Why Is Accessibility Being De-Linked from Disability?
Quick Answer
Accessibility is increasingly being framed as "good for everyone" or "good UX" rather than essential for disabled people. While this messaging may be more effective in getting buy-in from businesses, it risks sidelining the very people accessibility was designed to serve.
Key Takeaways
- Disabled people are being pushed out of the center of accessibility conversations
- Business framing ("helps everyone", "good SEO") often works better than disability-first arguments
- Many accessibility professionals use universal design arguments because they're more effective at getting funding
- Legal and business arguments often resonate more than empathy-based appeals
- The question remains: Should we prioritize effectiveness over authenticity in accessibility messaging?
The Pattern: Disability Disappearing from Accessibility Conversations
A recent Reddit discussion in the accessibility community raised a critical question: Why is accessibility being de-linked from disability?
The original poster noticed a concerning pattern: accessibility is increasingly being presented in business contexts, tech talks, and DEI initiatives as either a legal requirement or something that "benefits everyone." What's often missing? The lived experiences of disabled people the group that accessibility most directly supports.
As the poster put it: "It's as if saying 'this is for disabled people' is no longer seen as persuasive enough. The messaging becomes: 'It helps everyone!' or 'It's good UX!' or 'It boosts SEO!'"
The Core Question: Are We Not Worth Doing It For?
The original post asked a powerful question: "Are we not worth doing it for on our own?"
Why is the fact that accessibility empowers disabled people that it's essential for our participation, our rights, our dignity not the main point anymore?
"We're not edge cases or an optional bonus. We're the reason accessibility exists. Yes, others benefit but we need it."
The post highlighted a painful reality: disabled people are being treated as "too political, too uncomfortable, or simply not appealing enough as a reason on our own." It feels like making the world accessible for disabled people isn't compelling unless it can be reframed as helping "everyone."
But aren't we worth doing it for our own sake?
The Reality Check: What Actually Works
The Reddit discussion revealed a harsh truth: disability-first arguments often don't work in corporate environments.
One accessibility professional with over 20 years of experience shared: "I don't tend to push the disability angle in front of business people, they don't care about people, they care about money."
1. The Business Reality
Multiple commenters shared similar experiences: telling boardrooms that captioning benefits people with disabilities gets ignored. But telling them that paying customers benefit from captioning, or that their own vision will decline with age? Suddenly you have buy-in.
As one professional noted: "I ain't saying it's right, but it is effective."
- Legal risk and lawsuit costs resonate more than empathy
- Market expansion arguments ("Purple Pound" in the UK) get attention
- SEO and UX benefits are easier sells than disability rights
- Self-interest framing ("you too could become disabled") works better
2. The Invisibility Problem
One commenter pointed out a critical issue: "Most people don't have real relationships with disabled folks, so they don't see the impact of inaccessibility."
Disability has been made invisible for generations. Historical "ugly laws" literally banned disabled people from being seen in public. Chicago's ugly laws weren't repealed until 1974. That kind of erasure doesn't just disappear it gets baked into culture.
As another commenter noted: "Even though wheelchairs are literally the symbol of disability, I think it's been months since I've actually seen somebody using one."
When disability is invisible, it's easier to ignore and easier to reframe accessibility as something else entirely.
3. The Empathy Gap
Many commenters observed that people need to picture themselves or someone they care about in a situation before they take it seriously. One professional shared:
"It reminds me of how people talk about sexual assault: 'What if it was your sister, your mom, your daughter?' Like human pain only matters if it can be filtered through someone they value."
The "everyone benefits" framing is used to make accessibility more palatable to people who don't want to think about disability, who don't want to face their own biases, or who think they'll never need it.
The Professional Dilemma: Effectiveness vs. Authenticity
The discussion revealed a difficult tension for accessibility professionals: Should we use the messaging that works, even if it sidelines disabled people?
One commenter framed it as a "devil's advocate" question:
"Is it worthwhile to reframe accessibility as 'good UX' if it results in leadership support, budgets being unlocked, and features being developed? Even if the framing is a little cowardly?"
Many professionals shared that they use different messaging for different audiences:
- For business decision-makers: Legal risk, market expansion, ROI arguments
- For developers/designers: Real-world disability examples and empathy-based explanations
- For executives: Lawsuit costs, untapped markets, competitive advantage
As one professional put it: "If it means my accessibility work gets funded, I'll sell it however I can, because I know the value of the work."
But this raises a critical question: Are we teaching organizations to completely disregard the people at the heart of accessibility?
The Systemic Issues: Why This Happens
The discussion highlighted several systemic reasons why accessibility gets de-linked from disability:
- Businesses optimize for profit, not people: As one commenter noted, "Businesses do not give a s##t about anyone who is not truly profitable."
- Political climate: In the US, people are afraid of anything "smelling remotely like equity and diversity"
- Lack of accountability: "People, just like companies, only optimize towards what they are held accountable for"
- Economic disadvantage: Many people with disabilities are in worse economic conditions, making them less attractive as a market
- Resource requirements: Building accessible products requires better knowledge and additional resources
One EU-based professional shared: "I've been in the field for 15 years now, and I'm tired of convincing business decision makers and tired of 'evangelization'. This is why we need legislation that enforces the change."
The solution, for many, is clear: legislation and enforcement, not persuasion.
Counter-Arguments: Why Universal Design Framing Exists
Not all commenters saw the universal design framing as problematic. Some argued it serves important purposes:
- Not everyone with access needs identifies as disabled - accommodations should be available without requiring disclosure
- Normalizing individual accommodations - offering accessibility as standard helps everyone
- Making accessibility mainstream - wider adoption means better support and cheaper assistive technology
- The curb-cut effect is real - things designed for disabled people do benefit everyone (like video captions)
One training professional noted: "We frame 'access needs' and 'inclusion' as 'for everyone' because accommodations should not be dependent on disclosure of a disability."
However, the original poster's point remains: Can we acknowledge universal benefits without erasing disabled people from the conversation?
The Way Forward: No Simple Solutions
The discussion didn't provide easy answers, but it highlighted important considerations:
- Legislation matters: Many professionals emphasized that enforcement is more effective than persuasion
- Different audiences need different messages: What works for developers may not work for executives
- Centering disabled voices: Co-creating content with disabled people ensures authenticity
- Balancing effectiveness and ethics: Using business arguments to get work done while maintaining disability-first values
As one commenter reflected: "It should be enough to say: this matters because it impacts real people, right now. Not just someday. Not just maybe. And not just if it benefits everyone else too."
The question remains: How do we make accessibility happen without erasing the people it's designed to serve?
Sources
- Reddit Discussion: Why is accessibility being de-linked from disability? (opens in new tab)
Reddit r/accessibility Community Discussion