Menu

Accessibility

Accessibility is not just visual

Accessibility issues often sit in structure, interaction, and behaviour. Focusing only on what appears on screen misses where many of the real barriers actually are.

Why accessible design goes far beyond contrast and typography, and why products only become truly inclusive when they work across different modes of interaction.

26 January 20244 min read

In short

Why accessible design goes far beyond contrast and typography, and why products only become truly inclusive when they work across different modes of interaction.

Why the visual layer is only part of the picture

Once the visual layer looks compliant, there's an assumption that the experience is accessible. In reality, that's only a small part of the picture. is about , not just appearance.

Some of the biggest issues I've encountered have nothing to do with how something looks. They sit in how a product behaves, how it's structured, and how it responds to different ways of interacting with it. You can have perfect contrast and still create something that is difficult to use.

Part of why this happens is that the visual layer is the part everyone in the room can assess. A contrast ratio can be checked in a design review by anyone. Whether a form announces its errors sensibly cannot, so it tends not to come up until somebody specifically goes looking.

A product can look accessible on screen and still break down completely once the way it is being used changes.

Why navigation changes when visual context disappears

Take as an example. On screen, a navigation might feel clear and well organised. Labels are short, the is clean, and everything looks structured. But when that same navigation is used with a screen reader, the experience changes completely. Items are read in sequence, context is reduced, and relationships between elements aren't always obvious. What made sense visually no longer holds together. If a navigation model only works visually, it's not structurally clear enough to support different modes of use.

The usual culprit is meaning carried by position rather than by structure. A column of links reads as a group because of where it sits on the page. Strip the away and it becomes an undifferentiated list, unless the markup says what the grouping is and where it starts and ends.

Key takeaway

If a navigation model only works visually, it is not structurally clear enough to support different modes of use.

Why forms often fail beyond the visual layer

The same applies to forms. Visually, a form might appear simple: fields are aligned, labels are positioned neatly, the flow feels logical. But if labels aren't correctly associated, if instructions are unclear when read aloud, or if error messages aren't announced properly, the experience quickly breaks down. From a visual perspective, nothing is wrong. From a perspective, everything is harder than it should be.

Error handling is where most of it goes wrong. A message that appears in red next to a field is obvious on screen and invisible to somebody who has just submitted and been returned to the top of the page with no announcement. They know something failed. They have no way of knowing what.

Placeholder text is the other recurring problem. Used instead of a label it looks tidy, disappears the moment somebody starts typing, and leaves anyone who paused mid-form with no way to recall what the field was for.

What accessibility really depends on

is about how content is structured so it can be understood in different formats. About how work when someone isn't using a mouse, or can't rely on precise input. About how information is communicated when visual cues are removed, reduced, or interpreted differently. It's about how the product behaves under different conditions. And those conditions are more varied than most teams expect: users, keyboard-only users, voice control users, those with magnification tools, those dealing with temporary constraints such as injury, fatigue, or poor lighting. Accessibility spans a wide range of situations.

Why designing for multiple modes improves the whole experience

When you can't rely solely on visual cues, you're forced to make clearer. When content needs to make sense when read aloud, it becomes more structured and easier to follow. When needs to work without a mouse, unnecessary complexity is reduced. The experience becomes more resilient. And that benefits everyone, not just those with specific needs. Teams who move beyond the visual layer of start to uncover issues they wouldn't otherwise have seen. That insight is what drives better design.

This is the argument that tends to land with teams who see as extra work. Designing for the harder cases produces clearer labels, more predictable structure, and that survive being used quickly or under pressure. Those are the same properties that make a product good for people who have no access need at all.

Written by Andy Scott

Strategic design, UX and digital transformation thinking from real projects.

LET'S WORK TOGETHER

Ready to improve your product?

UX, research and product leadership for teams tackling complex digital services.

Previous feedback

I had a fantastic experience working with Andy. One of his most impressive achievements during our time at NHS HEE was masterminding a deeply complex information architecture for a new platform that brought together a large number of legacy websites.

Will Parkhouse

Senior Content Designer