Avi Golden.

Aphasia changes how a person speaks, writes, and understands language. It usually happens after a stroke or a traumatic brain injury. Every person experiences aphasia in a different way. Recovery takes time, daily practice, and strong support from professionals and community members.

This is based on Avi Golden’s story. Avi developed Broca’s aphasia after having a stroke during surgery. His experience shows the daily challenges of living with language loss. It also shows how speech therapy, community programs, and adaptive sports help people rebuild their independence.

Living with Broca’s aphasia

A stroke can change language skills in a single moment. For Avi, the stroke resulted in Broca’s aphasia. This condition makes it hard to produce speech, read, and write.

People with Broca’s aphasia usually understand what others are saying. However, they struggle to find and speak the right words. Even short and simple words take a lot of effort.

Recovery requires consistent work with speech pathologists. Daily practice helps rebuild language skills over time. Progress can feel slow, but steady effort brings real results. Speech recognition software and dictation tools can also help turn spoken words into text when writing is difficult.

Living with aphasia can be frustrating, but it also brings unexpected moments of humor. Sometimes a single word appears repeatedly without a clear reason. For months, Avi unexpectedly repeated the word “Michael” during conversations. Moments like this show how aphasia impacts word retrieval in daily life.

Training first responders and medical teams

Emergency responders often meet people who have aphasia. Many responders know the term, but they may not understand how it affects communication. When people with aphasia share their lived experiences, responders learn how to react with patience.

Outreach to police, fire departments, paramedics, and hospital staff builds vital awareness. Clear communication helps keep everyone safe during an emergency.

Medical care involves different roles. Doctors diagnose the brain injury, while speech pathologists conduct detailed language evaluations. Speech pathologists work closely with patients over time to track progress and guide daily recovery.

Community centers and support groups also help. They offer safe places where people can share their stories. These programs allow clinicians and first responders to learn directly from people living with aphasia.

Community and confidence through adaptive sports

Adaptive sports offer valuable opportunities for people with disabilities. These activities build physical strength, confidence, and social connections. Many programs are free or low cost, which helps more people participate.

A disability does not mean giving up on adventure. Trained staff and specialized equipment allow people with aphasia to participate safely in many activities. Options include horseback riding, sailing, scuba diving, rock climbing, skiing, and surfing.

These sports welcome people with many types of conditions. They serve wheelchair users, amputees, and people with hidden disabilities. Events like the No Barriers Summit bring people together to hike, share stories, and support one another.

Improving digital accessibility

Digital tools can support daily communication, but current technology has limits. Speech recognition software can turn spoken words into text. However, many systems struggle to understand non-standard speech patterns.

People with aphasia may not always realize when their speech sounds different. This makes voice tools harder to use effectively. Technology is improving, but digital tools cannot replace human speech therapy.

Designers need to build software with true accessibility in mind. Interfaces should remain simple and clear. Software should also offer flexible input options. Testing products with people who have speech difficulties ensures the tools actually work in real life.

Step toward better support and inclusion

Organizations and individuals can take action to support people with aphasia. Organizations can train their staff to recognize language challenges. Emergency workers benefit from learning simple communication strategies. Community groups can also partner with rehabilitation centers to offer accessible recreation programs.

Technology teams should consult speech pathologists when designing new tools. Clear layouts and flexible voice software help users maintain their autonomy.

Individuals can support people with aphasia through simple habits:

Listen with patience and avoid interrupting
Give the speaker extra time to process thoughts and form words
Use direct, simple language without talking down to the person
Invite people with communication challenges to join social events

Aphasia alters how a person communicates, but it does not limit their potential. Through continuous therapy, accessible tools, and community support, people can rebuild fulfilling lives after a stroke.

Resources

World’s first wheelchair front flip
No Barriers Summit
Freedom’s Wings International
Abilities Expo
Sky Combat Ace
The Freedom Horses
Underwater Torpedo League
Northeast Off-Road Adventures
New York City Parks adaptive programs
New York State Department of Health adapted sports and recreation
LOF Adaptive Skiers
Burke Rehabilitation adaptive sports and therapeutic recreation
Adaptive Climbing Group
Arctic Paws dog sled tours
Life Rolls On
Ride with InTandem
Achilles International
City Parks Foundation
Skydive the Ranch
HSA Scuba
iFly World NYC
Wheeling Forward

No need to read beyond this point.

Video highlights

Life before the stroke and the sudden onset of aphasia
Broca’s aphasia description and daily communication challenges
Disability sports and accessible recreation
Aphasia training awareness
Q&A with Avi

Watch the presentation

Bio

Avi Golden is a practicing EMT and former Critical Care and Flight Paramedic with North Shore LIJ (Northwell) EMS and NY Presbyterian EMS. Avi holds a Bachelor of Science in Biology and has extensive experience as a practicing paramedic both in the US and with Magen Adom David in Israel.

After experiencing a stroke in 2007 and resulting aphasia, Avi now educates the medical and lay community and advocates for aphasia awareness. Avi is passionate about disability sports and encourages others to participate.

FAQ

What disability sports programs exist beyond major events like the Paralympics?

Many local and regional programs offer adaptive sports. Examples include gliding, sailing, horseback riding, scuba diving, rock climbing, boxing, surfing, skiing, snowboarding, offroad driving, and more. Many are free or low cost and located within a few hours of New York City.

Were these activities part of life before the stroke?

Yes. Adventure sports such as skydiving and scuba diving were part of life before the stroke. After the stroke, adaptive sports expanded those interests and created new opportunities.

How can a service dog support someone with aphasia?

A service dog can help with daily tasks that are difficult to communicate or perform. For example, a dog may retrieve items such as socks from a drawer. The support focuses on practical assistance rather than language.

What goals can people with aphasia set for recovery or awareness?

Goals may include ongoing speech therapy, community participation, and outreach to emergency responders or clinicians. Sharing lived experience helps others understand aphasia more clearly.

What digital tools support communication for people with aphasia?

Speech recognition tools can help convert spoken words into text. Some tools work well, while others struggle with atypical speech. Each person’s needs differ, and speech pathology remains essential for recovery.

How is aphasia diagnosed?

Diagnosis involves both medical evaluation and speech pathology assessment. Doctors identify the injury, while speech pathologists examine language abilities in detail and guide daily rehabilitation.

Building accessible digital experiences through user journey testing

2026-08-04T16:56:22Z

The Perelman Performing Arts Center (PAC NYC) stands out as a dream client because the organization prioritized accessibility as a core foundation from the very start. Rather than treating it as an afterthought, PAC NYC set a high standard for digital experiences by showing intentionality throughout the entire development process.

Unlike most organizations, PAC NYC didn’t treat accessibility as a late-stage requirement, a final hurdle, or a launch checklist. Organizations that tack accessibility on at the end of a project before launch end up designing clumsy solutions and workarounds. Because PAC NYC treated accessibility as a requirement at the beginning, it created the best user experience possible.

“Our digital presence required the same level of intentionality and care as our physical environment. To provide and maintain an accessible experience, we partnered with Substrakt and Equal Entry to implement best practices and incorporate accessibility reviews in our iterative process. By making accessibility an explicit goal, we’ve delivered a better experience for everyone,” says Leo Bowen, Digital Product Manager at PAC NYC in Removing barriers: A case study in digital accessibility.

The PAC NYC model: Accessibility as a foundation

We partnered with the Perelman Performing Arts Center (PAC NYC) and digital agency Substrakt to help launch PAC NYC’S new digital ecosystem. PAC NYC operates as a multi-space performing arts center at the northeast corner of the World Trade Center complex in Manhattan, New York City. This project defied standard, cookie-cutter website conventions. It involved a brand-new building, a new organization, and an incredibly aggressive timeline.

Most organizations take the path of building the site, launching it, and dealing with accessibility complaints later. But PAC NYC chose the smarter, more efficient route. They integrated accessibility into their development cycle from Day 1.

By the time we stepped in to conduct our audit, the project remained ahead of the curve, even with persisting usability challenges. For example, navigating a seat map or completing a donation flow often poses nightmares for screen reader users if the interface relies solely on visual cues (like icons or color) without structured, actionable code underneath.

Together with Substrakt, we did more than deliver a list of bugs. We acted as partners in the development process. When we identified a “blocking” issue in a ticket-purchase flow, we didn’t just point to it. We collaborated with their developers on many different solutions, so it worked intuitively for every user. PAC NYC made this easy because they wanted the issues fixed.

The result? A digital experience that challenged simple “compliance” labels. It created a usable, seamless, and inclusive user experience.

Auditing the ticket-buying experience

One of the most important steps in any online shopping experience comes in making purchases. If any part of that user journey contains friction, it can mean the difference between making and losing the sale. In other words, inaccessible experiences affect revenue.

Equal Entry’s methodical process of auditing the user journey follows the steps real users would take to buy a ticket. The auditing process uncovered a problem when users select “Buy tickets” for a show. However, not everyone navigates a website with a mouse. Some use a keyboard or another input device. After selecting “Buy tickets,” the keyboard focus did not move to the first available date.

Instead, the keyboard-only user had to select Tab repeatedly as many as 30, 40, or even 50 times to finally land on the preferred show date. Substrakt solved the focus issue in the dialog box by adding a focus trap that automatically moved the keyboard focus to the first available date as soon as the dialog opens. This meant keyboard-only users only had to press Tab once to land on the first date.

The lesson here is that accessibility does more than ensure someone can complete a task. It’s also about how easily and efficiently they can do it. Every time a user has to press the Tab key to navigate to the next date, they waste time and effort. While a sighted user with a mouse can scan and click within seconds, a keyboard-only user may spend minutes navigating the same interface.

Optimizing the donation experience

Many nonprofit organizations depend on donations. The online donation experience must feel seamless and as easy as possible. Equal Entry uncovered an issue with the donation process. Some donation processes save steps by providing preset donation amounts.

Equal Entry found that when a keyboard user selected a predefined amount and pressed the Tab key, the focus jumped to the “Other amount” input field despite selecting a fixed value. This created confusion as well as overrode the user’s selection. The process forced them to enter a custom amount instead. This defeats the purpose of preset donation amounts.

Before diving into a solution, it helps to understand how this works. The browser or assistive technology identifies interactive elements as a list. Keyboard users can navigate through them using Tab (next) or Shift+Tab (previous). For certain elements like radio buttons and dropdowns, they use arrow keys.

The $$$ buttons and the “Other amount” button function as a group of radio buttons, allowing only one selection, either by clicking or using arrow keys. The custom amount field activates only when “Other amount” is selected. For mouse users, clicking the custom field auto-selects “Other amount,” but this caused issues for keyboard users, who couldn’t easily access preset amounts.

The following image explains the ideal keyboard navigation sequence. The user presses Tab to navigate to “Select an amount to donate.” Then, they use the arrow keys to select an amount. Here’s where the decision comes in.

For a preset amount, pressing Tab skips the recognition field or the donate button. This depends on the amount. When selecting “Other amount,” pressing Tab moves to the custom amount field. After entering the amount, pressing Tab moves the focus to the recognition or donate button depending on the amount.

The solution involved disabling focus on the custom amount field unless “Other amount” was selected. This allowed users to Tab through preset amounts smoothly. An accessible donation form makes giving possible and easy.

Why your business needs a new approach to accessibility

Many companies hire auditors to scan hundreds or thousands of pages. Then, they feel overwhelmed with the results and don’t get started. That approach usually ends in frustration. Development teams feel overwhelmed by a laundry list of abstract technical errors.

We do things differently. We don’t just “scan” pages. We test user journeys.

We put ourselves in the customers’ seats, whether they buy tickets, make a donation, or research information. And we test the entire path. We look for existing friction, its causes, and specific fixes to help users accomplish their goals.

This constitutes a business strategy, not just a technical one, for three reasons:

Reduce abandonment: When organizations optimize the checkout flow, donation process, or search tools for all users, their abandonment rates drop. An accessible site provides, by definition, a more usable site for everyone.
Increase revenue: Cultural organizations and businesses alike thrive on conversions. Every barrier an access user faces represents a potential customer stopping their purchase mid-journey. Clearing those barriers constitutes a direct investment in your bottom line.
Boost brand trust: An organization’s digital presence reflects its values. When users can successfully and independently use a site, they trust the organization more. They come back, they donate again, and they engage more deeply with the organization’s mission.

Accessibility represents a continuous improvement process, not a “one-and-done” project. As the PAC NYC case study proved, it requires a process of continuous improvement. Companies don’t need perfection on launch day. They need the right partner to help them build the path.

How Equal Entry partners with clients

You need more than a checklist. You need a partner who helps you build digital experiences that actually work for real users.

How Equal Entry supports your team:

Scenario-based audits: We test the tasks that matter most to your organization, so you know exactly where users struggle and what to fix first.
Collaborative remediation: Your developers get clear explanations, practical fixes, and support that reduces rework. We help your team build lasting capability, not just patch issues.
Strategic training: We equip your team to design and build accessibly every day, reducing future defects and saving time, money, and frustration.

If you want digital experiences that make every user feel capable and welcome, we’re ready to help you get there.

Explore our accessibility services or reach out if you’re ready to strengthen your digital experiences.

The worldviews we build with: Why good design starts in the spirit

2026-07-26T16:46:40Z

This article is based on a presentation at Accessibility New York City (A11yNYC) by Elina Ashimbayeva.

Design decisions often reflect the values people carry into their work. These values shape how teams collaborate, how products evolve, and how communities experience technology. When people focus only on tools or outcomes, they may overlook the deeper beliefs that guide their choices. Understanding these beliefs helps explain why some systems support inclusion while others create barriers.

Many teams want to build ethical and accessible products. They often look for checklists, frameworks, or best practices. These tools matter, but they work best when paired with reflection on the assumptions that shape everyday decisions. People absorb values from culture, workplaces, and personal history. Some of these values support inclusion. Others limit it. Recognizing these patterns helps teams make more intentional choices.

A human-centered approach begins with awareness. It asks people to notice how their beliefs influence their work. It encourages curiosity about how values such as efficiency, growth, or scale shape design. It also highlights the importance of relational thinking, which focuses on connection, responsibility, and shared well-being. This perspective helps people build systems that support dignity and autonomy.

Starting with personal and team values

Design work often begins with tools, processes, and product goals. Yet many challenges arise from the values people bring to their work. Some individuals believe they cannot influence change because leaders or policies stand in the way. Others assume that being progressive or supportive of inclusion is enough. These beliefs can limit action.

A focus on microcultures helps shift this mindset. A microculture is a small environment where people can influence norms and behavior. It may be a team, a project group, or even one person’s workflow. Small changes in these spaces can spread. When someone adopts a checklist, adjusts research practice, or models inclusive behavior, others may follow. This approach helps people act without waiting for permission.

Reflection also plays a role. People may hold values they never intentionally chose. Ideas about productivity, success, or worth often come from broader culture. Noticing these patterns helps individuals question whether they support inclusion. This awareness creates space for new choices that align with dignity and equity.

Understanding deeper mental models

The iceberg model offers a way to understand how systems form. The visible part of the iceberg represents results and symptoms. These include inaccessible websites, biased tools, or exclusionary practices. Beneath the surface are structures such as policies, hiring practices, and team norms. At the deepest level are mental models, trauma, and life force. These shape how people think, act, and relate to one another.

When teams focus only on surface problems, solutions may not last. Fixing a single accessibility issue does not address the values that allowed it to appear. Sustainable change requires attention to deeper causes. This includes examining beliefs about efficiency, growth, and productivity. When these values dominate, exclusion becomes more likely. People may prioritize speed over care or scale over connection.

Technology reflects these deeper patterns. If a culture values efficiency above all else, tools that maximize speed will emerge. Artificial intelligence is one example. It highlights how society views human limitations and productivity. Reflecting on these patterns helps people question whether their values support inclusion or reinforce inequity.

Examples of inclusive design choices

Inclusive design appears in many forms. Some examples come from digital tools. A flight booking website that offers detailed assistance options supports travelers with varied needs. A music app that adds a visual indicator for colorblind users improves usability. A museum that provides tactile art experiences expands access beyond visual interpretation.

Physical environments also offer examples. A supermarket that reduces glare, widens aisles, and offers quiet hours supports people with sensory requirements. Staff training helps teams respond with awareness and respect. These choices show how small adjustments can create meaningful access.

Bias reduction offers another perspective. Anonymous auditions in orchestras increased opportunities for women. Soft shoes reduced sound cues, such as clacking heels that might indicate a female, that influenced judges. These examples show how design can challenge assumptions, reduce bias, and create fairer systems. They also demonstrate how inclusive practices can emerge from curiosity and experimentation.

Reflecting on values that shape technology

Many people hold values that influence how they design and build. Some believe money reflects human value. Others assume privacy is a reasonable trade-off for convenience. Many view user attention as essential for growth. These beliefs shape products, policies, and interactions.

Efficiency often stands out as a dominant value. It influences how people measure success and how they structure work. When efficiency becomes the highest good, people may overlook relational needs. They may prioritize speed over care or scale over depth. This pattern appears in technology, workplaces, and social systems.

Scale also influences behavior. People may believe that success requires reaching more users, generating more data, or expanding impact. This belief affects artists, charities, and companies alike. It encourages measurement through numbers rather than meaningful outcomes. Reflecting on these values helps people question whether they support well-being or reinforce pressure.

Exploring alternative values

Alternative values offer new ways to think about design and community. Some people aspire to see challenges as opportunities for growth. Others believe that money carries the energy of how it was earned. Many value relational obligation, which emphasizes connection and shared responsibility.

These values encourage people to scale in service of purpose rather than escape from it. They recognize that endings are part of healthy cycles. Not all work needs to grow. Some projects may complete their purpose and close. This perspective supports sustainability and care.

