Soft Factors in digital Accessibility

Published: 07/11/2026

```svg Accessibility Consulting • 7–9 Min Read Why Soft Factors Matter in Digital Accessibility Going beyond WCAG pass/fail criteria to achieve true usability and digital inclusion HARD FACTORS WCAG & BITV Standards: Measurable, technical "Pass/Fail" compliance criteria. Necessary base standard, but often fails to guarantee practical usability for real users. SOFT FACTORS UX & Human Centered: Usability, low cognitive load, trust, and clarity. Hard to quantify objectively, yet essential for genuine participation and inclusion. Vulnerable Target Groups & The Inclusion Gap Current guidelines (including BITV 3.0 drafts) largely overlook users with low tech-proficiency. Older People Facing age-related visual, auditory, and cognitive changes simultaneously. Multiple Disabilities Intersecting impairments requiring flexible, multi-modal interface adaptations. Low Tech-Proficiency Struggle with complex Assistive Tech; overwhelmed by non-standard visual patterns. The Reality Gap Most organizations settle for compliance minimums. True accessibility requires going beyond technical specs to human experience. The 7 Essential Soft Factors Key pillars for designing genuinely accessible, stress-free digital public & healthcare services. 1. Understandability & Intuitive Usability Clear Interfaces: Intuitive operation for non-sighted, hard-of-hearing, or motor-impaired users. Goes far beyond formal BITV rule-checking. Readability & Plain Language: Public/health services often over-prioritize legal hedging over clear comprehension. Glossaries help, but must not raise cognitive load. 2. Error-Tolerant Design Beyond Mandatory Labels: Standard error messages (A/AA) are insufficient for complex forms. Design must prevent errors proactively. Low-Frequency Form Support: Rarely used forms (e.g., housing/child benefit) cause extreme frustration if architecture shifts or validation is unforgiving. 3. Reducing Cognitive Load Eliminate Information Clutter: Tech-savvy users filter noise easily; screen-reader & cognitive users get trapped. Hide non-essential blocks. Context-Aware Views: Follow modern online banking models: strictly separate logged-in vs. logged-out views to display only immediately relevant tasks. 4. Easy Customisation Beyond Minimums Persistent Hiding: Provide persistent settings to permanently hide irrelevant UI clutter, not just pause animations. Advanced Reading Modes: Custom layouts tailored for high magnification and low tech-proficiency. 5. Testing with Vulnerable Groups Real-World Testers: Include seniors, users with multiple disabilities, and people with limited tech skills. High-Value Insights: Uncovers critical usability breakdowns that automated/formal WCAG audits miss. 6. Support & Assistance Systems EN 301 549 Gap: Ch. 12 mandates support, but practical implementations are frequently lacking or hard to find. AI Assistance Potential: Well-aligned chatbots offer far greater utility than dense text walls or inaccessible video guides. 7. Trustworthiness & Design Consistency Visual & Technical Trust: Inexperienced users and blind individuals rely heavily on visual/structural predictability. Sudden layout changes or unprofessional styling trigger immediate fears of phishing, cybercrime, and data theft. Core Requirement for Public Authorities: Maintain a strictly consistent information architecture and a recognizable, reliable visual identity. Conclusion: 100% compliance with formal standards is not enough. Soft factors are essential to guarantee true digital participation and equal access for all users. Related: • Why Accessibility Professionals Failed • Why So Few People Complain • Soft Skills in Accessibility ```

This article explores the so-called “soft factors” of accessibility. Unlike hard, measurable factors defined by academic standards, soft factors help improve the usability and user-friendliness of an application.

The problem is that accessibility guidelines – particularly the WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines), which can be tested against defined criteria – tend to focus on aspects that can be assessed as either “pass” or “fail”. While this has the advantage of making it relatively easy to check whether a digital service is accessible, soft factors are much harder to measure. As a result, it is not always possible to determine conclusively whether a particular soft factor has been met. Many of these aspects fall within the areas of usability or user experience. Nevertheless, it is important to address them – especially when it comes to public sector services or essential services such as those provided by doctors and hospitals.

