The better technology gets, the more accessibility becomes a matter of organization, processes, and governance.

Digital accessibility is often seen as a purely technical task. However, while modern frameworks, AI, and automated testing make resolving technical hurdles much easier today, the core issue is shifting: the main barrier is no longer technical capability, but process-driven implementation.

First, two preliminary notes: Many accessibility professionals will disagree with my technological optimism, which is completely fine. They view technical developments more skeptically than I do. Furthermore, I am not saying that technology will solve all problems, but it can solve a large portion of them. The question is also whether these tools will work out of the box. For design, I can easily imagine it: contrast, click targets, and focus visibility are problems that could already be tested automatically—which is precisely the issue I want to describe here. For development, it's slightly different: here, I believe we will still need accessibility experts to formulate rules for design systems and development environments that work either AI-driven or rule-based. It is simply not self-running, as many people with no clue about accessibility believe. It is also, to some extent, forced optimism: many stakeholders actually want to learn how to work accessibly, but cannot find the time to dive deep enough into the topic. However, the truth is also that many do not want to learn it or think they already know it, even though they don't. Either way, more must move toward automation so that we can finally make progress.

Automation reduces costs—not responsibility

Tools and AI detect errors faster and make audits repeatable, but they do not take on responsibility. While a tool can detect missing alt text, it cannot evaluate whether its content makes sense. In addition, AI models can reproduce existing errors. Tools therefore do not replace governance; rather, they require clear rules for their application and human expertise for qualitative evaluations.

Being proactive is a governance question

Barriers discovered late in the process are expensive. To prevent them, accessibility must be integrated into existing workflows right from conception and design—such as through backlog requirements, acceptance criteria, design reviews, or the Definition of Done. The key question is: At what point in the process does accessibility become mandatory?

From an expert topic to a leadership responsibility

When accessibility relies solely on the commitment of individuals, the system remains fragile. Leaders must anchor responsibility, resolve conflicting goals, and provide resources. Governance establishes the necessary clear responsibilities, binding rules, and transparent decisions.

Accessibility as a quality indicator of the development process

Accessibility is not a subsequent task, but a quality feature of professional development. Instead of fixing bugs after the fact, the process should produce accessible code by default. Everyone involved (Design, Dev, PO, QA) must know when and how to take ownership.

Governance needs control mechanisms

Processes require accountability. A few meaningful key metrics—such as the trend in error rates across releases, component coverage, or resolution times—reveal whether accessibility is lived practice or merely handled reactively.

Resources are part of governance

Commitments to accessibility remain ineffective without time, budget, and training. Governance is reflected in whether priorities are backed by concrete resources—especially for preventive measures.

Sustainability: Accessibility must not end with the project

Products and teams change constantly. Lasting accessibility requires continuous quality assurance throughout the entire product lifecycle—including maintenance, releases, procurement, and knowledge management.

The real leverage lies between disciplines

Decisions are scattered across product management, design, development, purchasing, and leadership. Effective governance connects these silos through shared standards, clear handovers, and repeatable structures.

The problem is becoming more organizational precisely because technology is improving

The excuse that accessibility is technically too complex no longer holds up. The focus is fundamentally shifting:

  • from tool selection → to process design
  • from ad-hoc testing → to systematic quality assurance
  • from expert knowledge → to organizational competence
  • from bug fixing → to prevention
  • from project-based → to continuous governance

The decisive question is no longer whether we can implement accessibility technically, but whether organizations ensure that available capabilities are utilized consistently, early, and permanently.

More on Project Management