Interconnection also plays a role. When people thrive together, communities strengthen. Excellence becomes a goal rooted in contribution rather than competition. Long-term thinking encourages people to build work that may not be finished in their lifetime. These values support systems that prioritize well-being over speed or scale.

What organizations or individuals can do next

Organizations can begin by examining the values that shape their work. This includes noticing how efficiency, scale, or productivity influence decisions. Teams can reflect on whether these values support inclusion or create barriers. Small mindset shifts can lead to meaningful change.

Teams can adopt microculture practices. Individuals can introduce checklists, adjust research methods, or model inclusive behavior. These actions do not require permission. They can spread through curiosity and conversation. Over time, they can influence broader systems.

Organizations can also review structures. This includes hiring practices, research environments, and accessibility policies. They can ensure that tools and processes support people with varied needs. They can create environments that reduce bias and support relational connection.

Reflection

Ethical design begins with awareness of the values that shape everyday choices. When people reflect on their assumptions, they create space for new possibilities. Small actions can shift culture. Quiet moments of noticing can influence systems. When teams embrace relational thinking, they build environments that support dignity, autonomy, and inclusion. These changes may feel subtle, but they form the foundation for meaningful transformation.

Video highlights

Worldviews shape design and collaboration
Personal background and how lived experience informs design work
Introduction of the iceberg model showing results, structures, and deeper paradigms
Examples of inclusive design choices across digital and physical environments
Reflection on values that influence technology, efficiency, scale, and human behavior
Q&A with Elina

Watch the presentation

Resources

Bio

Elina Ashimbayeva is a product manager, community builder, and facilitator with over a decade of work across healthcare, education, and social impact. Originally from Kazakhstan and Aotearoa New Zealand, she is now based in New York. Elina has led product and discovery work at Health New Zealand, designed the Equitable Product Cohort on ethics and equity in tech, and run a storytelling community, Storyo.

Her practice sits at the intersection of human-centred design, values-led leadership, and the harder, slower work of shifting the worldviews underneath how teams actually operate.

She recently launched Making Good Money, a podcast on financial transparency with founders of mission-driven ventures, where she talks about the values that we make decisions from, in life and in work. Elina loves dancing, poetry, and, notably, mayonnaise.

FAQ

How can small teams influence accessibility when leadership is not supportive?

Small teams can create change by focusing on microcultures. Individuals can adopt inclusive practices in their own workflows. These actions often spread through curiosity and conversation. Over time, they can influence broader systems without requiring permission.

What does inclusivity mean in practical terms?

Inclusivity is an ongoing process rather than a destination. Teams can start by addressing one meaningful barrier at a time. Examples include redesigning lessons for users with different physical abilities or adjusting features based on real user feedback. Starting small helps teams build momentum.

How can people reconcile community values with a competitive or individualistic environment?

People can begin by acting within their own circles. They can initiate community practices rather than waiting for others to lead. Cooperative models, shared decision-making, and relational responsibility help align values with everyday behavior.

How can people shift their focus away from numbers and metrics?

People can practice noticing when they rely on numbers for validation. They can reflect on whether these metrics align with their values. Over time, they can choose to prioritize meaningful impact over quantity. This shift requires ongoing attention and personal reflection.

How did service design influence healthcare work in New Zealand?

Service design helped teams adopt relational and nature-based approaches. It encouraged whimsical and human-centred practices that improved collaboration. Healthcare teams responded positively to these methods. Although later policy changes affected the system, the approach demonstrated the value of human-centred design.

How can people stay committed to personal change when larger systems feel overwhelming?

People can seek guidance from mentors, teachers, or supportive peers. They can focus on small internal shifts rather than large external outcomes. Reflecting on everyday judgments, reactions, and assumptions helps build steady change. These small shifts influence how people contribute to larger systems.

Google Docs makes accessible links easier: A small feature with big accessibility benefits

2026-07-08T01:36:13Z

For years, I’ve taught a simple accessibility principle: don’t paste full URLs when descriptive link text will do a better job.

Instead of sharing a long URL such as https://equalentry.com/services/training/, I encouraged people to create meaningful links, such as Training – Equal Entry.

There’s a good reason for this. A screen reader announces a raw URL exactly as written — character by character: “h-t-t-p-s colon slash slash e-q-u-a-l…”. What a sighted reader skips past in a glance becomes a long, tedious listen.

This approach improves readability, creates a cleaner user experience, communicates where the link goes, and helps people using assistive technologies understand where the link will take them.

The challenge is that simple accessibility best practices can be hard to apply consistently. Content creators are busy. They focus on creating content, not memorizing accessibility requirements. Every additional step creates friction.

That’s why I was excited to see an enhancement in Google Docs that automatically replaces pasted URLs with page titles. While it looks like a small time-saving feature, it represents something much larger: accessibility support built directly into the content experience.

The importance of accessible content

When most people think about accessibility, they think about the final content that users consume. Accessibility professionals often evaluate websites, documents, and applications to determine whether they conform to standards such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).

But accessibility begins much earlier.

Every piece of content starts with an authoring tool like a content management system or social media application. If content creators get intuitive workflows and helpful guidance, they’re more likely to create accessible content from the beginning.

World Wide Web Consortium’s Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0 addresses this idea. ATAG encourages authoring tools to actively support authors and content creators in creating accessible content rather than leaving accessibility to someone’s knowledge and effort.

In other words, accessibility should be built into the process rather than added afterward.

Why link text matters

WCAG states that links must clearly communicate their purpose. When someone encounters a link labeled Click Here or Read More, they will not know where the link will take them. A good piece of advice I’ve heard is that a link should be a promise, not a surprise.

This matters because of how people actually navigate. Screen readers can pull every link on a page into a single alphabetized list, with all of the surrounding text stripped away. In that list, a link labeled Click Here says nothing at all. Generic link text creates confusion and wastes energy for anyone who navigates by links alone.

Descriptive links such as download the accessibility audit report or register for accessibility training provide immediate context and make navigation more efficient.

Screen reader users are not the only people who benefit. People who navigate by speech input — using tools such as Voice Control or Dragon — activate a link by speaking its name. Saying “Accessibility Training Course” out loud is easy; saying a 70-character URL is not.

Despite this well-established guidance, many documents still contain URLs or generic link text because creating better links requires additional effort from the author.

Reducing friction through automation

Google Docs has automated the process of converting a pasted URL with the title of the destination page. Instead of posting a URL in a document, Google Docs quickly converts it into meaningful text that aligns more closely with accessibility guidance. The process makes it easy for someone to edit the linked text if needed.

This powerful feature stands out because it reduces effort while creating a more useful link.

Accessibility professionals know that compliance improves with the removal of barriers. The easier it is to do accessibility, the more likely people will do it consistently.

This enhancement shifts the content creator’s task from:

“Think of appropriate link text and type it manually.”

to:

“Review and refine automatically generated text.”

That leads to a meaningful improvement in the authoring workflow.

A model for other content and authoring tools to follow

What makes this feature noteworthy is that many content and authoring tools still require authors to create descriptive links (linked text) on their own.

Google’s approach shows how content and authoring tools can support accessibility without interrupting productivity. Rather than requiring training, reminders, or post-publication remediation, the tool helps content creators make better choices while creating content. This is the kind of support ATAG promotes.

I encourage document editors, content management systems, email editors, learning management systems, and collaboration platforms to implement a similar approach. Thoughtful automation, like Google Docs’ handling of links, opens the door to many opportunities to reduce accessibility barriers.

Room for improvement in accessibility

Like many automated features, the quality of the outcome depends on the quality of the source information.

In my testing, I’ve noticed situations where the generated text reflects a page title that may not be the most useful description for readers. In some cases, it may appear to rely on page metadata or heading content that doesn’t make an ideal link text.

Page titles can also collide. Many pages are simply titled “Home” or “Documentation,” and good link text needs to be unique as well as descriptive — two links that read the same but lead to different places are still confusing. This is exactly where the author’s review makes the difference.

This isn’t a criticism of the feature. Rather, it highlights an important lesson: automation should support creators, not replace their judgment. The best workflow combines intelligent automation with opportunities for creators to review and improve the suggested text.

Even with this limitation, this enhancement represents significant progress.

Accessibility at scale

One of the most powerful ways to improve accessibility is to help people create better content by default. Hence, training remains important. Standards remain important. Testing remains important. Yet, thoughtful product design can amplify all of those efforts.

The Google Docs link-title feature shows how a small enhancement can improve usability, encourage accessibility best practices, and reduce the burden on content creators. We need more of this type of innovation.

Continue learning about accessibility

If you’re interested in practical examples of accessibility built into everyday tools, consider joining the Learning Accessibility community.

We regularly explore real-world accessibility tools, emerging best practices, accessibility standards, and practical strategies that help organizations create more inclusive digital experiences.

Accessibility succeeds when knowledge, process, and technology work together. And this Google Docs enhancement delivers an excellent example of that principle in action.

Descriptive links aren’t just a best practice — for organizations subject to Section 508 or WCAG 2.1 AA, they’re a requirement. If your team needs help building these authoring habits, Equal Entry offers accessibility training and audits of your documents, tools, and workflows. Contact us to get started.

How To Scale Digital Accessibility With Design Systems

2026-06-24T16:33:03Z

This article is based on a presentation at Accessibility New York City (A11yNYC) by Jesse Gardner.

Modern digital services for state and local governments often feel disconnected because they are built by different teams using various platforms. A resident might start their journey on a search engine, land on a primary website, and then move to a separate system to log in or submit an application.

Jesse Gardner is Director of Accessibility and Design Systems at the New York State Office of Information Technology Services, where his teams serve more than 45 state agencies and 20 million New Yorkers. They know each of these steps might have a different look and feel. As a result, this can create a fragmented experience, increasing the effort required for a user to complete a task.

When the design and language shift constantly, it adds to the cognitive load of the person using the service. This does more than confuse. It can actively erode trust in the organization providing the service. If a person finds a digital interface difficult to navigate, they may give up and choose more expensive or time-consuming methods, such as calling a service center.

This fragmentation is rarely intentional. Most teams are passionate about their work but operate within narrow contexts. They face unique business logic, policy requirements, and limited time or expertise.

Because technology changes rapidly, it is difficult for every individual developer to stay current on every best practice. This leads teams within the same organization to solve the same basic problems repeatedly.

Building inclusion into the technical foundation

True digital inclusion requires deep technical work that goes beyond visual design. While many people focus on how a website looks, it is equally important to consider how a person using a screen reader or keyboard navigation experiences it. For example, a button must not only be visible but also selectable via a keyboard and properly announced by assistive technology.

Many organizations expect developers to be experts in multiple programming languages and frameworks simultaneously. They may not have the specialized knowledge required to implement complex accessibility standards. A centralized team of experts can help bridge this gap. By focusing on both design and engineering, organizations can ensure they address technical considerations before a product reaches the user.

Moving accessibility testing earlier in the development process is a more cost-effective strategy than fixing issues after a product has launched. Manual testing of top workflows helps identify major issues and provides practical solutions for engineering teams. This collaborative approach builds rapport and helps grow the overall maturity of various teams within a large organization.

Capitalizing on a centralized design system

A design system like New York State Design System is a collection of shared components, standards, and guidelines that help teams build usable applications quickly. It typically includes a code library, a prototyping library, and a reference site for documentation. These tools work together to ensure that every digital product is mobile-friendly and accessible.

The code library contains interface elements like buttons, toggles, and accordions that have been thoroughly tested for focus management and screen reader support. These components come with accessible defaults built in. When an engineer uses a component from the library, they do not have to wire up the accessibility themselves. This approach encourages adoption by making the developer’s job easier while ensuring a high-quality result.

Design tokens are another critical part of this foundation. They are small, semantically meaningful choices for things like colors and spacing. For instance, a specific “danger” color for error messages can be pre-tested for contrast. Even if a team cannot use a full component library, they can still use these building blocks to ensure their custom designs meet basic inclusion standards.

Driving adoption through practical solutions

The key to a successful design system is making it the path of least resistance for teams. Most people visit a design system reference site because they need to build a page or ship a service, not necessarily to study accessibility. By providing ready-to-use code and “quick wins,” the system solves the attendance problem.

Once teams are using the system, accessibility information can be placed directly in their workflow. Component pages can include checklists for behavior, interactivity, and color contrast. This allows designers and engineers to learn about inclusive practices as they work. Over time, this builds a culture where accessibility is seen as a core part of the development process rather than an afterthought.

For teams working on legacy systems that cannot migrate to a new library, providing “build accessible” guidance is essential. This includes showing how to achieve the same results using native HTML elements and specific CSS. Offering multiple ways to reach a goal ensures that more of the organization can benefit from the centralized team’s work, regardless of their technical constraints.

The impact of shared standards

Standardizing digital tools creates a consistent interaction experience for everyone. While not every website needs to look identical, the way a person interacts with a form or a menu should be predictable. This consistency reduces friction and makes it easier for people to get the help they need from their government or organization.

Focusing on the user journey and scaling technical solutions allows organizations to meet compliance deadlines while improving overall usability. When the light bulb goes off for an engineer and they understand why landmarks or header orders matter, the quality of everything they build improves. A design system codifies these best practices, making them available to everyone.

What organizations can do next

Establish a centralized team of experts to create and maintain a shared library of accessible components.
Conduct manual accessibility testing on the most common user workflows to identify and prioritize the most significant barriers.
Provide engineers with clear, plain-language guidance that explains both how to fix an issue and the human impact of that issue.
Use design tokens for colors and fonts to ensure that even custom-built elements meet basic contrast and brand standards.
Create a reference website that offers copy-and-paste code examples to make it easy for teams to adopt accessible patterns.

Fostering a culture of dependability

Scaling accessibility is a long-term commitment that requires both technical tools and cultural shifts. By providing high-quality solutions that make life easier for developers, organizations can naturally drive the adoption of inclusive practices. This approach moves away from a model of policing and toward a model of empowerment.

Ultimately, these efforts are about ensuring that every individual can navigate digital services with dignity and autonomy. When accessibility is baked into the foundation of a design system, it becomes a natural part of every project. This quiet dependability creates a more inclusive digital world for all users.

Resources

Video highlights

Watch the presentation

Bio

Jesse Gardner is Director of Accessibility and Design Systems at the New York State Office of Information Technology Services, where he leads two teams serving more than 45 state agencies and 20 million New Yorkers. He built the New York State Design System from scratch and led the state’s response to the DOJ Title II accessibility compliance deadline (recently extended to April 2027).

Before joining the public sector, Jesse spent more than two decades in software engineering and design leadership. He speaks regularly on the intersection of design systems, accessibility, and AI (most recently at Into Design Systems 2026) and writes at plasticmind.com. He lives in upstate New York with his wife and four kids.

FAQ

How do you handle incremental adoption and the evolution of components in a design system?

Components should be built to be extensible, allowing teams to use CSS overrides for specific needs like background colors. A versioning strategy, such as using a package manager like NPM, allows teams to update their library at their own pace without worrying about sudden, breaking changes.

Is it possible to use the accessibility features of a design system if my organization has its own branding?

Yes, if the system is open source, other actors can brand it to fit their needs. Organizations can override color themes in tools like Figma while still benefiting from the underlying accessibility work built into the components.

How can I make digital pages more accessible if I don’t have control over the underlying system components?

Starting with basics like avoiding unnecessary PDFs and pictures is a great first step. You can also focus on high contrast for text and buttons. Using manual testing with a screen reader to hear what is actually announced on the page can help identify bad experiences that automated scanners might miss.

What is the best way to deal with resistance to changing established workflows across different agencies?

Compliance deadlines can be a strong motivator for change. It is helpful to lead with user needs and be as pragmatic as possible when suggesting fixes. Empowering teams with a better understanding of accessibility through training and clear guidance helps move the conversation from simple compliance to making services work better for everyone.

How do you measure whether a design system is improving the user experience?

Adoption can be tracked in both design and engineering workflows. Beyond technical adoption, organizations should conduct user research to test how these patterns work in real-world scenarios. Codifying successful patterns into the design system ensures that even projects with limited funding can benefit from proven, high-quality user research.

Accessibility remediation: Turning barriers into inclusive user experiences

2026-06-09T18:35:50Z

Remediation is the stage where accessibility stops being a project management exercise. Reading issue lists, prioritizing tickets, and scheduling meetings are all necessary steps, but they do not remove a single barrier. Remediation is where the work becomes a real coding exercise. Your engineers get into the technical details and make direct changes to the code so that the product genuinely works for people with disabilities.

The primary benefit of Equal Entry’s approach is the confidence that comes from knowing you are fixing blocking and severe issues first. A long issue list will always contain items of varying impact, and many of them will not prevent a person from completing a task at all. Equal Entry helps your team focus on the issues that actually stop people from using your product, ensuring that critical barriers are removed before lower-priority items are addressed.

Equal Entry also brings expertise in identifying which issues are patterns that can be resolved centrally at the template or component level. When the same problem recurs throughout your product due to a shared component, a single fix in that one place can resolve the issue across hundreds of pages simultaneously. It is more efficient to fix a single root cause in a template than to sort through and individually address hundreds of instances of the same underlying problem on different pages.

What accessibility remediation actually looks like

To make this concrete, here are four examples of common accessibility issues and how remediation resolves them.

Inaccessible form validation. A sign-up or checkout form may display error messages visually but fail to communicate them to screen reader users. Remediation involves updating the markup so that error messages are programmatically associated with their fields, announced automatically when they appear, and formatted in a way that helps every user understand what needs to be corrected.

Keyboard navigation problems. A product may work well with a mouse but become unusable for keyboard-only users if interactive elements are unreachable or if focus moves in an unpredictable order. Remediation involves correcting the focus order, ensuring all interactive elements are reachable and operable without a mouse, and verifying that focus indicators are visible throughout each journey.

