Why do so few people complain about the lack of accessibility?

In this article we will address the question of why relatively few people complain about a lack of accessibility. Many institutions regularly report that they receive no feedback on accessibility, even when there is a special feedback form for this topic.

As we noted in the last post, this mechanism is required by law, many authorities and companies obliged under the Accessibility Strengthening Act (BFSG) have not yet implemented it, or have done so inadequately. It is often argued that a general contact form is sufficient for providing feedback. However, as this is rarely used, the false conclusion is often drawn that users are completely satisfied or do not encounter any barriers.

However, this ‘perfectly happy user’ is a myth that people like to believe. Absolute satisfaction does not exist, neither at giants like Amazon nor at an average, provisionally created website – and certainly not at government portals. There are valid reasons that prevent people from giving feedback. I would like to analyse these in a structured way today.

First of all, it must be said that feedback on accessibility is often not systematically recorded. Those who process the incoming emails often do not understand where the problem lies and file it under general complaints. It can then be forwarded to various recipients within the organisation who do not communicate with each other. Large organisations often do not have a central point of contact, but rather distributed responsibilities. This means that feedback is not recorded in a structured manner and comments on accessibility often get lost.

Workaround strategies

The first key aspect is a workaround strategy. When users encounter a barrier, they first try to solve the problem themselves. Official feedback does not usually lead to an immediate remedy: it can take weeks or months for a response to be received – if anything happens at all.

Feedback is therefore not an ad hoc solution to an acute problem, but a long-term measure. In the meantime, the user must either overcome the barrier or resort to an alternative solution in order to achieve the actual goal.

A practical example illustrates the problem: If a product cannot be purchased on website X due to barriers, users simply switch to website Y. The effort involved in formulating feedback is disproportionate to the benefit - your own time is simply too valuable for that. You can call this Quite Quitting or Click-Away Pound.

It gets more difficult with exclusive offers, such as official matters that must be processed via a specific portal. Here users resort to individual workarounds.

While digitally savvy people often find a way out, many others are dependent on outside help. However, this is the opposite of accessibility in practice: a solution based on “asking someone” is neither sustainable nor dignified.

The hurdle of self-disclosure or The “It’s your own fault” paradigm

An often underestimated challenge is the need for self-disclosure. Anyone who makes a well-founded complaint - for example, that a site is not compatible with screen readers such as JAWS or NVDA - is inevitably disclosing information about their own disability. The question arises here: Do you want to disclose this sensitive information to strangers who may not have the necessary specialist knowledge or understanding?

The hurdle is particularly high for older people. In a society that suggests that you have to be technically “fit” enough to do everything on your own, failure is often attributed to the individual. Instead of blaming the poor system design, those affected look for the fault in themselves. Overcoming the need to admit a supposed “own weakness” to the operator of a service is an insurmountable barrier for many.

A common experience in this context is that the issue is not really taken seriously by the operator. You sometimes get answers that are obviously made up of text modules, have little substance in terms of content and - to put it bluntly - consist mainly of “hot air”. It also often happens that you receive no feedback at all. Comparatively pat answers are less common, but still not impossible.

This rarely happens at larger institutions; On the other hand, this behavior occurs more frequently in smaller development teams - especially in the area of ​​native apps, for example in smaller applications such as meditation apps that are developed by individuals or very small teams and where accessibility was not intended as a central issue. In such cases, you often receive evasive or negative feedback, for example stating that the target group is too small or that the need does not exist. If an answer is given at all, it is often worded flippantly.

In most cases, however, there is no reaction, probably because the intention is to avoid a substantive dispute. As the affected person, you learn over time to classify this: either there is no feedback or just unfriendly feedback. This significantly reduces the motivation to continue using the application.

So I've gotten into the habit of leaving a negative review on the Play Store instead. While this may seem harsh, it is often easier to reach operators this way than via a direct message. Occasionally they react there too, but usually with standardized text modules, for example in the form that they have received the feedback and will check it - without any subsequent steps being apparent.

Ultimately, this is not an ideal strategy either. However, I increasingly lack the willingness to seek direct contact again when experience shows that no substantial feedback can be expected.

Complaining is also tiring

Another issue is the energy expenditure. This may sound unusual at first, but actually establishing contact involves a considerable amount of effort. Often you first have to research how the responsible people can be reached. This is by no means a given these days. Official websites are obliged to provide a contact option, but this also has to be found first. In addition, many people on the user side do not have comprehensive knowledge of how to use websites. They often don't know how a page is structured or where certain information is usually stored. Although the contact option is often included in the legal notice, it is questionable whether all users are aware of this - especially those with little experience in using digital applications. A page explicitly marked as “Contact” that can be accessed directly via the main navigation cannot always be found. Instead, relevant information is often located in the legal notice or in another place that is difficult to find.

Many people have little use for the term “accessibility”. Older users in particular do not necessarily apply this term to themselves. Rather, they perceive that they have difficulty using an application and would like to report this - but cannot find a suitable channel or do not recognize that their problems fall under the topic of accessibility. Either there is no low-threshold contact option, it remains untraceable, or those affected do not place the concern in this context.

The second problem is that many people hardly notice the effort involved in giving feedback. As I explained in the last post, everyone affected is aware that they have to provide enough information so that those responsible can understand the problem.

However, describing such a problem in a comprehensible manner requires effort - especially for people without a technical background. Often you don't know how to formulate the problem in a way that makes it understandable. This takes time and patience, and even then you are not sure whether the other side understands the issue correctly. From my own experience, I have to say that it unfortunately often happens that the problems described are simply not understood, even though they have been explained as clearly as possible. The person at the end simply has no idea and, worse, no interest in dealing with it. There is no responsibility for accessibility, the person sending the message has no idea about accessibility, so communication is hardly possible.

This challenge particularly affects people with little technical experience, but also people who have difficulties with language or writing - for example due to dyslexia. On the one hand, you want to describe the problem as precisely as possible, but on the other hand, your own formulation is sometimes uncertain or error-prone. This form of self-disclosure can discourage many from even reporting problems.