Target Groups and Everyday Challenges

In my view, these factors are particularly important for:

  • Older people
  • People with multiple disabilities
  • People with disabilities who have limited technological proficiency

While some people can use complex assistive technologies without any difficulty, others struggle considerably with using technology. The latter group in particular continues to be largely overlooked, as their needs are not adequately addressed by current guidelines (and are unlikely to be covered by the forthcoming BITV 3.0 either). Since BITV 3.0 is still at the draft stage, major advances are not necessarily to be expected. However, this remains an area that is difficult to measure and often insufficiently taken into account in everyday practice.

Many accessibility stakeholders focus primarily on whether minimum standards have been met. Although achieving these minimum standards is already a challenge for many service providers, it is unfortunately still rare to encounter organisations that go beyond the minimum and make a genuine effort to improve accessibility.

An Overview of the Most Important Soft Factors

The following sections take a closer look at what I consider to be the most important soft factors:

1. Understandability and Intuitive Usability

  • Interface and content clarity: This is not just about meeting formal BITV requirements, but also about ensuring that interfaces are intuitive to use – including for people who cannot see, hear or move freely, as well as those who face technological barriers.
  • Content readability and comprehensibility: As is well known, the BITV standards impose very few requirements on plain language and comprehensibility at levels A and AA. Even at AAA level, there are only a limited number of requirements, which are rarely taken into account. A clear and accessible glossary can certainly be helpful, but it should not unnecessarily increase the cognitive load on users. In particular, public sector and healthcare services often lack content that is sufficiently clear and intuitive. Although the Online Access Act (Onlinezugangsgesetz, OZG) includes requirements relating to accessibility and usability, in practice, providers tend to prioritise multiple layers of safeguards and risk mitigation over genuinely putting users' needs first.

2. Error-Tolerant Design

  • Interactive elements: Error tolerance in interactive elements is a key issue. While the BITV requires clear identification of mandatory fields and error messages at levels A and AA, this is often not enough to make forms genuinely understandable and usable.
  • Form complexity: Many forms (such as housing benefit or child benefit applications) are only used once or twice in a person's lifetime. If these forms have a complex structure, if their architecture (for example, “Aba” or “Bba”) changes, or if they are prone to errors, users can become extremely frustrated.

3. Reducing Cognitive Load

  • Many applications present users with an enormous amount of information blocks and content that is not actually needed at the time. While people who are comfortable with technology can simply ignore irrelevant information, blind users and people with cognitive disabilities often have to navigate through countless unnecessary blocks because important content is hidden somewhere in the middle or at the end.
  • Reducing the number of information blocks to what is absolutely necessary – as can be seen in well-structured online banking services (for example, with separate views for logged-in and logged-out users) – helps protect users from becoming completely overwhelmed.

4. Easy Customisation Beyond Minimum Requirements

  • In addition to the ability to pause or hide elements, users should have persistent options to permanently hide unnecessary elements.
  • Advanced reading modes and layout customisation options that go beyond standard functionality are also essential, particularly for people with limited technological proficiency or visual impairments who rely on high levels of magnification.

5. Usability Testing with Vulnerable Groups

  • A key aspect is conducting usability tests with people who face real-world challenges – including older people, people with multiple disabilities and those with limited technological proficiency.
  • Since these groups often experience the greatest difficulties when using digital applications, testing with them provides some of the most valuable insights for creating user-friendly services.

6. Support and Assistance

  • Although the European standard EN 301 549 (Chapter 12) requires help and support systems to be accessible and usable, in practice there are often very few dedicated, accessible support features.
  • Artificial intelligence (AI) could provide genuine added value in this area in the future: properly trained and well-aligned chatbots can often be considerably more helpful than poorly designed instructional videos or confusing walls of text.

7. Trustworthiness and Design Consistency

  • Visual and technical trust: Good design is characterised by its ability to inspire confidence. If the layout of a familiar website suddenly changes without warning or appears unprofessional, such visual inconsistencies can quickly trigger fears of cybercrime, phishing or data theft – particularly among inexperienced users and blind people.
  • Consistency in information architecture and a recognisable, reliable visual identity for public authorities are therefore essential.

Conclusion

Soft factors can be clearly defined, but they are difficult to measure in practice because there are no unambiguous, objective indicators. Nevertheless, they are essential: even if all formal accessibility standards were met 100% – something we are still a long way from achieving in many cases – this would often not be enough to ensure genuine participation without taking soft factors into account.

More on Accessibility Consulting