Screen reader labeling issues. Buttons, icons, and form fields that lack descriptive labels leave screen reader users without the context they need to understand and operate the interface. Remediation adds accurate, meaningful labels to these elements so that assistive technology can communicate their purpose clearly.

A shared component causes issues across many pages. If a navigation element, modal, or card component contains an accessibility problem, that problem may appear on every page where the component is used. Remediating the component once removes the barrier everywhere it appears, producing a broad impact from a single, targeted fix.

How to create and integrate a workable remediation plan

A workable plan begins with a practical question: what can reasonably be fixed within a 30-day timeline? Equal Entry works directly with your team to evaluate your issues through that lens, establishing a deliberate and precise framework for deciding what should be addressed first. This time-bounded approach removes the paralysis that often comes with a large issue list and replaces it with a focused, achievable plan.

From there, we map your findings to the user journeys that matter most, such as sign-up, purchase, account access, and support. Phase one focuses on high-impact, lower-effort fixes that unblock priority tasks. Later phases handle structural changes that require more coordination.

Because Equal Entry does not sell or promote any proprietary tracking system, our approach is naturally flexible. We manage issues through a straightforward spreadsheet that allows us to work within whatever system your team already uses, whether that is Jira, Asana, GitHub, or your own internal tooling. No new tools are required, and nothing needs to be migrated. Accessibility work fits into your existing workflow rather than competing with it.

The 30-day remediation sprint

Once priorities are established, the work moves into a structured 30-day sprint. Equal Entry works primarily with your engineers and program managers during this phase, as these are the people directly responsible for making and scheduling code changes. Issues move through development and verification while the work is still fresh, and fixes land in the actual user journeys where they matter most.

Throughout the sprint, Equal Entry can conduct verification through live screen shares or email correspondence. Our preferred approach is to show your team directly that issues have been genuinely resolved in the actual user journey. When an issue has not been fully addressed, we use that same screen share to demonstrate exactly why the problem is still occurring and to walk through the available options for resolving it. Retesting uses multiple input methods, including keyboard navigation, screen readers, and zoom, to confirm the experience is consistent across different ways of interacting with the interface.

After the sprint concludes, Equal Entry can optionally deliver targeted training for your QA and design teams. This training draws directly from the work completed during the sprint, using real examples from your product to illustrate the patterns that were identified and resolved. The goal is to ensure that in future iterations, fewer issues reach the remediation phase in the first place. Equal Entry does not need to fix every individual issue on your site. Once your team has worked through a set of targeted fixes with us and has access to our knowledge base, they gain the understanding needed to test and implement accessible solutions consistently going forward.

Accessibility remediation without an internal development team

In instances where you do not have a technical team available to implement fixes, Equal Entry has experienced developers who can make those changes directly in your code. We have worked across many platforms over our years of experience. Our developers are comfortable with WordPress accessibility remediation, Shopify accessibility remediation, Squarespace accessibility remediation, and SharePoint accessibility remediation, as well as any HTML, CSS, and JavaScript-based site. If your product runs on one of these platforms or on a custom web stack, Equal Entry can step in and implement the fixes directly so that the absence of an internal engineering team does not prevent you from making progress.

How remediation affects your ACR and VPAT

If your product already has an Accessibility Conformance Report, the remediation phase gives you the opportunity to produce an updated version of that document. Assuming Equal Entry was involved in producing your original ACR, we will deliver an updated ACR at the conclusion of the sprint. This updated document shows how many issues were resolved and provides a clear record that your team made meaningful fixes within a structured and timely process.

An updated ACR is concrete evidence of your team’s capability to address accessibility issues in your product. Many procurement teams now look beyond the VPAT itself and ask how accessibility issues are being addressed and whether progress can be demonstrated over time. What they do not want to see is a VPAT where the same issues appear year after year with no evidence of resolution.

Equal Entry’s process acknowledges that not every accessibility issue can be resolved in a single cycle. What it does demonstrate, clearly and credibly, is that the most important issues are being addressed and that meaningful progress is being made. When procurement teams can see that your organization is capable of making fixes and is actively working through its issue list in a structured way, they can move forward with greater confidence, even when some issues remain.

Remediation is where accessibility becomes real

Accessibility barriers do not disappear when an audit is completed. They disappear when fixes are implemented, verified, and maintained over time. An audit identifies where the barriers are. Remediation does the work that removes them. It is the stage where findings turn into changes that improve real tasks: signing in, completing a form, making a purchase, and getting support.

A focused, 30-day sprint gives teams the momentum they need to make visible progress. Issues get prioritized based on what actually blocks users, fixes move through engineering and verification while the work is still active, and teams see improvements land week by week instead of watching accessibility slip back into the backlog.

To sustain that progress, teams should return to audit at least once a year. Products evolve, new features introduce new risks, and patterns shift over time. A yearly audit confirms that improvements are holding and identifies new gaps before they compound.

The outcome is a product that more people can use with confidence. Not because the documentation says so, but because the experience itself has changed and continues to improve.

Turn your audit findings into real progress

An audit is only as valuable as the action it inspires. If you are ready to turn your accessibility report into a stable, usable product, let us talk about your project and see how Equal Entry’s remediation methodology can help your team move forward and build inclusive experiences with confidence.

The Clarity of Social Accessibility

2026-05-29T15:58:04Z

This article is based on a presentation at Accessibility New York City (A11yNYC) by Peter Slatin.

Social accessibility shapes how people move through the world. It affects whether people feel acknowledged, supported, or pushed aside in daily situations. Many barriers come from how individuals react to disability rather than from buildings or technology. These reactions influence access to public places, digital tools, and community life. Understanding social accessibility helps explain why physical and digital accessibility efforts often fall short.

Misunderstandings about disability often lead to hesitation or avoidance. People may feel unsure about how to interact and fall back on assumptions that create distance. These moments turn simple tasks into unnecessary challenges. When disabled people are not recognized as full participants in everyday life, exclusion grows. This pattern appears in workplaces, public spaces, and social settings.

Social accessibility strengthens dignity, autonomy, and safety. When people understand disability as a natural part of human experience, they respond with more respect and confidence. Without that understanding, even well-designed environments can become difficult to use.

Living with disability in everyday environments

Peter’s experiences with blindness show how often people misunderstand disability. He describes growing up with limited vision, losing more sight over time, and shifting from painting to journalism as his vision changed. These experiences reveal how disability shapes daily decisions and how people respond when they feel unsure. Some individuals offer unsolicited help. Others avoid interaction because they feel uncomfortable. These reactions create barriers unrelated to physical design.

Access problems often appear in routine situations. Entering a building with a guide dog can trigger conflict when staff members don’t know the law. As such, they deny access. These moments highlight the gap between legal requirements and real-world behavior. They also show how fear and misinformation can override policy and training.

Social barriers often cause more harm than physical ones. A revolving door can be navigated with support, but a person who locks the door to block entry creates a deeper barrier. A store may meet physical accessibility standards, but a staff member who refuses entry removes access entirely. These examples show how social accessibility determines whether physical and digital accessibility can succeed.

Understanding social accessibility

Social accessibility refers to the human side of access. It includes awareness, respect, and the ability to recognize disabled people as full participants in daily life. It reflects the behaviors and attitudes that support equitable interaction. When people understand disability, they respond more appropriately. When they don’t, they may create barriers without realizing it.

Recognition plays a central role. Recognition means seeing disabled people as individuals with value, agency, and expertise. It also means understanding disability as part of human diversity. Without recognition, people rely on stereotypes or assumptions. These assumptions can lead to exclusion, even in environments that meet accessibility standards.

Social accessibility supports physical and digital accessibility. Laws and guidelines can require ramps, captions, or navigation tools. They cannot require respect or understanding. People must choose to learn, listen, and adjust their behavior. When they do, access becomes easier and more consistent. When they don’t, barriers remain.

Why empathy and inclusion fall short

Empathy is often presented as a solution, but it can create detachment instead of understanding. Empathy exercises, such as blindfolds or simulations, offer only brief and distorted glimpses of disability. These activities highlight the most disorienting moments without the skills and adaptations disabled people develop over time. They create a false sense of understanding and prevent people from using their own insight to think more deeply about disability.

Inclusion can also fall short. Inclusion often implies being invited into a space controlled by others. This framing suggests that disabled people exist outside the space until someone decides to welcome them. It doesn’t acknowledge that disabled people already belong in every environment. Additionally, it ignores the power imbalance that shapes who sets the boundaries.

Recognition and equity offer a stronger foundation. Recognition acknowledges that disabled people belong without needing an invitation. Equity focuses on removing barriers and sharing power. These approaches support dignity and autonomy. They also encourage organizations to involve disabled people in decisions that affect them.

How history shapes attitudes about disability

Attitudes about disability come from long histories of exclusion and misunderstanding. Early societies often viewed disabled people as unable to contribute to basic survival tasks. These beliefs created patterns of exclusion that continue today. Some people still see disability as a burden or a problem to solve. Others view disabled individuals as inspirational figures who must overcome extraordinary challenges. Both views limit understanding and reduce people to narrow roles.

Historical movements have also shaped modern attitudes. Eugenics promoted the idea of improving society by excluding disabled people. This movement influenced policies, institutions, and cultural beliefs. Its effects continue to appear in assumptions about value, productivity, and worth. Understanding this history helps explain why social accessibility requires ongoing effort.

Disability communities have responded by creating their own spaces and solutions. During the HIV and AIDS crisis, disabled people and activists found common ground and worked together. Community groups, artists, and organizers continue to build networks that support access and dignity. These efforts show how collective action can challenge harmful narratives and create new possibilities.

Designing with accessibility in mind

Accessibility works best when built into the design from the beginning. When treated as an afterthought, it becomes more expensive and less effective. Good design considers legibility, operability, perceivability, and usability for everyone. These principles support physical and digital environments while reducing the need for retrofits and workarounds.

Design decisions shape how people interact with spaces. A ramp added after construction may meet legal requirements, but still feel like an afterthought. A well-integrated entrance supports dignity and independence. Digital design follows the same pattern.

Consulting disabled people is essential. Many design failures occur because disabled individuals were not involved in the process. The InvaCar illustrates this problem. It was created for disabled veterans, but did not meet their needs. It was unstable, isolating, and controlled by the state. A better design would have come from listening to the people who used it.

Rest, dignity, and everyday needs

Rest plays a crucial role in access. Benches, seating, and places to pause support participation in public life. Removing these features harms people who rely on rest to navigate the world. It also reflects assumptions about productivity and worth. Rest challenges the idea that people must always be moving or producing.

Rest can also serve as a form of resistance. Choosing to pause, sit, or nap pushes back against expectations that demand constant activity. This perspective supports dignity and autonomy. It also recognizes that people have different needs and rhythms. Designing for rest creates a more inclusive and humane environment.

Public spaces often overlook the importance of rest. Efforts to discourage loitering or control public behavior can remove essential supports. These decisions affect disabled people, older adults, and anyone who needs a moment to pause. Recognizing rest as a legitimate need helps create more welcoming communities.

What organizations and individuals can do next

Organizations can begin by training staff at every level. Effective training focuses on awareness, respect, and practical interaction skills. Staff members need to understand disability as part of everyday life. They also need guidance on how to support access without making assumptions. Including real examples and clear steps enhances the training.

Hiring disabled people is another essential action. Disabled employees bring lived experience and insight that simulations cannot replicate. Their presence helps organizations understand barriers and design better solutions. It also supports equity and representation.

Organizations can also review their policies and environments. This includes examining customer service practices, physical layouts, and digital tools. Small changes can remove significant barriers. Clear signage, accessible entrances, and consistent digital navigation support independence. Policies that respect autonomy and dignity create a more welcoming environment.

Moving forward

Social accessibility forms the foundation for meaningful access. Recognition, awareness, and respect shape how people experience the world. When these elements guide behavior, physical and digital accessibility efforts can succeed. When not present, barriers remain, even in well-designed environments. Building a culture of recognition supports dignity, autonomy, and full participation for everyone.

FAQ

Why does Peter emphasize recognition instead of empathy or inclusion?

Peter states that empathy often becomes a shortcut that lets people feel they “understand” disability without actually doing the work. Inclusion, in his view, implies being invited into a space someone else controls. Recognition, by contrast, acknowledges that disabled people already exist in every space and deserve to be seen, valued, and engaged as equals.

What does “social accessibility” mean?

Social accessibility refers to the human side of access: how people treat disabled people, whether they acknowledge them, and whether they understand disability as part of everyday life. Physical and digital accessibility cannot succeed without social accessibility because people who lack awareness or understanding often block access even when the environment is technically compliant.

Why did Peter shift from journalism to disability advocacy?

He describes two pivotal experiences: being physically blocked from entering a building with his guide dog and later being denied entry to a store because staff claimed he and his dog were a “liability.” These moments revealed how deeply social barriers undermine access, motivating him to focus on changing attitudes and awareness.

Does Peter regret not becoming an activist earlier in life?

He reflects that he might have pursued art differently had he understood his disability sooner, but he also notes that he lacked information and support as a child. He acknowledges mixed feelings but ultimately says he is glad to be doing this work now.

How should organizations increase awareness of non-apparent disabilities?

Peter recommends using the term non-apparent rather than invisible because it avoids implying shame. He stresses the need for more conversation, more learning, and bringing in people who actually live with non-apparent disabilities to speak for themselves. Recognition, not assumptions, is the foundation.

What does Peter think about the term “belonging”?

He prefers it over “inclusion” but notes that many such terms evolve without addressing the underlying issue: who defines the boundaries. He believes equity and recognition are more accurate goals.

Why does he highlight rest and benches as accessibility issues?

Peter supports the idea that rest — including sitting, pausing, or napping — is a form of resistance to productivity culture. Benches and places to rest are often removed to deter certain groups, but doing so harms disabled people who rely on rest as part of navigating public space.

What is “contagion response”?

Peter uses this phrase to describe the discomfort some nondisabled people feel around disability: a fear that disability is somehow “catchable.” This discomfort leads people to avoid interactions, which reinforces exclusion.

How can we encourage more meaningful interactions between disabled and nondisabled people?

He suggests normalizing disability as part of everyday life, increasing awareness, and ensuring people receive training at all levels. This includes everyone from leadership to frontline staff. Recognition, respect, and understanding reduce fear and hesitation.

Why does he criticize empathy simulations like blindfold exercises?

He explains that simulations provide only the most frightening or disorienting moments of disability, not the lived experience. They give nondisabled people a false sense of understanding while ignoring the skills, adaptations, and expertise disabled people develop over time.

How can designers move away from empathy-based approaches?

Peter encourages designers to stop relying on empathy exercises like blindfolds or simulations, which he calls “disability tourism.” Instead, he urges them to think critically, engage directly with disabled people, hire disabled designers, and learn from colleagues who may have disabilities but have not felt safe disclosing them.

What lessons does the InvaCar example illustrate?

The InvaCar — a state-issued “invalid car” — shows how well-intentioned design can fail when disabled people aren’t consulted. The vehicle was unstable, isolating, and paternalistic because users could not own it. It demonstrates why disabled people must be involved in design decisions.

Why does Peter say accessibility must be a driver of design?

Peter indicates that accessibility is often treated as an afterthought, which is something added after the “real” design is done. He insists that accessibility should shape design from the beginning, just like light, form, legibility, or operability. When it’s not built-in early, it becomes more expensive and less effective.

How does disability history connect to modern accessibility work?

He notes that disability history and accessibility share the same struggles: exclusion, misunderstanding, and the need for self-advocacy. Understanding this history helps explain why progress is slow and why disabled people often must create solutions themselves.

What does Peter mean by “do it yourself” when something isn’t accessible?

He encourages disabled people and allies to take action rather than wait for institutions to change. Many accessibility innovations — from mouthsticks to community-led mutual aid — emerged because disabled people created what they needed when no one else would.

Video highlights

Introduction of social accessibility as the core idea and the link between recognition and access
A revolving door incident showing how a lack of awareness creates real barriers
Explanation of why empathy exercises like blindfolds create a false understanding
Introduction of the InvaCar as an example of design without meaningful disability input
FAQ with Peter

Watch the presentation

Resources

Bio

Peter Slatin is a writer, accessibility consultant, and disability advocate. Peter, who is blind, founded Slatin Group LLC in 2012 to provide education and training on disability equity and social accessibility to clients across a range of business and civic enterprises.

Peter is an adjunct professor at the New York Institute of Technology and an award-winning journalist and editor whose work has appeared in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Forbes.

He received the 2007 Oculus Award for Excellence in Architectural Journalism from AIA NYC. He was a 2020-21 Encore Public Voices Fellow with the Op-Ed Project, and was named a 2021 Accessibility Champion by Visions/Services for the Blind.

Peter is Chair of the board of directors of Empire State Employment Resources for the Blind, a board director of the Colorado Center for the Blind, and a founding director of Camp Possibilities International, which supports blind children and youth in Kenya. Peter holds an M.F.A. from Hunter College CUNY and a B.F.A. from SUNY New Paltz.

PDF to Accessible Markdown: Introducing an Open Source AI Tool

2026-04-28T18:31:37Z

This article is based on a presentation by Blake Bertuccelli Booth and Dylan Isaac from the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) at A11yNYC. They presented Equality Reflow, an open-source pipeline that converts PDFs into accessible content through Markdown.

The broader challenge of document accessibility

PDF accessibility remains a major barrier for many organizations. PDFs were originally designed for printing, not for digital access. They often lack the semantic structure that screen readers and other assistive technologies rely on. This creates a difficult experience for people who depend on clear navigation, headings, and consistent reading order.

Many institutions hold large collections of PDFs. Some collections include hundreds of thousands of files. Manual remediation is expensive and slow. Costs can reach several dollars per page, which makes large-scale remediation difficult and expensive. This creates pressure to find a sustainable solution that supports both compliance and inclusion.

