Accessibility Issues Are Often Usability Issues
protovate.com
protovate.com
While thinking about this, I realized that accessibility often acts like a kind of stress test for design assumptions. If something only works under ideal conditions, accessibility issues tend to surface those weaknesses very quickly. (I wish I'd known that when I was a tester!)
The best lesson in accessibility to learn is that our societal needs are complex and the various standards exist for good reason. If you want to create a complex and particular design using CSS that is fine but keep the tagging underlying that design compatible with screen-readers and allow easy overriding of styling.
One of the most frustrating things for accessibility is advertising since it specifically goes to lengths to use obfuscated class names (to avoid ad-blocks) and bright colors (often via images/videos that contain embedded text). At some point I really do hope we realize just how expensive advertising is and how many externalized costs it forces on us all.
High contrast helps some people, hurts others. Reduced motion matters. Larger text matters. Keyboard navigation matters. The lesson isn’t “pick the one right setting,” it’s “build the underlying structure so people can override presentation safely.”
If the semantics are good, users and assistive tech have options. If all the usability is trapped in the visual layer, things fall apart fast.
Also totally agree on advertising. A lot of ad tech is basically an anti-accessibility machine. It optimizes for attention capture, even when that makes the actual experience worse for everyone. Advertising frequently triggers me, with all the flashing and strobing and moving parts. That one was me, from the post. And I'm the one that needs the high contrast, too ;- )
Having said that, yes, tending to the needs of disabled people absolutely does help identify design shortcomings and making software better for disabled people often benefits far more users than than the targeted group. This is called the "curb cut effect" or simply "curb cuts" in the industry because like sidewalk curb cuts made for wheel chairs, the improvement was actually a win for everyone from jogger to parents with strollers, to rolling luggage, delivery people with hand trucks, etc. etc. When we make things better for one group, often many groups benefit so designing with everyone in mind, and not just people like you, is always worthwhile.
Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Arabic language systems don't use capital letters. They manage to parse the boundaries of sentences and thoughts just fine.
One thing HTML has going for it is that accessibility info (semantics, ARIA roles, structure, etc.) is embedded.
Are you finding that agents can make use of that directly, or are you adding more accessibility metadata on top?
some models are able to figure out hypermedia-based APIs more easily than MCP, which is very particular in its syntax, but for more advanced models MCP wins based on the "show me everything at once" model
It’s interesting that some models can infer structure from hypermedia more easily. That seems like another place where semantic structure ends up helping both humans and machines interpret an interface. NICE!
When those assumptions break, accessibility issues start showing up very quickly.