Why People engage in digital Accessibility
Today we are talking about why people engage with digital accessibility. Broadly speaking, two types of motivation can be distinguished: technical and normative.
The technical motivation lies in practical reasons or the positive effects that accessible design brings. The normative motivation relates more to legal aspects, equality, and social responsibility. We will explore both perspectives, but begin with the technical one.
Technical Motivation
Digital accessibility is one of the key quality characteristics of modern software. Code quality has many facets, but accessibility plays a special role. From my perspective: anyone working as a frontend developer who does not know how to build accessible applications has barely exhausted the possibilities of the profession. In that case, one is essentially just moving boxes around instead of delivering truly high-quality work.
Today, it is part of a developer’s professional identity to be familiar with the standards of HTML, CSS, and their browser support. Accessibility is part of that. You do not necessarily have to be an accessibility expert, but everyone should master the basics of semantic HTML, accessible components, and clean code.
Accessibility improves many aspects of development:
Maintainability and readability: Semantic code is easier for humans to understand. Headings, paragraphs, and other HTML structures clarify the role of each element. This simplifies maintenance and further development, especially when documentation is missing or team members change.
Compatibility: Even though most users rely on Chromium-based browsers, Firefox and other open-source browsers must not be ignored. Accessibility ensures that applications are usable by as many user groups as possible—including those who rely on screen readers such as NVDA.
Usability: Good accessibility improves user experience. For example, animations and effects are often overestimated—they may look impressive but can hinder usability. The same applies to forms: users want them to work, provide understandable error messages, and be intuitive to use. Design can be secondary.
Accessibility therefore promotes clean, standards-compliant code that is easy to maintain—an aspect that is becoming increasingly important, especially in the age of AI-assisted code generation. Artificial intelligence can produce working code, but maintainability is often lacking. Semantic, accessible design prevents such issues and makes long-term maintenance and updates easier.
In short: those who take digital accessibility seriously build better, more robust, and more user-friendly software. It is not an add-on, but a core component of professional frontend development.
Another important aspect is less technical but just as relevant: clear language. This includes understandable navigation, but above all clear and simple text, which is often underestimated.
For example, I have often wondered about the German BFSG: particularly in the banking sector, plain language would be an opportunity to explain financial products in a way that everyone can understand. I personally often do not fully understand the risks or opportunities of ETFs or the content of financial products, even though I have a university degree. For people without higher education, understanding is likely even more difficult. The usual recommendation to consult bank advisors often falls short—they legitimately have their own sales interests, which one cannot rely on blindly. This leads many people to avoid investments simply because they do not understand the content or lack the time to engage with it in depth.
Another often overlooked factor is frustration tolerance. People with disabilities, chronic illnesses, or older individuals are often more sensitive in this regard—which is understandable from a psychological perspective. Good user experience (UX) can be crucial here: the easier an application is to use, the more likely users are to return and use it regularly. Poor UX, on the other hand, leads users to avoid the application. Of course, some frustration is unavoidable, for example with government forms, but many barriers could be avoided through accessible design.
Search engine optimization (SEO), or optimization for AI—especially large language models—is also related to accessibility. Accessible PDFs or well-structured HTML documents with headings and paragraphs can theoretically be better processed by AI because the content is clearly structured. Whether AI actually uses these tags is unclear, but it is plausible. The same applies to websites: well-structured HTML facilitates information retrieval, both for search engines like Google and AI-based systems. Today, visibility in the digital competition is often determined not by ranks 1–10, but by the top three results.
Another advantage of accessibility is economic: companies that strategically implement accessible solutions and communicate them openly can reach new customers. This includes clearly signaling: “We have implemented accessibility and take feedback seriously.” Many companies hesitate to do this out of fear of becoming vulnerable to criticism, but in the long term, it can be a competitive advantage. Personally, when choosing a bank, I would prefer providers that take accessibility seriously—alongside other criteria such as conditions and service.
Normative Motivation
Now let us turn to the normative aspect. This is primarily about digital inclusion: equal access to information. This is especially central for public authorities and non-profit organizations. Banks and online shops have so far played a secondary role, but that may change. The state has the responsibility to make information as equally accessible as possible. Currently, this is not yet guaranteed, as websites, digital processes, and language are often not accessible. Nevertheless, the goal is essential: the state must represent inclusion, regardless of the current level of implementation.
In fact, most countries worldwide have committed to ensuring equal access to information. One foundation for this is the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). I will not go into too much detail here—the CRPD is a complex topic in its own right. It was adopted about 17 years ago, and all countries that have ratified it have committed to enabling equal access to information and services for people with disabilities. This is supported by implementation plans, action plans, reports, and similar instruments.
The state bears responsibility not only for its own services, but also for ensuring that the private sector and the non-profit sector provide accessible access. Germany still has a long way to go in this area, particularly with regard to the economy. In the non-profit sector, however, there are already positive examples, for instance in cultural institutions: many have shown great commitment to implementing accessibility despite limited resources.
There are also binding legal requirements that regulate accessibility. These include regulations such as BITV, BFSG, and the Disability Equality Act in Germany, which is currently being revised to better include the private sector. A point of criticism is that companies are still only required to provide accessibility when a person requests it—so-called “reasonable accommodations.” Preventive accessibility is therefore still not mandatory, which contradicts the CRPD.
Summary
In summary, there are two main motivations for engaging with accessibility:
1. Technical motivation:
• Mastery of the craft
• Improvement of product and service quality
• Reaching a broader audience
2. Normative motivation:
• Digital inclusion
• Compliance with the CRPD and other human rights agreements
• Legal requirements at national and European levels
Especially when operating internationally, for example within the EU or in North America, legal requirements are often even stricter. This is another reason to engage with accessibility early and in depth.