The challenge goes beyond technical as it’s also about autonomy and dignity. People shouldn’t struggle with inaccessible documents or rely on workarounds. They should be able to read, navigate, and interact with information in ways that work for them. This requires a shift from fixing PDFs to rethinking how documents are created and shared.

The approach described here focuses on translating PDFs into accessible formats rather than trying to repair them. It uses artificial intelligence (AI) to interpret visual structure and convert it into semantic code. This method supports more consistent results and reduces the burden on individuals and teams.

Why PDF accessibility is so difficult

PDFs were created to preserve the visual layout. They weren’t built with semantic structure in mind. A semantic structure is the underlying meaning of a document, such as headings, lists, tables, and relationships between elements. Assistive technology depends on this structure to create usable experiences.

Because PDFs lack a consistent structure, screen readers often struggle with reading order. Two-column layouts, decorative elements, and unlabeled images add barriers. Even when tools attempt to tag PDFs automatically, it often produces incomplete or inaccurate results.

Another challenge is ownership. PDFs are controlled by a proprietary company. This limits how much the format can evolve. It also makes it harder for organizations to build their own solutions. Many teams try to work around these limitations, but the format itself remains a barrier.

These challenges show why a new approach is needed. Instead of trying to force accessibility into a format that was not designed for it, organizations can shift to formats that support accessibility by default.

Why Markdown offers a more accessible foundation

Markdown is a plain text format. A plain text format is a file that can be opened and edited in any basic text editor.

Markdown uses simple symbols to represent structure.

# represents a heading
[] and () are used to represent links
– represent list items.

Markdown is considered a democratic format because it does not require proprietary software. Anyone can open, edit, and understand it. This supports autonomy and reduces barriers for people who use assistive technology.

Markdown is also semantically rich. A semantically rich format conveys meaning through structure. Markdown maps directly to HTML, which is the foundation of accessible web content. Rendered Markdown becomes structured HTML that screen readers can interpret.

Another advantage is that Markdown works with AI systems. Many AI models get trained on Markdown examples. This makes it easier for AI to generate accurate, structured output. It also allows AI to act as a bridge between visual layouts and semantic code.

The flexibility of Markdown allows it to be converted into many other formats. It can become HTML, a Canvas page, or a WordPress post. This flexibility supports different workflows and reduces the need for multiple tools.

How AI acts as a semantic translator

AI can interpret visual information and convert it into a semantic structure. A semantic translator is a system that understands the meaning behind visual elements and expresses that meaning in code. This goes beyond extracting text. It requires understanding relationships, hierarchy, and intention.

Multimodal AI models process both images and text. This allows them to interpret visual cues such as font size, alignment, and proximity. For example, large, centered text at the top of a page represents a title. Underlined blue text represents a link. Small text near an image represents a caption.

AI groups related concepts together. It identifies patterns across languages and formats. This helps it understand the meaning behind visual elements even when the layout is complex. It can also identify when something is decorative or informative.

However, AI can’t do it alone. AI systems haven’t been trained with accessibility as a core requirement. They can make mistakes or overlook important details. This shows why a structured process is needed to guide the AI and support consistent results.

This approach uses an AI harness. An AI harness is a system that guides the AI through specific steps. It provides context, instructions, and checks to reduce errors. This creates a more reliable process for document accessibility.

How the Reflow process works

The Equalify Reflow process uses five steps to convert PDFs into accessible Markdown. Each step supports accuracy, structure, and consistency.

1. Extracting document text

The first step uses a tool that pulls text from the PDF. It also removes two-column layouts that screen readers struggle to read. This step captures most of the content but does not add structure.

2. Analyzing each page

The system identifies the type of document and the elements it contains. It notes headings, images, tables, and other features. This information guides the AI in later steps.

3. Building the heading structure

A clear heading structure is essential for navigation. The system reviews each heading and adjusts it based on context. It logs every decision so a human reviewer can verify the results.

4. Translating visual intention

Each page is processed by its own AI agent. This keeps the task focused and reduces errors. The AI interprets visual cues and converts them into semantic Markdown or HTML. It also corrects issues such as OCR errors, missing italics, and broken tables.

5. Assembling the final document

The system combines all pages into a single continuous document. It moves footnotes to the bottom and removes unnecessary layout elements. The result is a flexible document that supports zooming, reflowing, and customization.

Real-world examples of the process

The system handles a wide range of document types. Academic papers with two-column layouts become single-column documents that assistive technology can read. Complex tables are reconstructed using semantic HTML. Posters with unconventional layouts are converted into structured content with clear headings and event details.

The system also generates image descriptions. It uses a dedicated subagent to determine whether an image is decorative or informative. It considers context, surrounding text, and the purpose of the image. This supports a more complete and inclusive experience.

These examples show how AI can interpret visual language and convert it into an accessible structure. They also show how a guided process reduces errors and improves reliability.

What organizations and individuals can do next

Organizations can begin by identifying the scale of their PDF collections. This helps determine where automated solutions can have the greatest impact. They can also explore tools that convert PDFs into accessible formats rather than trying to repair the PDFs themselves. Organizations that are interested in working with Equalify Reflow can sign up for updates on the project.

Teams can integrate Markdown into their workflows. Markdown supports accessibility by default and reduces reliance on proprietary tools. It also makes it easier to convert content into multiple formats.

Organizations can test AI-powered tools on a variety of documents. This helps identify patterns, edge cases, and opportunities for improvement. It also supports a more inclusive approach to document creation and sharing.

Finally, teams can prepare for upcoming accessibility requirements by adopting tools that scale. Automated semantic translation reduces cost and increases consistency. It also supports autonomy for people who rely on accessible documents.

Moving toward a more inclusive document ecosystem

PDF accessibility has been a long-standing challenge. The format was not designed for the needs of today’s digital environment. By shifting to semantic translation and accessible formats, organizations can create documents that work for more people.

AI-powered tools offer new possibilities. They can interpret visual structure, correct errors, and generate accessible output at scale. When guided by a structured process, they support accuracy and reduce barriers.

This approach moves beyond fixing individual files. It creates a foundation for inclusive, flexible, and sustainable document accessibility.

Video highlights

Watch the presentation

Resources

Bio

Blake Bertuccelli-Booth is UIC’s Assistant Director of Web Accessibility Engineering. In addition to passionately working to advance the rights of people with disabilities, Blake is the creator of Equalify – an open-source web accessibility platform – and leads accessibility testing for WordPress. He has spoken at numerous conferences, including HighEdWeb, WordCamp, and WPCampus. Blake is passionate about raising the bar for digital inclusion through open tools, community-driven standards, and real-world impact.

Dylan Isaac is an AI accessibility consultant and founder of Enablement Engineering, and a former Lead AI Engineer at Deque Systems, where he invented and built axe Assistant. He’s currently building agentic harnesses to solve accessibility and education problems that were previously impossible — including Equalify Reflow, a multi-agent system that converts PDFs into accessible semantic markup. When he’s not wrangling AI agents, he’s eating wings and shoveling snow in his home in Buffalo 🦬.

FAQ

What makes PDFs difficult to make accessible?

PDFs lack a consistent semantic structure. They were designed for printing, not digital navigation. This makes it hard for assistive technology to interpret them.

Why is Markdown useful for accessibility?

Markdown is a plain text format with simple syntax. It maps directly to HTML, which supports accessible structure by default.

How does AI improve document accessibility?

AI can interpret visual cues and convert them into semantic code. It can identify headings, tables, images, and relationships between elements.

What is semantic translation?

Semantic translation is the process of converting visual layout into meaningful structure. It focuses on the intention behind the design rather than the appearance.

Can this approach handle complex documents?

Yes. The system can process academic papers, posters, tables, and two-column layouts. It reconstructs structure using Markdown and HTML.

Totally Listening: Using a Total Communication Approach

2026-03-31T21:27:27Z

This article is based on a presentation by Molly Ziegler and Christina Lompado from the International Academy of Hope (iHOPE) at A11yNYC. It reflects the key ideas they shared about communication access and alternative communication (AAC) technology they use with their students.

What communication access really requires

Communication access begins with the understanding that every person has the right to express themselves, direct their own care, and participate fully in interactions. The Communication Bill of Rights outlines essential expectations such as being spoken with rather than spoken about, being offered real choices, and having the ability to refuse. These rights apply to all communicators, including people who do not use spoken language or who rely on augmentative and alternative communication (AAC).

Supporting communication requires recognizing that each person’s needs are unique. Communication is not a single skill but a combination of receptive language, expressive language, and social language.

Receptive language: Understanding, attention, categorization, and literacy
Expressive language: Asking, commenting, advocating, and declining
Social language: Timing, connection, and interaction

When these elements are supported together, communication becomes more accessible and meaningful.

A person-centered approach involves paying attention to how someone engages, what interests them, and how they naturally express themselves. Communication may appear through gestures, facial expressions, body orientation, or eye movement. Recognizing these signals helps build trust and supports the development of more complex communication over time.

Assessing access needs and building an AAC toolbox

Access to communication depends on many factors, including motor skills, vision, hearing, and sensory processing. Some individuals isolate a finger, while others use eye gaze, large movements, or switches. Visual processing disabilities, such as cortical visual impairment (CVI), may require tactile or object-based supports instead of line drawings. Hearing disabilities may require sign language or visual cues. Understanding these needs helps determine which AAC tools will be most effective.

An AAC toolbox includes a range of options from no-tech to high-tech. No-tech and light-tech tools include picture symbols, communication boards, tangible symbols, and flipbooks. These tools are durable, portable, and essential in environments where technology cannot be used. They also support learning by offering consistent visual or tactile cues.

Mid-tech tools include battery-powered devices with recorded voice output. These tools allow users to participate in social routines, ask questions, or share jokes. High-tech AAC includes tablets or dedicated devices with dynamic displays and robust vocabulary systems. These systems require thoughtful assessment to ensure they match the individual’s cultural identity, communication style, motor abilities, and language needs.

Feature matching helps identify the right combination of tools. This process considers the person’s strengths, preferences, and access needs. It also emphasizes presuming potential, meaning every person is viewed as capable of learning language at any point in life. Communication should never be limited by assumptions or by the availability of equipment. When resources are limited, creative solutions ensure that communication opportunities are not lost.

Building vocabulary for meaningful communication

AAC systems rely on vocabulary that supports flexible, expressive communication. Core vocabulary makes up most of the words used in daily life. These versatile words allow users to express a wide range of ideas. Fringe vocabulary includes specific nouns such as names of people, foods, or places. Both types of vocabulary are necessary. Core words help build sentences, while fringe words add detail and personal relevance.

Access to a wide vocabulary allows individuals to comment, ask questions, direct actions, express opinions, and advocate for themselves. Communication goes beyond requests. People need words to complain, joke, disagree, and share their personalities. These functions build relationships and support autonomy.

Language development with AAC mirrors typical language development. Children learn spoken language by hearing thousands of hours of speech before producing their first words. AAC users need similar exposure to their communication systems. Consistent modeling and access to vocabulary help build understanding and confidence.

Modeling AAC to support learning and autonomy

Modeling means using the AAC system while speaking, showing how words and phrases can be expressed. It’s one of the most valuable ways to support AAC users. This approach provides repeated exposure without requiring the individual to imitate or respond. The most effective modeling is natural, meaningful, and connected to the person’s interests.

Verbal referencing helps connect actions and experiences to vocabulary. For example, noticing a smile and modeling the word “like” helps build understanding. Attributing meaning acknowledges the person’s communication attempts, whether through gestures, facial expressions, or body movements. This approach respects autonomy and avoids turning communication into a test.

Short phrases and one or two key words help reduce cognitive and motor demands. As understanding grows, phrases can expand. Expectant pausing gives time for processing and expression. Each person’s processing time is different. Pausing supports receptive and expressive language.

Modeling also helps users navigate complex systems with many words and categories. Exploring pages together shows where vocabulary lives and how it can be used flexibly. When specific words are missing, core vocabulary can help express ideas in creative ways. This flexibility supports communication even when systems evolve or vocabulary changes.

Creating communication-rich environments

Supporting communication means creating environments where AAC is always available, respected, and used naturally. Light-tech backups ensure communication continues when technology is unavailable. High-tech systems should be accessible throughout the day, not limited to therapy sessions. Opportunities to explore, babble, and experiment with AAC help build familiarity and confidence.

Communication partners play a key role. They provide rich language input, wait time, and respect for all communication attempts. They avoid over-testing. Instead, communication partners focus on connection, autonomy, and meaningful interaction. When communication is a shared experience rather than a task, individuals will more likely engage and grow.

Moving forward with inclusive communication practices

Supporting communication access requires ongoing attention, creativity, and respect. By presuming potential, offering meaningful vocabulary, and modeling without pressure, communication partners help individuals express themselves fully. AAC tools of all types work together to create flexible, responsive systems that honor each person’s identity and preferences.

Communication is a human right. When environments, tools, and interactions support that right, individuals can participate more fully in their communities, relationships, and daily lives.

Video highlights

Watch the presentation

Resources

Communication Bill of Rights [Cartoon version (PDF)]
Cortical Visual Impairment (CVI) fact sheet from RNIB
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) AAC source

Bios

Molly Ziegler is a communication enthusiast with a passion for assistive technology. She hails from a suburb of Chicago, IL, and loves her life in NYC as much as she loves her Midwestern roots. She specializes in finding creative ways for people of all abilities to access personally meaningful language for creative, self-expressive, social, and self-care purposes, with a specific interest in finding person-specific strategies that allow individuals to direct their care. She works with teenagers and young adults with multiple disabilities and medical complexities, as well as their families and caregivers, to ensure connection and communication across all environments using methods that are unique to each individual and support system.

Christina Lompado has worked in the field of assistive technology for over 8 years, servicing individuals with significant disabilities and complex communication needs. She is a speech and language pathologist and assistive technology provider conducting services in the educational and home settings. Christina has provided training to educational teams and therapy departments focusing on the implementation of a range of low- to high-technology devices, communication partner strategies, and material development for academic success. Christina is passionate about AAC, literacy, and access to communication all day, every day!

FAQ

What is AAC?

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) includes tools and strategies that support or replace spoken communication. AAC can be no-tech, light-tech, mid-tech, or high-tech.

Why is modeling important in AAC?

Modeling shows how to use AAC during real interactions. It provides repeated exposure without requiring the user to imitate or respond.

What is core vocabulary?

Core vocabulary includes common, flexible words used frequently in daily communication. These words support many communication functions.

How does AAC support autonomy?

AAC provides access to vocabulary for choices, refusals, opinions, questions, and advocacy. This supports independence and dignity.

What is feature matching?

Feature matching is the process of selecting AAC tools based on a person’s motor, sensory, visual, auditory, and communication needs.

Why is wait time important?

Wait time allows individuals to process language, navigate their AAC system, and decide what they want to express.

What Is a Digital Accessibility Audit?

2026-03-23T18:14:46Z

If your organization builds, buys, or maintains any digital technology, accessibility is already on your plate. Whether you work in product, engineering, design, compliance, or procurement, you will have to address it. The only question is when.

Most teams don’t request an accessibility audit until something forces the issue. That could be a demand letter, a customer who can’t use a key feature, a stalled procurement deal, or a request for an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR), sometimes called a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT). Whatever the trigger, the underlying problem is the same: You need a formal way to know how well your product works for people with disabilities.

Accessibility issues often hide in everyday interactions, such as the checkout flow, a login screen, or an interactive calendar. Teams usually don’t see these barriers until someone tries to complete a task with assistive technology and gets stuck. If a product hasn’t been tested for barriers, it amplifies the risk of finding out from a real user that they can’t perform an important function.

An audit gives you a clear picture of what’s working, what isn’t, and what needs attention first. At Equal Entry, every project follows the same six-step accessibility auditing process. It’s a single, straightforward approach that works for any website, app, or digital product.

What do you learn from an accessibility audit?

An accessibility audit tells you whether people with disabilities can do the tasks your product is designed to support. It shows you where they get stuck, how serious the barriers are, and what to address first. It also gives you documentation you can use to show what’s improving, meet legal requirements, and guide your effort.

An Equal Entry digital accessibility audit gives you a clear, honest picture of how well your website, app, documents, or other digital experiences work for people with disabilities and anyone who uses accessibility tools.

It makes the immediate fixes obvious and highlights what to keep in mind as you build new features. Over time, the findings help your team plan, design, and develop with accessibility in mind. They prevent accessibility from becoming something you check at the end.

Why organizations do digital accessibility audits

Unfortunately, many organizations don’t request an accessibility audit until they have a specific reason. Something in their workflow, user experience, or compliance process has stopped working the way it should.

Some teams come to us after receiving an ADA demand letter stating their technology does not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Others run into the issue during procurement, when a corporation or government agency turns down their product because they don’t have documentation that shows how it supports accessibility. Or they’ve heard directly from users with disabilities who cannot complete basic tasks like logging in, submitting a form, making a purchase, or finding the information they need.

And some organizations are not reacting to a problem at all. They know that accessibility benefits many, and they want to be confident that their digital experience works for the widest audience possible, including people who rely on assistive technology.

What makes an effective accessibility audit?

A strong audit starts with understanding your product as a whole. That means looking at the full landscape of your digital content and the ways people interact with it. Instead of testing isolated screens, the audit follows the same steps your users take. This ensures the findings reflect how your product works in practice, not just how it looks in the code.

From there, manual testing becomes the core of the work. Automated scans catch only code-level issues. Manual testing reveals the barriers that stop users from completing their tasks. These include unclear focus order, missing context, inaccessible controls, or interactions that behave differently with assistive technology. Our certified professionals evaluate your product against Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), specifically WCAG 2.1 and 2.2, while staying grounded in real‑world usability.

An Equal Entry audit gives your team results they can act on right away. The results are provided as a list of issues in a spreadsheet that can be sorted, filtered, and so on.

