It could be better. It could be much worse: Understanding Accessibility in User Experience Practice with Implications for Industry and Education
Cynthia Putnam, Emma J. Rose, Craig M. MacDonald · 2023 · ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing · doi:10.1145/3575662
Summary
This qualitative study examines how accessibility is understood and practiced within the UX profession through 58 interview sessions with 65 senior UX professionals conducted between 2017 and 2020. Using transitivity analysis from critical discourse analysis, the researchers analyzed responses to the question "How do you consider accessibility in your work?" The study reveals both material processes (actions taken) and mental processes (cognitive awareness and emotional responses) around accessibility. The research found that 76% of participants had some knowledge of accessibility actions at their organizations. Design systems emerged as the most frequently cited strategy for addressing accessibility, mentioned in 48% of interviews with a notable increase over time—from 33% in 2017 to 52% in 2019-2020. This finding positions design systems as a key organizational mechanism for scaling accessibility practices. Other common actions included usability testing with people with disabilities (31%), conducting accessibility audits (17%), and maintaining empathy labs (10%). The study employed a nuanced coding approach that distinguished between participants directly involved in accessibility work versus those who delegated responsibility to others. Only 31% of participants were directly involved in ensuring accessibility, while the majority (69%) considered it someone else's responsibility—typically dedicated accessibility specialists or engineering teams.
Key findings
Design systems represent the most promising organizational strategy for scaling accessibility, with adoption growing significantly over the study period. However, accessibility considerations remain predominantly focused on vision-related impairments (47% of interviews), with far less attention to deaf/hard-of-hearing (12%), mobility (7%), and cognitive disabilities (7%). This narrow focus leaves significant gaps in accessibility coverage. The primary drivers for accessibility were compliance-oriented: adherence to standards (31%), government funding requirements (17%), and public-facing product concerns (16%). Ethical commitment to designing for people with disabilities was less commonly cited as a driver. Participants who were not directly involved in accessibility work expressed negative emotions including guilt, shame, and frustration—acknowledging that accessibility should be prioritized while admitting it currently is not. Importantly, no participants dismissed accessibility as unimportant, suggesting an opportunity for UX professionals to take leadership roles in advocacy. The study identified a significant education gap: practitioners consistently reported that their formal education did not prepare them for accessibility work. This finding echoes earlier research and points to persistent gaps in HCI and computer science curricula.
Relevance
This research has direct implications for organizations seeking to improve accessibility practices. The finding that design systems serve as effective vehicles for scaling accessibility suggests organizations should invest in building accessibility into their design system components rather than relying solely on specialist teams or post-hoc audits. For educators, the study makes a compelling case for integrating accessibility throughout HCI and UX curricula, potentially through specialist tracks or by centering accessibility as a core program focus. The disconnect between industry needs and educational preparation represents both a problem and an opportunity. The emotional responses documented—guilt and frustration from practitioners who recognize accessibility's importance but lack the tools or authority to prioritize it—suggest that organizational culture and empowerment matter as much as technical knowledge. Practitioners may need both technical skills and rhetorical abilities to advocate effectively within their organizations.
Tags: UX practice · design systems · accessibility education · industry practices · qualitative research · organizational accessibility
Standards referenced: WCAG