You can take your audit results from Equal Entry and enter them into your tracking system. We deliver accessible documentation that works wherever you need it. This could be your ticketing system, your design process, a VPAT/ACR, or an internal report. Your audit results belong to you. They stay portable, practical, and completely independent of any single vendor. That kind of openness gives your organization a real advantage.

Equally important, an audit gives you the documentation you need for legal, procurement, and internal reporting. Whether you need an ACR/VPAT or a clear summary for leadership, the audit should provide a credible record of your current state and what needs to happen next.

Finally, an effective audit sets the stage for fixing issues. It shows where barriers appear, why they matter, and how to address them. It’s not a one‑time scan or a static list. The issues list becomes the foundation for meaningful remediation and long‑term accessibility improvements.

Standards and certifications guiding the accessibility audit

While accessibility is more than a compliance exercise, a credible audit must be grounded in established standards. These standards define what accessible digital experiences must include and give organizations a shared framework for measuring progress and demonstrating compliance.

A high‑quality digital accessibility audit evaluates your product against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 or 2.2. WCAG provides the technical criteria used worldwide to assess digital accessibility. The criteria make your audit findings legally defensible, technically accurate, and aligned with global expectations.

The people performing the audit matter just as much as the standards. Our audits are led by International Association of Accessibility Professionals (IAAP)-certified accessibility professionals with deep technical expertise and lived experience using assistive technologies. Their training ensures they can interpret requirements correctly, identify barriers automated tools miss, and evaluate how those barriers affect real user journeys. This reduces the risk of incorrect findings, incomplete guidance, or recommendations that don’t hold up under scrutiny.

Using recognized standards and certified experts ensures that you devote resources to accessibility on the right issues that need to be addressed. It ensures your audit results can support procurement conversations, respond to legal inquiries, and guide long‑term accessibility planning.

Scoping an accessibility audit: Reviewing your digital content

Scoping an accessibility audit begins with understanding the full shape of your digital product. Before testing happens, we look at what you have, how much of it there is, and how people interact with it. This includes identifying the websites, mobile apps, documents, videos, kiosks, or software interfaces that make up your digital ecosystem.

Different surfaces introduce different interaction patterns. Those patterns determine what needs to be evaluated. Each application will need to have its own audit. For example, a technology often has a web application, an iPhone app, and an Android app. Each one requires its own audit.

Scoping also includes determining which assistive technologies, browsers, and operating systems will provide the strongest coverage for your audience. Screen readers, magnifiers, voice input, and keyboard navigation each reveal different types of barriers. Selecting the right combinations keeps the audit focused, efficient, and relevant to your users.

The result is a clearly defined audit scope that identifies what needs to be evaluated in depth. Depending on your product, that may be a single website, a mobile application, or a combination of both. From there, the audit focuses on high-value flows, high-traffic areas, and the technologies your customers rely on, ensuring that manual testing, issue identification, and documentation reflect how your product actually works.

Identifying common scenarios

Once we understand the scope of your project, the next step is focusing on how people use each identified product. We look at your most important features, the tasks your customers need to complete, and the places where things typically break down. From there, we identify the key goals. These might include signing in, paying a bill, booking an appointment, or submitting a form. Then, we outline the steps a typical user would take from start to finish.

Those goals become user scenarios and flows. Instead of testing pages in isolation, we define journeys such as “a new customer finds support information and submits a request” or “a returning user logs in and checks their account details.” These flows anchor the audit in real tasks, ensuring we evaluate the experience the way your customers encounter it.

This approach differs from other auditors who may ask for a list of URLs. A page-by-page review can’t show whether someone can complete what they came to do. By building the audit around actual user journeys, the findings reveal how well your product supports people in practice and where barriers interrupt those everyday tasks.

Performing a manual audit

Once the key user scenarios are defined, the audit shifts into practical evaluation. Manual testing is when accessibility issues become visible because it shows how your product behaves when someone navigates it with assistive technologies or without a mouse. Automated tools can flag patterns, but they can’t tell you whether a person can complete a task. Manual testing can.

During this phase, we move through each user journey step by step using screen readers, magnifiers, voice input, keyboard navigation, and other assistive technologies. This reveals barriers that only appear in real interactions. Many parts of a technology interface only become visible when following a specific set of steps.

The goal is to understand whether someone can complete the task or where progress breaks down and why. Because the audit is anchored in user journeys, the results reflect both technical conformance and practical usability. Auditors check each issue against WCAG 2.1 or 2.2 to ensure the findings align with recognized standards.

A manual audit provides the depth and accuracy needed to identify meaningful issues. These issues affect people trying to accomplish tasks. It’s the part of the process that turns abstract requirements into concrete, actionable insights your team can use.

Accessibility audit report: Producing a list of issues

A strong audit report makes it easy for your team to understand what’s happening, why it matters, and what to do next. We don’t hand you a static list of issues and call it done. We guide you through the findings with annotated screenshots, explain how each barrier affects users, and answer your team’s questions so you can move forward with confidence.

Each issue includes:

Unique identifier
Title and description
Steps to reproduce
Severity level
Screenshot with annotations
Practical guidance that fits into how your team already works

Findings are grouped by severity and user impact, so you’re never guessing which problems to fix first or how to sequence the work. High‑impact barriers rise to the top, and lower‑impact items remain visible without overwhelming your team.

The report also includes practical remediation guidance. Instead of vague recommendations like “improve labeling,” all of our clients get access to the Equal Entry Knowledge Base that contains specific, actionable information. If automated tools surface anything relevant, those results can appear in the report to keep everything together.

This approach gives you a report that’s accurate, accessible, and usable. It becomes the foundation for planning, prioritizing, and making meaningful accessibility improvements.

Creating an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR)

Some organizations need formal documentation to share with enterprise or government buyers. That’s the job of the Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) and Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR).

An Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) is a completed document based on the VPAT. The VPAT is a template, and the ACR is the completed document.

Equal Entry supports three different types depending on your needs:

The ACR summarizes what was tested, what was found, and how your product measures up against WCAG 2.1 or 2.2. Because the ACR is based on actual testing rather than assumptions, it gives buyers and stakeholders an accurate picture of where your product stands.

Procurement teams rely on the ACR to evaluate whether a product meets their accessibility expectations. Large corporations and government agencies often require it before they consider a purchase. When an initial audit reveals multiple issues, the ACR becomes the document that explains your starting point and shows that you consistently evaluate your product rather than ignoring accessibility altogether.

A strong ACR also helps internal teams. Legal, compliance, and security reviewers use it to understand risk. Product managers use it to plan upcoming work. Sales teams use it to respond to client questionnaires without scrambling for answers. Instead of scattered notes or inconsistent explanations, everyone works from the same authoritative source.

Our role is to complete the VPAT clearly and accurately, using the audit findings to document support levels for each WCAG criterion. This avoids common pitfalls like vague language, overstatements, or templates filled out by people who haven’t tested the product. The result is a document that stands up to scrutiny and gives stakeholders a reliable understanding of your accessibility status.

The ACR doesn’t replace the list of issues from your audit. It formalizes it, becomes part of your documentation trail, and supports the conversations that follow: procurement reviews, client questions, legal inquiries, and remediation planning.

Remediation: Fixing issues and retesting

Once the audit is complete and you have your initial ACR, the next step is deciding what to fix first. We help teams start with the issues that have the greatest impact on people with disabilities. These are the barriers that prevent someone from completing a task, accessing information, or moving through a key flow. Fixing these first makes an immediate difference for the people who use your product.

From there, we work with your team to turn the findings into a workable plan. This involves breaking the prioritized issues into clear, manageable steps that align with how your team works. Whether you use Jira, Asana, GitHub, or another system, we help translate the findings into actionable tickets so no one guesses what needs to be done or why it matters. The goal is to make remediation predictable, organized, and realistic for the time and resources you have available.

Prioritization becomes even more important when teams are stretched. Instead of handing you a long list and leaving you to sort it out, we group issues by user impact and effort so your team can make steady, high-value improvements. This keeps the work focused and prevents low‑impact fixes from pulling attention away from the barriers that matter most.

Documenting your progress

Clear prioritization makes it easier to show progress inside and outside your organization. Teams can reference the most critical issues they’ve resolved, demonstrate how user experience has improved, and share updates with leadership, partners, or customers who need visibility into your accessibility work. We work in 30‑day sprints to help your organization make consistent, measurable improvements.

After remediation, we retest the updated areas to confirm that the barriers are resolved and that no new issues have appeared. Fixing one problem can sometimes create another, so this validation step ensures the improvements hold up in actual use.

Your ACR is updated after retesting. It ensures you have an accurate record of your current state and a clear “after” picture that pairs with the original audit. This makes it easier to report on progress to leadership, procurement teams, and anyone who needs visibility into your accessibility work.

Making accessibility part of how you work

Accessibility doesn’t become sustainable through audits alone. It grows when teams understand why issues happen, how to prevent them, and how to build accessible practices into everyday work. That’s why we offer ongoing support and training. Training helps teams recognize patterns, avoid recurring issues, and make accessibility part of their regular product lifecycle instead of treating it as a one‑off project.

While an accessibility audit gives you a snapshot of the current state, its real value is in what happens next. The findings become a reference point you can build on as your product, content, and processes evolve. When teams focus on user journeys and practical fixes, the improvements ripple outward. Tasks get easier, barriers drop, and more people can complete what they came to do. These changes don’t just help people with disabilities. They improve the experience for everyone.

This is also a moment to look at where you are today and what’s getting in the way. What’s working well? Where are people getting stuck? What’s the next meaningful step your team can take in the day‑to‑day work of building and maintaining your product? Asking those questions now makes it easier to fold accessibility into your regular processes and keep it there.

Training, ongoing support, and iterative improvements turn the audit from a one‑time assessment into a long‑term capability. You can engage with Equal Entry’s accessibility training any time before, during, or after the audit to strengthen your team’s skills and reduce future issues.

When accessibility becomes part of how your team works, you reduce future issues, ship better experiences, and make your product usable by more people. The audit is the foundation for the work ahead. The ongoing work is what turns accessibility into a durable capability.

If you want support evaluating your product or need a completed VPAT by a trusted third-party, contact us and we’ll help you take the next step.

Every Jira Ticket Is Your Accessibility Policy

2026-03-04T19:00:38Z

This article is based on Charlie Triplett‘s talk at A11yNYC about the currency on which modern software gets built, which is the Jira ticket. If it’s in the Jira ticket, it gets done. If accessibility isn’t there, a remediation fire drill is.

Building accessibility into everyday product development

Charlie Triplett’s work focuses on building accessibility programs that organizations would miss if they disappeared. He approaches accessibility as a practical, team-centered discipline rather than a compliance exercise.

The first thing to understand is how modern software development works. Teams operate within agile frameworks, and their work is shaped by tools such as Jira, team agreements, and acceptance criteria. These tools already define how teams communicate, plan, and deliver. Instead of asking teams to adopt a new mindset, focus on using the tools they already rely on.

Accessibility becomes sustainable when it is embedded in these existing systems. People come to work to do their jobs, not to maintain a mindset. When accessibility is part of the definition of ready, the definition of done, and the acceptance criteria for each story, it becomes a natural part of the workflow.

It’s important to understand how teams function. When accessibility professionals avoid agile meetings or dismiss scrum as “too many meetings,” they miss the opportunity to influence the process. Teams cannot incorporate accessibility if accessibility experts do not understand how teams work.

Why accountability matters in accessibility work

While well-intentioned, “everybody is responsible for accessibility” often leads to no one being accountable. Teams are made up of people with specific roles, and each role has defined responsibilities. Product managers, designers, developers, and quality assurance (QA) specialists all contribute differently.

Expecting everyone to hold the same level of accessibility expertise is unrealistic. Instead, teams need clarity about who writes acceptance criteria, who fulfills them, and how success is measured. Product owners typically write acceptance criteria, while designers and developers fulfill them. This structure mirrors how teams already operate.

By aligning accessibility with existing responsibilities, teams can integrate it without confusion. This approach respects people’s roles and avoids overwhelming them with expectations outside their job scope.

Teams thrive when expectations are testable and unambiguous. Acceptance criteria provide that clarity. They help teams understand what success looks like for people using assistive technology or device settings such as enlarged text.

How acceptance criteria create clarity and collaboration

Acceptance criteria are short, testable statements that describe what must be true for a feature to be considered complete. They help teams understand the user’s needs and ensure that everyone is aligned on the expected outcome.

There are two common formats for this: user stories and Gherkin-style criteria. User stories describe what a person wants and why. Gherkin criteria describe what is true, what action occurs, and what outcome should follow. Both formats help teams communicate clearly.

“Now, you’re likely going to realize you’re missing some details and you’ll need to talk with your developers and designers before you can finish the stories. That Is A Good Thing! Identifying the missing parts and reducing scope before even building is exactly what Gherkin uncovers for you,” writes Nic Werner in Writing User Stories With Gherkin.

Accessibility criteria can be in user stories. For example, a shopping cart button may have visual states for default and hover, but the design may not include a focus state. When acceptance criteria require a visible focus indicator, the developer must ask the designer for guidance. This prompts collaboration without requiring an accessibility expert to intervene.

Criteria can also cover screen reader behavior, keyboard interaction, mobile screen readers, and device settings such as enlarged text. These criteria help teams think about real people and real use cases.

Over time, teams become more self-sufficient. They stop asking basic questions and begin asking more nuanced ones. This shift frees accessibility experts to focus on complex issues rather than repeating foundational guidance.

Practical steps organizations can take

Organizations can begin by integrating accessibility into the tools and processes they already use. Team agreements can include accessibility expectations in the definition of ready and the definition of done. This ensures that accessibility is considered before work begins and verified before work is completed.

Product owners can add accessibility acceptance criteria to user stories. Designers can annotate Figma files with accessibility information. Developers can implement keyboard, screen reader, and device setting behaviors as part of their normal workflow.

Teams can use resources such as the Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA) Authoring Practices Guide (APG) or tools like Charlie’s AtomicA11y website. These resources provide practical, component-level guidance that can be copied directly into Jira tickets. These resources help teams avoid reinventing the wheel and ensure consistency across projects.

By focusing on clarity, communication, and shared tools, organizations can build accessibility programs that scale across teams and products.

A sustainable path forward

This approach shows that accessibility becomes sustainable when it is woven into everyday work. Acceptance criteria help teams communicate clearly, collaborate effectively, and understand what success looks like for real people. When accessibility is part of the workflow, teams become more confident and self-sufficient.

This approach respects people’s roles, reduces ambiguity, and builds programs that last. It shifts accessibility from a specialist-driven effort to a shared, practical practice grounded in the tools teams already use.

Video highlights

Watch the presentation

Resources

Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA) Authoring Practices Guide
Atomic Accessibility
Everything You Need to Know About Acceptance Criteria
Inclusive Design for Accessibility book
The Anatomy of a User Story
The Book on Accessibility
Writing User Stories With Gherkin

Bio

Charlie Triplett is an accessibility leader with over 20 years of experience in UX design and UI engineering, now focused on building global enterprise accessibility management programs.

He invented AtomicA11y.com, wrote TheBookOnAccessibility.com, and contributed the Design Systems chapter of Inclusive Design for Accessibility: A practical guide to digital accessibility, UX, and inclusive web and app design.

FAQ

What are the acceptance criteria in accessibility?
Acceptance criteria are testable statements that describe what must be true for a feature to be complete. They help teams understand expected behavior for people using assistive technology or device settings.

Who writes accessibility acceptance criteria?
Product owners typically write acceptance criteria. Designers and developers fulfill them as part of their normal workflow.

How do acceptance criteria help teams?
Acceptance criteria reduce ambiguity, prompt collaboration, and help teams understand what success looks like for real people. They also help teams become more self-sufficient over time.

What tools can teams use to find accessibility criteria?
Teams can use the Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA) Authoring Practices Guide and AtomicA11y to find ready-made criteria for common components.

XR Accessibility: What Meta Horizon Worlds Teaches Us About Inclusive Virtual Reality Design

2026-02-17T21:46:03Z

This article is based on Thomas Logan‘s talk at A11yNYC on XR social accessibility in practice, based on lessons from Meta Horizon Worlds.

The evolving landscape of accessibility in virtual reality

Virtual reality has matured rapidly over the past decade, shifting from experimental novelty to a mainstream platform for socializing, learning, and collaboration. As more people enter these environments, accessibility becomes a foundational requirement rather than an optional enhancement.

Thomas traces this evolution through the lens of Meta Horizon Worlds and the Meta Quest 3, drawing on years of hands-on experience with eXtended reality (XR) accessibility. What emerges is a clear picture of both progress and persistent gaps.

His early work in virtual reality (VR) began during the COVID-19 pandemic, when virtual meetups became a lifeline for community connection. Those gatherings revealed the strengths of VR, such as global participation, shared presence, and immersive interaction. But they also exposed barriers that excluded many users.

The shift from flat screens to embodied interfaces introduced new physical demands, new safety concerns, and new assumptions about mobility and dexterity.

These insights shaped the presentation’s central question: How do we ensure that VR evolves to include everyone?

VR case study: Meta Horizon Worlds

Meta Horizon Worlds provides a useful case study because it spans multiple devices, including the headset, mobile, and web. Supporting such varied input methods forces developers to think beyond the default assumptions of VR.

It also highlights the tension between platform-level accessibility options and the custom work required from individual developers. The result is a landscape where some accessibility options are built in, others are optional, and many depend on the priorities of the people creating the experience.

Thomas emphasizes that accessibility in VR is not simply a technical challenge. It is a design philosophy grounded in autonomy, dignity, and safety. When accessibility is built into the platform, more people can participate without needing workarounds.

When it is left to developers, it often becomes a “nice to have” that never reaches implementation. Understanding this dynamic is essential for anyone building or evaluating XR experiences today.

How VR reshapes interaction and introduces new barriers

Unlike traditional digital interfaces, VR relies heavily on physical movement. The headset itself becomes an input device, requiring users to turn their heads to navigate menus or interact with objects. For people with limited neck mobility, this can be a significant barrier.

This seemingly simple design choice, treating head movement as a primary control, creates a new category of accessibility considerations that did not exist in mobile or web environments. Hand controllers introduce another layer of complexity. The Meta Quest controllers assume two functional hands with full dexterity, including thumb, index, and middle-finger movements. Many VR experiences rely on gestures that require grip strength or precise finger placement.

While the Quest supports alternative inputs such as Bluetooth keyboards, mice, and gamepads, these options only help if developers intentionally support them. In practice, many experiences still rely on two-handed controllers as the default, leaving users with limited mobility or limb differences without a viable way to participate.

Physical reach is another challenge. Early VR experiences encouraged users to walk around the room, bend down to pick up objects, or reach overhead. This created safety risks and excluded people who cannot perform those movements.

Over time, user feedback and real-world mishaps, such as people running into televisions or knocking over furniture, pushed developers toward seated-mode design. By 2026, most VR experiences include seated options, reflecting both accessibility needs and general user preference for safer, more predictable interactions.

Physical accessibility standards, such as the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) reach ranges, can be applied directly to virtual environments. Because VR worlds are built using real-world measurements, designers can use established guidelines to determine how high or low interactive elements should be placed.

This connection between physical and digital accessibility is unique to VR and offers a powerful framework for inclusive design. When developers follow these principles, they reduce the need for users to bend, stretch, or strain to interact with virtual objects.

Accessibility in Meta Horizon Worlds: Progress and limitations

Meta Horizon Worlds makes meaningful progress in terms of accessibility. One example is the “near mode” interface. This allows users to pull menus closer to their faces. It works like a built-in zoom feature and supports people with low vision.

The platform also includes haptic feedback, spatial audio, and voice input, offering multiple ways to interact with the environment. These multimodal options can significantly improve usability, especially for people who cannot rely on hand controllers alone.

Another important improvement is the ability to access accessibility settings during device setup. Users can triple-press the Meta button (Oculus button on some controllers) to open these options before the headset is fully configured. This addresses a long-standing gap in many technologies: Accessibility support that becomes available after setup is complete. Providing access from the start supports users who need accommodations immediately, not after navigating an inaccessible onboarding process.

Color correction and contrast adjustments are available in the operating system. While these help, they can’t fully compensate for inaccessible app design. If an experience relies solely on color to convey meaning, no system-level filter can fix that. This underscores the need for developers to follow inclusive design practices rather than relying on platform features to solve everything.

Screen reader support is one of the most significant additions to the Quest ecosystem. Meta introduced an experimental screen reader that uses flick gestures on the controllers to navigate menus. While promising, the feature is still early and has known issues. Some users have reported situations where turning on the screen reader disables both controllers and hand tracking, leaving them unable to turn it off. A more reliable solution would be to provide voice commands, such as “turn screen reader on” or “turn screen reader off.”

Captioning is another area where Horizon Worlds shows both progress and limitations. Automatic captions are available and include speaker labels, which are essential for understanding who is talking.

However, captions cannot be moved, resized, or replaced with human-generated captions. This is a significant limitation for events that rely on professional captioners, such as the Accessibility NYC Meetup. Without a way to integrate high-quality captions, users must rely on automatic speech recognition, which may not meet accuracy needs.

Representation, communication, and the social dimension of accessibility

Representation plays a crucial role in how people experience virtual spaces. Horizon Worlds includes cochlear implant options for avatars, which is a meaningful step toward inclusive representation. However, many other forms of representation, such as wheelchairs, white canes, guide dogs, limb differences, or mobility devices, are not yet supported. Avatars should reflect the diversity of real people, not just idealized bodies.

Communication tools also shape accessibility. The “Speak Live” feature allows users to select preset or custom phrases that are spoken aloud through a synthesized voice. This supports people who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). Users can add frequently used phrases, mirroring how AAC devices are personalized in real life. This is only available in the headset, not on mobile or web. Nonetheless, it’s a meaningful step toward supporting non-verbal communication in social VR environments.

Caption placement in social settings is important. Captions that appear too far away, too close, or directly over interactive elements can disrupt the experience. Meta’s documentation recommends placing captions about one meter from the user and allowing repositioning, but developers must implement this. Without a standardized captioning system, quality varies widely across experiences.

Social VR also raises questions about identity and autonomy. Some users prefer anonymity or experimentation with their avatar’s appearance, while others want their virtual representation to match their real-world identity. Social VR must support both. For example, a user who uses a wheelchair in real life may want their avatar to reflect that, while another user may prefer not to disclose their disability. Inclusive design means offering options without assumptions.

What can organizations and developers do now?

Organizations building VR experiences have an opportunity to shape the future of accessibility. One of the most effective strategies is designing for multiple devices. Because Horizon Worlds runs on headsets, mobile phones, and the web, developers must assume that users may not have controllers or full mobility. This naturally encourages more accessible patterns and reduces reliance on physical gestures.

Another key principle is building accessibility into defaults. When accessibility is automatic, it benefits everyone and reduces the burden on developers. Conversely, when accessibility requires custom work, it often becomes a low-priority task that never gets completed. Platform-level support is essential for consistent, reliable accessibility.

Testing with disabled users is also critical. Real-world testing reveals barriers that guidelines alone cannot predict. This is especially true in VR, where physical comfort, motion tolerance, and safety vary widely. Organizations should involve users with diverse disabilities early and often throughout the process. This ensures that accessibility is part of the design process rather than an afterthought.

Finally, developers should prioritize multimodal input and communication. Captions, voice input, haptics, and spatial audio should be treated as core options. These tools support a wide range of users and create more flexible, resilient experiences. As VR continues to evolve, the most successful platforms will be those that embrace accessibility as a fundamental design principle.

Looking ahead

Virtual reality is at a pivotal moment. Platforms like Meta Horizon Worlds show meaningful progress in accessibility, from multimodal input to seated-mode design and early screen reader support. At the same time, many options still depend on developers choosing to implement them, leading to inconsistent experiences.

The path forward is clear: Accessibility must be built into the platform, not bolted on. When VR environments respect autonomy, safety, and representation, they become places where more people can participate fully and confidently. The future of XR depends on making these environments immersive and inclusive.

Video highlights

Watch the presentation

Resources

Bio

Thomas Logan has spent over twenty years helping organizations design and implement technology solutions that are accessible to people with disabilities. Throughout his career, he has led projects for federal, state, and local government agencies, as well as private sector organizations ranging from startups to Fortune 500 companies.

He is the founder and owner of Equal Entry, whose mission is to contribute to a more accessible world. Equal Entry advances this mission by providing training, education, and accessibility audits across websites, desktop and mobile applications, games, and virtual reality. The company partners with organizations that build digital technologies to ensure accessibility is embedded from the start.

FAQ

What is XR accessibility?

XR accessibility refers to making virtual, augmented, and mixed reality experiences usable by people with disabilities. It includes visual, auditory, mobility, cognitive, and sensory considerations.

Does Meta Horizon Worlds have captions?

Yes. Horizon Worlds includes automatic captions with speaker labels, though they cannot currently be moved, resized, or replaced with human-generated captions.

Is there a screen reader for the Meta Quest?

Meta introduced an experimental screen reader that uses controller gestures to navigate menus. It is still early and has known usability issues.

Can VR be used while seated?

Yes. Most modern VR experiences, including Horizon Worlds, support seated-mode design to improve safety and accessibility.

How do people with limited mobility interact with VR objects?

Meta includes extended grab distance, allowing users to pull objects toward themselves without bending or reaching. Developers can also support voice input, haptics, and alternative controllers.

Can avatars represent disabilities in Horizon Worlds?

Only limited options exist today, such as cochlear implants. Mobility devices, limb differences, and assistive tools are not yet supported.

Beyond Manual Audits: How Automation Strengthens Accessibility

2026-01-14T20:30:19Z

Accessibility breaks most often in the quiet moments: After a plugin update, after a new comment, after a well‑intentioned content edit that introduces something no one notices. It’s essential to make accessibility part of ensuring a website’s quality. Hence, a site monitoring tool should be one of the tools in a company’s website toolbox.

Website teams rely on automated monitoring tools every day to track broken links, SEO performance, and content quality. Accessibility belongs in the same category as critical site‑quality checks. While manual audits remain the primary solution for identifying complex barriers, automated monitoring plays a key role in detecting issues that appear between those deeper reviews.

At Equal Entry, our standard consulting process recommends comprehensive manual audits twice a year. That level of rigor matters especially because websites are living systems. New content, content management system (CMS) upgrades, plugin updates, and user‑generated comments can introduce accessibility issues at any time, even on sites with mature accessibility practices.

We hold ourselves to the same expectations we set for clients. Our six‑step accessibility auditing process is thorough. The remediation of issues identified in the audit means the site has addressed critical accessibility issues. However, organizations need a way to continuously check the site to account for the new content being added through dynamic site updates.

That’s where automation strengthens the process. To bridge the gap between manual audits, we use DubBot to monitor our site continuously. When paired with expert manual reviews, they help ensure accessibility remains a core part of overall site quality.

DubBot spots a problem

One day, DubBot surfaced an issue we wouldn’t have caught through manual reviews alone. A reader left a perfectly standard comment: “Thank you, you wrote a great article.” Sighted users saw only that sentence. But behind the scenes, the comment included an empty link.

DubBot flagged it because the link had no accessible name. A screen reader would announce it simply as “link,” offering no context and no purpose. That’s confusing for users and a clear accessibility failure.

Here’s what appeared on the page.

Thank you, you wrote a great article.

What the HTML showed.

Thank you, you wrote a great article.

<a href=“https://spam-website..com/” rel=“nofollow ugc”></a>

WCAG failures

This single comment caused the page to fail two WCAG 2.2 success criteria:

2.4.4: Link purpose (in context)
4.1.2: Name, role, value

WCAG 2.4.4 Link purpose (In context)

WCAG SC 2.4.4 requires that every link include descriptive text so users understand where it leads. An empty link is like a door with no sign. You can see the door but you have no idea what’s on the other side.

On a website, that uncertainty becomes a barrier. Users relying on assistive technologies need clear, descriptive link text to navigate confidently.

WCAG 4.1.2 Name, role, value

WCAG 4.1.2 requires that every user interface component contain a programmatically determinable:

Name: What the element is called (its label).
Role: What type of element it is (link, button, checkbox).
Value: Its current state (on/off, checked/unchecked).

A simple way to think about this is a remote control:

The button labeled “Play” is the name.
Starting the video is the role.
Whether the video is currently playing or paused is the value.

Interactive elements on a website, like links and buttons, need the same clarity. An empty link is like a mystery button with no label. You can press it, but you have no idea what it does. Without a name or purpose (role), assistive technologies can’t communicate it to users. This creates an inaccessible experience.

Why these accessibility guidelines matter

When a link has no accessible name, assistive technology users hear only “blank” or “link with no context.” Keyboard users may tab to something that appears invisible. And vague link text like “click here” doesn’t help anyone. No one knows where it leads.

It’s the digital equivalent of walking through a hallway and finding a door labeled “open me.” You might end up in a library, a gym, or the wrong meeting room entirely. Clear labels, such as “library,” “gym,” “meeting room,” give people the information they need before they take action. Links work the same way.

The role of automation in accessibility

Automated tools like DubBot don’t replace manual audits, but they play a critical role in continuous monitoring. Websites change constantly, and automation helps surface hidden issues the moment they appear, keeping sites more resilient between scheduled reviews. When used thoughtfully, automation becomes an essential part of a mature accessibility strategy.

Automated tools aren’t perfect, as you can learn from our comparison of automated testing tools for digital accessibility. While they can miss issues or flag false positives, they provide an additional layer of protection.

Accessibility isn’t about checking boxes. It’s about ensuring every user can navigate with confidence. Empty links, vague labels, and unnoticed errors erode that experience. By pairing expert manual audits with automated monitoring, organizations can stay ahead of problems and maintain a consistently usable site for everyone.

“Some of our most successful customers start with a manual accessibility audit, then use DubBot to continuously monitor their sites to help stay in compliance,” says Blaine Herman, Founder of DubBot.

Why people, processes, and technology all matter

Automation can surface problems, but detection alone doesn’t improve accessibility. Many monitoring tools stop at scanning and reporting, leaving teams with a growing list of issues and no clear path to resolution. A mature accessibility practice needs more than alerts. It needs a system that connects the right people to the right problems at the right time.

That’s where DubBot’s workflow design stands out. Instead of generating static reports, DubBot makes it possible to assign each issue to a specific person who can investigate, verify, and close it. That accountability loop turns automated findings into actionable work. It ensures that problems don’t linger in dashboards or spreadsheets. They move through a process until they’re resolved.

This combination of people, processes, and technology is what keeps accessibility sustainable. Automation catches the unexpected. Processes ensure issues are tracked and managed. People bring the judgment and expertise to fix what the tools uncover. Together, they create a system that doesn’t just identify accessibility barriers. It removes them.

The takeaway: Accessibility is ongoing. Every link needs a clear purpose. Every button needs a clear role. Every user deserves a clear path forward.

What sustained accessibility really requires

Accessibility breaks most often in the quiet moments: After a plugin update, after a new comment, after a well‑intentioned content edit that introduces something no one notices. That’s why mature teams don’t treat accessibility as a project milestone. They treat it as part of site quality, the same way they treat uptime, SEO health, and security patches. The work doesn’t stop because the web doesn’t stop changing.

Manual audits provide the depth: The human judgment, the context, the nuance that automation can’t replicate. But automation provides the vigilance. It surfaces the issues that appear between audits, the ones introduced by everyday activity, the ones no one would think to look for. When those two approaches work together, organizations aren’t just “checking for compliance.” They’re proactively protecting the user experience.

The real goal is stability. Every link should communicate its purpose. Every interactive element should expose its role. And every user should be able to move through a site without guessing what will happen next. That level of clarity doesn’t come from a single audit or a single tool. It comes from a system of processes, people, and technology. They’re designed to catch issues early, fix them quickly, and keep the site trustworthy over time.

Do you need an accessibility audit and a VPAT / ACR?

Is it time to update your VPAT / ACR and WCAG conformance statements? We can help. We do accessibility audits and VPAT reviews. If you’re not sure about these or want more info, contact us.

From Reactive to Proactive: Building a Sustainable Accessibility Program

2025-12-02T20:14:31Z

This article is based on Lina Trifon‘s talk at A11yNYC on how to build a sustainable accessibility program using dual-track strategies and the W3C maturity model.

Understanding the challenge

Accessibility programs often begin with good intentions but quickly run into barriers. Lina named the most common ones:

Overwhelming technical debt.
Limited resources.
Competing priorities.
Lack of buy-in.

These challenges are familiar to anyone who’s tried to push for accessibility in a product-driven environment.

She emphasized that buy-in isn’t just a leadership issue. Resistance can come from any level of an organization, especially when accessibility is seen as extra work rather than an essential quality. That’s why it’s important to start with clarity by understanding where your organization stands before deciding how to move forward.

To do this, Lina recommends using the W3C Accessibility Maturity Model. It’s a framework that helps teams assess their current state and set realistic goals. The model includes four levels:

Inactive
Launch
Integrate
Optimize

Using the W3C maturity model

Most organizations Lina works with are in the “launch” phase. That means they’ve started thinking about accessibility but haven’t yet embedded it into their workflows. Her goal is to help them reach the “integrate” phase, where accessibility becomes part of everyday practice.

The W3C model includes seven criteria, but Lina focuses first on two: the software development lifecycle and knowledge/skill building. These areas offer the most leverage for product teams and are often the easiest to influence early on.

She referenced a resource from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, which includes a self-assessment rubric and dynamic recommendations for each maturity level.

The dual-track strategy: reactive and proactive

To move from launch to integrate, Lina uses a dual-track strategy. The reactive track addresses legacy issues. The proactive track embeds accessibility into future work. Both are necessary for long-term success.

Reactive work often starts with an audit. Lina prefers external, manual audits. This is especially true in regulated industries like education and healthcare because they carry more weight with stakeholders. Manual testing catches more issues and reflects real user experience.

Once issues are identified, prioritization is key. Lina recommends considering frequency of use, severity of impact, and whether a feature is about to be rebuilt. This helps teams avoid wasting effort on soon-to-be-retired components.

Remediation and component libraries

When it’s time to fix issues, batching them by component or user flow is more efficient than tackling them one by one. Lina also recommends leveraging component libraries, which are collections of reusable UI elements like buttons and forms. Fixing a component once can improve accessibility across the entire product.

However, she cautions that component libraries aren’t magic. Teams still need to verify implementation and ensure updates are applied consistently. In organizations without a design system, Lina has created shared decision logs to document accessibility choices and guide future work.

Documentation is critical. It helps teams avoid repeating mistakes and ensures that accessibility decisions are visible across roles.

Shifting left with proactive strategies

Reactive work is necessary, but it’s not enough. Without proactive strategies, teams will keep generating new accessibility debt. That’s why Lina focuses on shifting left. This means embedding accessibility into the earliest stages of product development.

Training is the first step. Lina recommends both general and role-specific training and stresses that learning should be ongoing. One-time workshops alone don’t cut it. People need to practice accessibility to retain it.

Next, she suggests creating role-based guidelines and checklists. These reduce friction and make accessibility easier to implement. Checklists aren’t perfect, but they help teams build habits and clarify expectations.

Making accessibility part of the process

The final step is process integration. Accessibility should be required, not optional. Lina recommends adding checkpoints to design reviews, code reviews, and QA testing. She also encourages design annotations that clearly communicate accessibility requirements.

To sustain progress, accessibility must be part of performance reviews, KPIs, and job descriptions. Treat it like security. In other words, non-negotiable and essential to quality. This helps shift the mindset from “extra work” to “core responsibility.”

These strategies worked at Lina’s previous company. Accessibility became normalized, and the dedicated accessibility team was eventually disbanded. That’s because the work was fully embedded.

Building buy-in and community

Getting buy-in is often the hardest part. One of the most effective tips is showing short video clips of users with disabilities interacting with your product. Real feedback builds empathy and helps stakeholders understand the impact.

Legal risk can also motivate change, especially in regulated industries. But it’s not a sustainable motivator. Shame and fear may spark action, but long-term success comes from pride, ownership, and inclusion.

The A11yNYC event itself modeled best practices. It included live captioning, ASL interpretation, accessible seating, and gender-neutral restrooms. The community emphasized iteration, feedback, and shared learning.

Embedding accessibility for the long haul

Building a sustainable accessibility program takes more than audits and checklists. It requires cultural change, practical tools, and human-centered design. Lina Trifon’s approach offers a clear path forward: assess honestly, act strategically, and embed accessibility into every layer of the organization. The A11yNYC community continues to lead by example, showing that accessibility is possible and essential.

What organizations can do next

Use the W3C Accessibility Maturity Model to assess your current state.
Start small within your role to raise awareness and ask questions.
Prioritize manual testing and real user feedback.
Build accessibility into KPIs, job descriptions, and performance reviews.
Document decisions and share knowledge across teams.
Treat accessibility as a core quality metric, not a compliance checkbox.

Video highlights

Watch the presentation

Bio

Lina Trifon (she/they) is the Senior Product Manager of Accessibility at Ellevation Education. Lina is passionate about creating inclusive and equitable experiences for all users. In her role, Lina develops and executes an accessibility strategy that builds a proactive, inclusive culture across the organization.

Lina’s work ranges from conducting audits and prioritizing what needs to be fixed to training teams and building new workflows that make accessibility a natural part of how the research and development team operates.

Resources

Frequently asked questions about sustainable accessibility programs

What is the W3C Accessibility Maturity Model?

The W3C Accessibility Maturity Model is a framework that helps organizations assess and improve their accessibility practices. It defines four levels of maturity:

Inactive: No accessibility awareness or program in place.
Launch: Initial efforts exist but are disorganized.
Integrate: Accessibility is embedded into workflows and processes.
Optimize: Accessibility is fully normalized and part of the company culture.

Organizations can use this model to identify gaps, set realistic goals, and track progress across seven key criteria, including development lifecycle, procurement, and skill building.

What does a dual-track accessibility strategy mean?

A dual-track accessibility strategy combines two approaches:

Reactive track: Fixes existing accessibility issues, often uncovered through audits.
Proactive track: Embeds accessibility into future workflows to prevent new issues.

This strategy helps organizations address legacy barriers while building sustainable, inclusive practices. It’s especially useful for teams starting at the “launch” phase of the maturity model.

Why is manual accessibility testing important?

Manual testing is essential because automated tools only detect a small percentage of accessibility issues, typically around 20 to 30%. Manual testing involves real people using assistive technologies like screen readers or keyboard navigation to identify barriers that automated scans miss.

Manual audits are especially valuable in regulated industries like healthcare, education, and finance, where credibility and thoroughness matter. They also provide richer insights into user experience and usability.

How can organizations prioritize accessibility issues after an audit?

Lina recommends prioritizing based on three factors:

Frequency of use: Focus on high-traffic pages or features.
Severity of impact: Address blockers that prevent task completion.
Product roadmap: Avoid fixing features that are being retired or rebuilt.

This approach helps teams avoid overwhelm and focus on changes that deliver the most impact for users.

What are component libraries and why do they matter for accessibility?

Component libraries are collections of reusable UI elements–like buttons, forms, and icons–that developers use to build digital products. Fixing accessibility in a component library can improve multiple areas of a product at once.

However, updating the library isn’t enough. Teams must also verify that components are implemented correctly across the product. Lina recommends early remediation of shared components to maximize efficiency and reduce future debt.

How can accessibility be embedded into product development workflows?

Embedding accessibility means making it part of every stage of development. Lina suggests:

Adding accessibility checkpoints to design reviews, code reviews, and QA testing.
Using design annotations to communicate accessibility requirements.
Creating role-specific checklists and best practices.
Including accessibility in KPIs, job descriptions, and performance reviews.

This shift helps normalize accessibility and ensures it’s treated as a core quality metric.

What’s the best way to get stakeholder buy-in for accessibility?

One of the most effective strategies is showing real user feedback. Recording short clips of users with disabilities interacting with your product can build empathy and highlight barriers in a tangible way.

Legal risk is another motivator, especially in industries with compliance requirements. However, long-term buy-in comes from aligning accessibility with business goals, customer experience, and team pride.

Can accessibility programs ever stop doing reactive work?

Yes, but only when proactive practices are fully embedded. Lina shared that at a previous company, her team completed most reactive work and normalized accessibility across workflows. As a result, the dedicated accessibility team was disbanded. Not because the work ended, but because it became everyone’s responsibility.

This outcome is bittersweet. It reflects success, but also requires ongoing vigilance to ensure accessibility remains a priority.

Beyond the Page: How an Inclusive Library Model Is Redefining Accessible Literacy

2025-11-04T15:09:53Z

This article is based on Chancey Fleet and Shane Smith‘s “Literacy Beyond Print: Accessible Reading, Tech and Graphics at the New York Public Library” talk at A11yNYC.They explain the purpose of the Andrew Heiskell Braille and Talking Book Library, who it serves, and how tech and tactile graphics expand literacy beyond print for blind, low-vision, and print-disabled readers.

Most people never think twice about reading. You pick up a book, scroll a screen, scan a label, and move on. But for millions of Americans, those simple acts are blocked by barriers that have nothing to do with interest or intellect. They’re blocked by print.

The Andrew Heiskell Braille and Talking Book Library removes those barriers and reimagines what literacy looks like when access is the starting point, not the afterthought.

This isn’t a story about accommodations. It’s about infrastructure. From tactile maps and talking book players to long-term loan Braille e-readers and personalized tech coaching, Heiskell’s model centers dignity, autonomy, and joy. It’s a blueprint for inclusive design that works for every institution trying to serve with respect.

When print becomes a barrier

Reading is often treated as a universal skill as something everyone can do, given time, interest, or education. But that assumption erases a critical reality: Millions can’t access printed text at all because the format is inaccessible. This is known as a print disability.

A print disability isn’t a diagnosis. It’s a functional barrier. It means someone can’t read standard print due to blindness, low vision, mobility disabilities that make it hard to hold or turn pages, or cognitive and learning disabilities that affect how text is processed. These barriers show up in everyday moments: Trying to read a prescription label, follow a recipe, fill out a form, or enjoy a book. And they’re often invisible to those who don’t face them.

The consequences are far-reaching. When reading is inaccessible, so is education, employment, civic participation, and leisure. That’s why literacy must be understood as infrastructure and a public right. And that’s where the Andrew Heiskell Braille and Talking Book Library comes in.

In addition to offering books in alternative formats, Heiskell reimagines the entire reading experience. This includes everything from tactile design and digital access to personalized support and community programming. It’s a case study in what happens when access is the foundation.

A library engineered for access and equity

While The Andrew Heiskell Braille and Talking Book Library is a branch of the New York Public Library, it’s also a designated regional library for the National Library Service for the Blind and Print Disabled (NLS). NLS is a Library of Congress program.

That dual identity gives it a rare kind of reach. It serves local patrons while also supporting readers across all five boroughs and Long Island through its NLS designation.

Although the five boroughs are in NYC, not all are served by NYPL. Heiskell bridges that gap by functioning as both a local and regional provider. That’s what makes it unique. It’s not just a neighborhood library, it’s a regional hub for accessible literacy.

It provides free access to talking books, Braille materials, digital downloads, and assistive technology for anyone who can’t use standard print. That includes people who are blind, low vision, mobility disabled, or who have reading disabilities that affect how they process text. And it’s not limited to individuals. Schools, senior centers, service agencies, and other institutions can register to support their communities directly.

What makes Heiskell stand out is how it delivers. Materials are mailed postage-free, devices are loaned long-term, and digital access is barrier-free. Patrons can personalize their preferences, download books instantly, and receive tech coaching without gatekeeping. It’s a model built on dignity, not bureaucracy.

And it’s scalable. Every state has at least one NLS-designated library. But Heiskell’s approach, blending tactile creation, community programming, and personalized support, offers a blueprint for what inclusive public services looks like when they’re designed with users at the center. The library is an infrastructure for equity.

Tools that redefine how we read

At the Andrew Heiskell Library, access is tactile, audible, and personal. Patrons receive free talking book players that are designed for ease of use: with large tactile buttons, built-in speakers, and no internet required. Books arrive by mail on cartridges, and users can listen at their own pace, with no due dates and no penalties.

For Braille readers, the library offers long-term loan Braille e-readers based on a major shift made possible by a change in federal law. These devices allow patrons to download books directly from Braille and Audio Reading Download (BARD) and read them on refreshable Braille displays to provide patrons with autonomy. They choose what to read, when they read it, and how they read it.

Patrons can also set genre preferences and receive automatic shipments of new titles, removing friction from the reading experience. Whether it’s tactile, digital, or audio, the tools are built around the reader instead of the system.

Digital access without the digital divide

Patrons at the Heiskell Library can download thousands of titles through BARD, the Braille and Audio Reading Download service from the Library of Congress. It works on mobile devices and computers. Use can choose their own books, download them instantly, and read at their own pace. There are no due dates and no limits.

Staff walk patrons through the setup process, help them install the app, and make sure they’re ready to use it independently. For those who prefer desktop access, BARD Online offers the same collection through a web browser.

Heiskell also connects users to Bookshare and NFB Newsline. These platforms provide access to newspapers, magazines, and academic texts in formats compatible with screen readers and Braille displays. All services are free to eligible users and designed to meet a range of reading needs. Every tool is chosen for usability. Every step is supported.

Coaching, creation, and community

At Heiskell, support starts with conversation. Staff offer one-on-one tech coaching to help patrons navigate BARD, Bookshare, screen readers, and mobile apps. The goal is practical independence by getting readers to the point where they can choose, download, and enjoy content without barriers.

The Dimensions Lab expands that mission into tactile creation. Its purpose is to give people a place for tactile creation for accessibility, such as tactile graphics, raised line drawings, and 3D prints.

Patrons collaborate with staff to produce custom tactile graphics, maps, and educational tools. These aren’t off-the-shelf solutions. They’re built to meet specific needs, from classroom diagrams to museum layouts. Blind makers and designers also use the space to prototype their own projects, with support from staff.

Workshops and meetups bring people together across disability and design communities. Whether it’s building a tactile voting guide or exploring 3D printing, the focus is on shared problem-solving. The library is a place where people build tools, skills, and relationships that last.

What you can do

Talk to readers using audiobooks or large print, teachers, and groups about the library services for people with print disabilities. If you work in education, healthcare, tech, or public service, you already serve people with print disabilities. The question isn’t whether they’re in your audience. It’s whether your systems let them in.

Audit your materials. Are your forms, flyers, and digital content accessible to someone who can’t see, hold, or process standard print? If not, you’re creating barriers. These can be fixed with the right tools and mindset.

Refer eligible individuals and institutions to the Andrew Heiskell Library. Help them apply for free access to talking books, Braille materials, and tech coaching. Consider having a talking book player at your institution.

If they live outside NYC or Long Island, connect them to their state’s NLS regional library. NYPL’s virtual programs are open to anyone joining from anywhere virtually. Out of town visitors are welcome to stop by.

Support the model. Volunteer, donate, or advocate for tactile creation labs, long-term device loans, and friction-free digital access.

Video highlights

Watch the presentation

Bio

Chancey Fleet is the Assistive Technology Coordinator, and Shane Smith is the Managing Librarian, at NYPL’S Andrew Heiskell Braille and Talking Book branch.

Resources

Frequently asked questions

What is a print disability?

A print disability is any condition that prevents someone from reading standard printed text. This includes blindness, low vision, and mobility disabilities that make it hard to hold or turn pages, and some cognitive or learning disabilities.

Who qualifies for services at the Andrew Heiskell Braille and Talking Book Library?

Anyone who is a New York City or Long Island resident with a print disability, whether due to vision, physical mobility, or reading challenges, can apply. Institutions like schools, senior centers, and service agencies can also register to support their communities.

What kinds of materials are available?

The library offers talking books, printed Braille, digital Braille, and access to over 160,000 audio titles. Materials can be mailed or downloaded, and patrons can personalize their preferences for genre, format, and delivery.

How do I apply or refer someone?

Individuals and institutions can apply online at talkingbooks.nypl.org. Certification can be provided by a wide range of professionals, including doctors, educators, social workers, and librarians.

What is BARD and how does it work?

Braille and Audio Reading Download (BARD) is a free app and web platform that gives eligible patrons access to the library’s digital collection. Users can download books to mobile devices or specialized players, with no due dates or limits.

What is NLS?

NLS stands for the National Library Service for the Blind and Print Disabled, a division of the Library of Congress. It runs a free national library program that provides Braille and audio materials to people who can’t read standard print due to visual, physical, or reading disabilities.

Here’s what makes NLS valuable.

It partners with a network of regional libraries across all 50 states, including the Andrew Heiskell Library in NYC.
Materials are mailed postage-free under the United States Post Office (USPS) “Free Matter for the Blind or Handicapped” designation. (This is the official term.)
Materials are mailed postage-free under the federal designation “Free Matter for the Blind or Handicapped,” a term used by USPS, though many organizations now prefer more inclusive language like print disabilities.
Patrons can also download books instantly using the BARD mobile app or web platform.
All content is exempt from copyright restrictions, so users can keep books as long as they want.

It’s not just a library. It’s a national infrastructure for accessible literacy.

Can I volunteer or support the library?

Yes. Volunteers help record audiobooks, assist with tech coaching, and support events. Tech professionals, educators, and accessibility advocates are especially encouraged to get involved.

Got Data, Now What? Storytelling Through Accessible Design

2025-10-21T18:19:34Z

This article is based on Dr. Angela Young‘s talk at A11yNYC, which explored how accessibility transforms data from a static report into a shared story that drives understanding and action.

Organizations collect more data than ever before. Yet many teams struggle to turn those numbers into insights everyone can use. Angela tackled one of the most persistent challenges in digital communication: How to make data meaningful, inclusive, and equitable.

Their approach was practical and grounded in lived experience. They didn’t dwell on theory or compliance checklists. Instead, they focused on real-world friction. How inaccessible design decisions, often made with good intentions, quietly reinforce exclusion. The message was clear: If your data isn’t accessible, it isn’t complete.

The hidden cost of inaccessible dashboards

Data visualization can make or break understanding. Charts, dashboards, and infographics are supposed to simplify complexity. But when designed without accessibility, they obscure meaning and exclude people. Angela described this as a silent problem. When only a few can interpret the data, decision-making turns into an exclusionary exercise.

Too often, teams prioritize aesthetics without realizing that those choices can become barriers. Aesthetics include vibrant colors, sleek visuals, and interactive filters. Flattened images of charts, hover-only filters, and color-coded categories without labels might look polished, but they silently tell some users: This data isn’t for you.

Angela shared a vivid example. In one project, a data dashboard was created as a single static image. It seemed harmless until a colleague with low vision couldn’t access it. Suddenly, an entire perspective was missing from the conversation. The solution was simple education and redesign, but the takeaway was deeper. Accessibility isn’t a technical fix. It’s a structural responsibility.

When data isn’t accessible, then you’re leaving the decision-making to only a portion of the available audience. This isn’t equity.

They also highlighted cognitive overload as another common pitfall. Dashboards overflowing with charts and metrics can overwhelm users, especially those with cognitive or learning disabilities. Cluttered layouts, unlabeled filters, and poor navigation increase cognitive effort and fatigue.

Designing for access from the start

Angela urged teams to rethink how they approach accessibility. It shouldn’t be bolted on after launch. It should be integrated from the first sketch. “Accessibility isn’t perfection. It’s vigilance,” they said. “It’s the ongoing habit of checking assumptions.”

They shared several principles for designing accessible data experiences from the beginning:

Use sufficient color contrast. Follow WCAG standards, maintaining at least a 4.5:1 ratio for text and visuals.
Label everything clearly. Descriptive axis titles and legends are essential; avoid placeholders like “Series 1.”
Don’t rely on color alone. Reinforce meaning with patterns, textures, or direct labels.
Keep text legible. Sans-serif fonts in 12–14 points work well, and all caps should be avoided for readability.
Make interactions accessible. Filters and dashboards should be keyboard navigable and screen reader compatible.
Write meaningful alt text. Describe insights, not just shapes or colors.

In practice, this means designing for comprehension, not just presentation. Accessibility is design that anticipates difference rather than reacting to it. Each of these ensures that data is usable by more people and that no single group holds the keys to understanding. Accessibility transforms data from something presented to something shared.

Simplifying for meaning

Complexity doesn’t automatically create clarity. Angela urged teams to resist the temptation to display every data point. Overloaded dashboards filled with decimals, percentages, and long tables make it harder for users to find the story behind the numbers.

They recommended focusing on the trends that matter most. Summaries and key callouts help people understand the message quickly. A brief statement like “Revenue grew 17% last quarter” is often more effective than a page of raw figures. The goal is to guide readers toward insights, not overwhelm them with details.

Whitespace supports this clarity. Many designers treat empty space as wasted real estate, but it functions as a visual breathing room that helps users separate ideas and process information. Accessible dashboards aren’t about flash. They’re about comprehension.

Writing alt text that tells the story

Angela emphasized that alt text should communicate meaning, not just describe visuals. Too often, alt text for charts lists colors and shapes without explaining what they show. Instead, the description should summarize the takeaway of the visualization.

A good example would be writing, “Bar chart comparing monthly sales for Product A and Product B, showing a 20% increase for Product A in August.” This phrasing conveys the story within the data rather than its structure.

Treating alt text as part of the design process has another advantage: it forces teams to clarify what they want each chart to say. If a visualization can’t be described in one or two sentences, it may not be telling a coherent story. Alt text, then, becomes an accessibility tool and a storytelling discipline.

Building structure and layout for understanding

Accessibility is about more than color and text contrast. It’s about how information is structured. Angela pointed out that even well-designed charts can fail if the layout creates friction. Legends that sit far from their corresponding visuals, filters hidden behind hover states, or dashboards that require precise mouse actions can all block access.

Good structure makes it easier to follow a narrative. Related elements should be grouped together, spacing should be consistent, and unnecessary visuals should be removed. Testing designs with real users, rather than relying solely on automated tools, reveals where confusion or barriers still exist.

Responsive design also matters. Dashboards should function on mobile devices and low-bandwidth connections and work with screen readers. Accessibility, at its core, is adaptability. Creating experiences that work for everyone, not just the average user.

Turning data into stories

People remember stories far better than they remember raw numbers. Angela’s framework for accessible storytelling brings together three layers that make data more human:

Visual layer: Colors, labels, and structure that make information perceivable.
Language layer: Captions, summaries, and alt text that make it understandable.
Interaction layer: Controls, filters, and exports that make it operable.

When these layers work in harmony, data transforms from an abstract display into a shared narrative. Plain-language summaries, consistent phrasing across visuals, and clear headlines all help readers find meaning faster.

Effective data storytelling does more than make numbers emotional. It also makes them relatable. By organizing visuals in a way that mirrors how people read and process information, teams can help audiences understand complex insights without needing specialized training.

Seeing data as dialogue

Angela described data as a conversation rather than a monologue. A dashboard needs to be more than just displaying information to be consumed. It should invite interaction, reflection, and collaboration. When data is accessible, it encourages participation from everyone, not limited to those who are already comfortable interpreting charts.

This shift from presentation to dialogue democratizes knowledge. Instead of a small group of analysts or designers holding the keys to interpretation, accessibility opens the conversation to more voices. When more people can access and understand the data, the insights become richer and more representative.

Accessible storytelling also reduces friction. A clear narrative, consistent structure, and inclusive design allow users to engage with the material immediately. Instead of deciphering visuals, they can focus on problem-solving and decision-making.

Accessibility as a signal of trust

Beyond usability, accessibility signals credibility. When organizations consistently present information in formats that everyone can understand, they build trust. Users come to expect clarity and inclusion, and that expectation strengthens engagement.

Inaccessible dashboards, on the other hand, concentrate knowledge in the hands of a few “data gatekeepers.” Those who can interpret complex visuals end up making decisions for everyone else. Accessible design removes that imbalance. It makes transparency and participation part of the organization’s culture.

More than a compliance requirement, accessibility is a demonstration of respect for all users. It shows that every person’s ability to understand information matters equally.

Real-world friction and practical fixes

Angela’s examples illustrated that accessibility challenges are rarely about neglect. They’re about awareness. In one client project, performance charts relied entirely on red and green bars. For colorblind users, the entire message was lost. In another case, filters were available only through mouse hover actions, making them invisible to keyboard users.

These aren’t unusual mistakes. They’re common across industries. The key is how teams respond. Angela encouraged treating accessibility gaps as opportunities to learn rather than failures to be corrected. Each small improvement expands access and reduces exclusion.

They also acknowledged that accessibility work happens within constraints, such as tight schedules, competing priorities, and legacy systems. The goal isn’t perfection but progress. Every accessible choice, no matter how small, makes a difference.

From data to action

Angela framed accessible storytelling as a three-part narrative arc: set the stage, show the shift, and call to action.

Set the stage: Provide context for why the dataset matters.
Show the shift: Explain what changed or what patterns emerged.
Call to action: Identify what decisions or steps should follow.

A well-structured story presents findings and guides people toward understanding and action. For example, instead of listing engagement rates, tell the story of how accessibility improvements doubled engagement and what that means for future strategy. The data stays the same, but the story makes it memorable.

Accessibility as strategy

Angela outlined a strategy for how organizations can think, communicate, and lead more effectively while designing inclusive charts. Accessible data design fosters clarity, equity, and trust. It ensures that everyone has the same opportunity to understand and act on information.

Accessibility is empathy in process. It’s an intentional effort to include others in understanding. When data storytelling is inclusive, it reflects the diversity of the audience it serves.

In the end, accessibility isn’t a box to check or a compliance hurdle to clear. It’s the foundation for effective communication. If data is meant to drive action, then the story it tells must be one that everyone can read.

Video highlights

Watch the presentation

Bio

Dr. Angela Young (they/them) is a queer, nonbinary, multiply disabled accessibility strategist with a passion for transforming complex systems into inclusive experiences. As Lead, Enterprise Technical Accessibility Training and Awareness, Angela helps teams embed accessibility into everyday product decisions.

With a background in education, tech, and design, Angela combines practical training with systems thinking and lived experience. They specialize in demystifying accessibility for devs, designers, and data teams, reminding us that inclusion is not extra work but the real work.

Resources

Power BI: Microsoft’s flagship BI tool with built-in accessibility features, including keyboard navigation, screen reader support, and alt text for visuals.
Tableau: Powerful visualization tool; accessibility features are improving, but it requires disciplined design for compliance.
Excel: Often overlooked, but one of the most screen reader-friendly tools for building accessible charts and tables.
Flourish: Web-based visualization platform supporting alt text and responsive embeds for inclusive online charts.
Color Oracle: Free color blindness simulator for checking designs against multiple vision types.
Stark: Accessibility plugin for Figma, Sketch, and XD; checks color contrast and generates alt text guidance.
Storytelling with Data (Cole Nussbaumer Knaflic): Classic guide to clarity, simplicity, and storytelling with charts.
Data Feminism (Catherine D’Ignazio and Lauren Klein): Examines power, equity, and inclusion in how we use and present data.
Accessibility Guidelines for Data Visualization (WCAG 2.2): WCAG 2.2 documentation applied to data viz contexts.
Nightingale (Data Visualization Society): Online journal of the Data Visualization Society with many accessibility-oriented articles.
Tamara Munzner: Author of Visualization Analysis and Design and thought leader in viz theory.
Andy Kirk: Visualization consultant, trainer, and author of Data Visualization: A Handbook for Data Driven Design
Nadieh Bremer: Award-winning data visualization designer sharing innovative approaches.
Stephanie Evergreen: Specialist in data reporting and visualization for clarity and accessibility.

Accessibility Audits: Because Everyone Deserves to Stay in Focus

2025-10-09T19:55:26Z

Accessibility isn’t a one-and-done checklist. It’s a living commitment. Even teams like ours that build accessibly from the start can introduce barriers when content or design evolves. That’s why regular accessibility audits matter. They catch issues that would frustrate users and erode credibility.

In our latest audit, we uncovered two issues that could easily go unnoticed by sighted mouse users. However, they create friction for many others. One blocked some content when zoomed in. The other turned keyboard navigation into guesswork. We didn’t just flag them. We fixed them as we always do.

Here’s where some companies go wrong. They pay for an accessibility audit, but they don’t fix issues. What’s the value in an accessibility audit if they don’t address the issues?

We work with our clients to help them fix their accessibility issues. Here, we share the process of what meaningful accessibility work looks like.

Reflow

During the audit, we discovered a problem that happens when users zoom in on the page. This is a reflow issue.

At the bottom of the page, we have a newsletter signup section. However, when we zoom in, Knomo, our mascot, overlaps with the text that says, “Get free accessibility tips and news delivered to your inbox.”

How much should someone be able to zoom a page? According to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Success Criterion 1.4.10 Reflow, those users should be able to zoom to a point where the width is the equivalent of 320 pixels.

The equivalent of 320 pixels means that if your browser width is 1280 pixels, you should be able to zoom by 400%.

The following video explains and demonstrates.

Here’s how we tested this:

Set the zoom rate to 100%.
Set the window width to 1280 using Window Resizer, a Chrome extension.
Zoom the page by 400%.

We look for any loss of information. Knomo overlaps with the text, which makes it hard to read.

After applying the fix, the character image and the text no longer overlapped. Now, the user can read without any overlapping content.

How to fix the reflow accessibility issue

Every solution will be different based on the code and design. Before we fixed the issue, the vertical blue line (<div class=”line”></div>) connecting the numbers had a position: relative for the whole container (<div class=”our-process”>).

Before the reflow fix

Here’s the HTML.

<div class="our-process"> <!-- Line container -->
  <h2>Our accessibility auditing process</h2>
  <p>Our auditing process follows careful steps:</p>
  <button onclick="expandAllItems()" id="expand-all" aria-expanded="false" aria-controls="item-1 item-2 item-3 item-4 item-5 item-6 item-7">Expand All</button>
  <ol class="list">
      [...]
  </ol>
  <div class="line"></div> <!-- line element -->
</div> <!-- End of line container -->

Here’s the CSS.

.our-process {
  [...]
  position: relative; /* Used as reference when using position absolute on child elements */
}

.our-process .line {
  [...]
  position: absolute;
  top: 290px;
  bottom: 164px;
  left: 210px;
}

After the reflow fix

The position: relative should be moved to a new div that only has the ol and line element.

Here’s the revised HTML.

<div class="our-process">
  <h2>Our accessibility auditing process</h2>
  <p>Our auditing process follows careful steps:</p>
  <button onclick="expandAllItems()" id="expand-all" aria-expanded="false" aria-controls="item-1 item-2 item-3 item-4 item-5 item-6 item-7">Expand All</button>
  <div class="list-container"> <!-- New container -->
    <ol class="list">
      [...]
    </ol>
    <div class="line"></div> <!-- line element -->
  </div> <!-- End of new container -->
</div>

Here’s the CSS for the fix.

.our-process .list-container {
  position: relative; /* Setting a new reference on child elements with position absolute */
}

.our-process .list-container .line {
  [...]
  position: absolute;
  top: 100px;
  bottom: 110px;
  left: 60px;
}

Now you can zoom in without any content hiding behind other elements.

Focus Visible

For all audits, we test the accessibility of navigating a website using only the keyboard. Not everyone uses a mouse. Many people rely on the keyboard. They press the Tab key to navigate through interactive elements. Instead of a mouse click, they use Enter or Space to activate the element.

In this scenario, we navigated Equal Entry’s accessibility services using only the keyboard. When you scroll down, there’s a section describing our six-step auditing process. Each step is clickable, and there’s also an “Expand all” button to reveal all the steps.

For keyboard users, it’s crucial that the current focus is always visible. This lets them know where they are on the page.

Here’s the problem. As we Tab through the buttons, the focus is visible on the steps. But when you land on the “Expand all” button, the focus indicator disappears. The following video demonstrates the focus visible problem. Instead of being visible, it’s invisible.

You can still activate “Expand all” with the keyboard. However, you have no idea where the focus went. This fails Web Content Accessibility Guideline (WCAG) 2.4.7: Focus Visible. This criterion requires a clear focus indicator on a keyboard-operable interface.

How to fix the focus visible accessibility issue

We fixed the focus visible by adding a visible focus rectangle to the “Expand all” button. Now, it’s consistent with the other interactive elements.

Before the focus visible fix

Here’s the before where the CSS showed no indicator for focus.

#expand-all:focus {
  border: none;
  outline: none; /* Removes default browser visual indicator */
}

After the focus visible fix

Here’s the after where we added the visual indicator in the CSS.

#expand-all:focus {
  border: none;
  outline: none;
  box-shadow: var(--focus-border); /* Added custom focus visual indicator */
}

Try it out! Here’s the accessibility audits page. Press Tab until you get to the “Expand All” link. Then, press the spacebar or Enter key.

The importance of fixing accessibility issues found in auditing

Finding accessibility issues is only the first step. Fixing them is what protects users and your organization. When reflow breaks, users lose access to content. When focus indicators disappear, navigation turns into guesswork. These aren’t minor problems. They’re barriers that exclude people and hurt the user experience.

Unresolved issues can lead to legal exposure, brand image damage, and lost trust. But when you fix them, you show users that their experience matters. You reduce risk, improve usability, and build credibility with every resolved barrier

That’s why our audits don’t stop at identification. We work with clients to fix what’s broken and explain why it matters. Because accessibility is more than compliance. It’s respect and better user experiences for everyone.

Ready to strengthen your accessibility efforts and compliance?

Whether you’re updating your VPAT, reviewing your ACR, or tackling WCAG conformance, we’ve got you covered. We specialize in accessibility audits and VPAT reviews that go beyond checkboxes: Reducing risk, improving usability, and respecting your users.

Not sure where to start? Let’s chat.

Making Content Accessible for People with Limited English Proficiency

2025-09-10T16:47:59Z

This article is based on Irina Morozova‘s talk at A11yNYC. She talked about how to make content accessible through thoughtful content and inclusive design for people who aren’t fluent in English. Irina is an accessibility experience designer. She has a linguistics and teaching background.

Irina opens with an ATM example to illustrate how routine tasks can become inaccessible when design and language don’t align with the user’s needs. When you use a familiar ATM in your native language, there’s no one waiting behind you or distractions. But remove just one element, like language familiarity or a clear interface, and the experience quickly shifts from simple to stressful.

For users with limited English proficiency, unclear instructions or poor design can erode independence in critical moments. The ATM turns into a barrier. Irina uses this to emphasize that inclusive design is essential. It preserves dignity and independence in everyday life.

Why language access matters

The main language in New York is English; hence, much of the online content is also English. A Statista graph shows that in February 2025, English was the dominant language, at almost half.

This means the other half of the people in New York do not speak English as a primary language. Therefore, almost half of the people interacting with a digital product don’t have English as their main language. If organizations don’t consider those not fluent in English, they’re potentially losing half of their customers and users.

Users with different language proficiencies vary in their skills. These skills vary by background, exposure, and context. Language speakers are not a homogeneous group. Irina uses “people with limited English proficiency” because it’s descriptive and not judgmental. It’s stating a fact without any assumptions.

Poorly designed content is a barrier for everyone. More so, for people with limited language proficiency. It can cause cognitive overload, stress, and anxiety. How can we make content more accessible and reduce stress for speakers who aren’t fluent in English?

Inclusive content principles

The key is to use plain language written for 7th to 9th grade level. Word choices and sentences are one part of it. How the text is presented also matters. This includes the use of meaningful headings, which improve scannability. They may only be interested in one part of the page. Clear headings allow them to choose the section to read. It minimizes cognitive overload.

For example, you’re planning to go to a café. You want to know if you can bring your laptop. You find the rules, but you don’t want to read the whole page. Headings can help you find the specific section.

Avoid abbreviations and acronyms before spelling them out. For example, APR may be a common abbreviation in the U.S. However, not everyone knows it means annual percentage rate. Before using the abbreviation, spell out the term to help users connect it with the abbreviation or acronym.

Also, avoid using idioms, metaphors, and phrasal verbs. Phrasal verbs are expressions that combine a verb and another element, such as an adverb or a preposition. Instead of “look up,” use “search.” Not everyone knows what “snail mail” means, so using “mail” works better. “Saving for a rainy day” is an idiom. Keep it simple and use “saving.”

Design and multimedia considerations

Structure, short sentences, plain language, and word choices can get a boost when you use consistent flows, icons, and clear task instructions. Users need enough time to process. Even with good headings, the content needs to be in manageable segments.

Inclusive design means planning for error prevention and easy recovery for when a mistake happens. This is why it’s crucial to plan for accessible content and presentation early in the design process.

Like the best practices for content, there are well known rules for audio, video, and other multimedia. These include providing subtitles, captions, and transcripts. Ensure there are pauses between sentences rather than between words in audio. Non-verbal communication also matters.

Be mindful of accent comprehension barriers. Irina gave the example of an elevator’s voice being in a Scottish accent. It made it harder for some people to understand, even if they spoke the same language. Anyone can have an accent, whether a person’s primary language is English or another language. Accents can potentially add to the cognitive load. Hence, it’s important to pay attention to accents in the media.

Another important recommendation is to avoid background audio, unneeded pop-ups, and autoplaying audio and video. These can stress the user. Focus on calm technology, which means technology needs to simplify complexities, not introduce new ones.

One key to seamless technology is to use the correct language tags. When a website has the wrong language tag, it causes the content to be pronounced incorrectly.

Empowerment through respectful design

Content and digital experiences should bring joy, dignity, and empowerment. Respectful and inclusive design consists of clear and intuitive content. This happens when you plan for accessible content and presentation early in design. Apply accessibility principles, which reduce cognitive load. Think about designing with less noise and more intention.

The resources Irina shared are in the resources section of this article. They Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) that support inclusive design for limited English proficiency. She also shared resources that can help with designing intuitive, inclusive, and respectful content. As you work on designing experience, ask this question: “How can your content reduce stress for your users with limited English proficiency.”

Video Highlights

Watch the Presentation

Bio

Irina Morozova is a seasoned accessibility experience designer with a background in linguistics, teaching, and UX. Her work highlights the importance of clear communication, cognitive accessibility, and culturally sensitive design that supports users with varying levels of language proficiency.

Her passion for accessible design comes from her own experiences navigating multilingual environments. This personal perspective fuels her commitment to crafting content that not only informs but also empowers users from all backgrounds.

Resources

Hemingway App
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) – CEFR Text analyzer
Flesch Kincaid Calculator
Readable
Calm technology
Federal plain language guidelines
Designing content for people with limited English
Writing for an ESL Audience
Native Speakerism – what is it and why does it matter?
WCAG 2.2 Guidelines