The Challenges of the digital Accessibility Community

In this article, we focus on the accessibility community and the challenges it faces. This is a rather technical, somewhat "nerdy" article. If you are less interested in the community's internal structures and dynamics, or are not deeply involved in this field, you shouldskip this article. The Focus lies on German organizations, but most Arguments can be applied to the global community.

Summary - TLDR

1. The Accessibility Community

The community consists of people who regularly work on accessibility and contribute content.

A small, prominent core group dominates discussions and decisions; other groups contribute quietly or are only active on the fringes.

Criticism of power structures and communication within the community is necessary to improve inclusivity.

2. Paternalism and Lack of Representation

People without disabilities often determine what digital accessibility is.

People with disabilities are structurally marginalized, both in organizations (e.g., BITV, IAAP) and at conferences.

Official involvement often remains rhetorical; genuine participation is lacking.

3. Focus on Compliance Instead of User Experience

Many organizations concentrate on fulfilling standards such as WCAG or EN 301 549.

Conformance is overvalued; actual user experiences for people with disabilities often remain inadequate.

Complex websites make implementing standards difficult, resulting in significant effort for minimal practical improvement.

4. Accessibility Overlays

Overlay solutions dominate communication and marketing.

Expert criticism rarely reaches operators; there is a lack of organizations that specifically draw attention to the problems.

Aktion Mensch has largely withdrawn from this field as an influential body.

5. Exclusion Due to Complexity

Standards, regulations, and technical language are highly complex; newcomers are deterred.

Technical and linguistic barriers (including aggression within the community) prevent broader participation.

Social media amplifies negative, aggressive discourse, which tends to deter rather than motivate outsiders.

6. Linguistic Conventions

Strict linguistic rules in discourse (e.g., specific terminology) lead to further exclusion.

People without an academic background, with a migration history, or less experience are criticized not for the content, but for their phrasing.

7. Underrepresentation of People with Cognitive Impairments

Aspects of information processing and neurodiversity are hardly considered in existing standards.

Recommendations exist, but are not binding; implementation remains voluntary and is rarely enforced.

Stronger integration into WCAG 3.0 is urgently needed, but is still a long way off.

>Digital accessibility suffers from structural and communicative problems: power imbalances, an excessive focus on compliance, complex standards, exclusive technical language, and insufficient consideration of cognitive and neurodiverse needs prevent broad participation. Solutions require both a reform of standards and new strategies to strengthen participation, user experience, and inclusive discourse.

Criticism is useful

The accessibility community has undoubtedly made commendable contributions over the past years and decades. The work of BCAG serves as a prime example, as do the numerous contributions of individuals who, predominantly on a volunteer basis, have developed extensive content and documents. These materials are intellectually demanding, very comprehensive, and require intensive coordination processes. They are explicitly not works that can be produced quickly. The community deserves respect and recognition for this, which should be expressed accordingly.

However, recognition does not preclude criticism. On the contrary: Constructive, respectful criticism can contribute to the further development and improvement of the community. This installment will therefore focus in particular on existing power structures, frequently used methods, and forms of communication where, in my view, there is room for improvement.

First, it is helpful to define the term "accessibility community." As with most communities, this is not a clearly defined or sharply delineated group. A straightforward categorization based on the principle of "belongs" or "doesn't belong" is hardly possible. In my opinion, however, all those individuals who work regularly and continuously in the field of accessibility or actively contribute to this topic belong to the community.I wouldn't consider people for whom accessibility is merely a minor aspect of their work—such as online editors or developers who only occasionally consider accessibility—to be part of the core community. These individuals would generally not see themselves as part of the accessibility community either. The community in the narrower sense comprises people who work on this topic permanently, often as their main profession, writing expert articles, participating in discussions, and actively shaping the further development of accessibility.

As in many professional communities, a relatively small but influential core of prominent figures can be observed here as well. These individuals shape a large part of the public discussion and have a correspondingly high influence on content, standards, and opinion formation within the community.

Around this core group, there are further levels where participation and visibility gradually decrease. These levels include people who work more behind the scenes, make quiet contributions, or simply have a lower public profile, but nevertheless perform their professional work continuously and reliably. Furthermore, there are individuals who deal with accessibility not as their primary occupation, but only as a supplementary activity. These individuals belong to the outer circle of the community and often participate primarily as attendees at events such as ID24 or ExCon.

Lack of Representation

Against this backdrop, I would now like to address some key problem areas. In my view, a particularly serious issue is paternalism and the lack of representation of people with disabilities. This topic has concerned me for some time, as I recognize significant structural challenges here.

Specifically, the issue is that it is still predominantly people without disabilities who discuss and decide what digital accessibility is and how it is defined, tested, and evaluated. This affects numerous influential organizations, such as DIAS GmbH with its BITV test, the IAAP with its certification programs, and many other institutions. In all these contexts, a recurring pattern emerges: people with disabilities are systematically marginalized, while non-disabled individuals dominate the discourse and make the key decisions.

This problem is particularly evident in the German community. For example, examining the program outlines and speaker lists of certain professional events, such as the Rheinwerk Conference on Accessibility, reveals that people with disabilities are by no means represented in central or leading roles. A similar picture emerges in the further development and application of the BITV tests: here, too, people with disabilities constitute only a minority.

While someThe responsible actors often emphasize that people with disabilities are involved, but in many cases, this involvement remains purely rhetorical. A genuinely recognizable, structural, and sustainably anchored participation is hardly evident. From my perspective, it seems likely that this situation is at least partially accepted deliberately. The impression arises that existing power positions are to be secured and influence maintained, without any serious interest in critical voices or substantial participation from those affected.

I am less able to assess the international situation, as I lack personal insight into the community there. While many names are known, it is generally not apparent whether a person has a disability themselves or not – and, of course, this is a private matter that no one has to make public. For the German-speaking world, however, I can emphatically endorse this assessment. The problems described are not limited to Germany but are also evident in similar forms in Switzerland and Austria.

Compliance instead of user-centricity

A second topic I've repeatedly addressed is the strong focus on compliance instead of the actual user experience. What does this mean in concrete terms?

In this context, compliance refers to the formal fulfillment of accessibility standards such as WCAG or EN 301 549. This approach is fundamentally sensible and necessary, as these standards are legally binding in many countries. Therefore, there is no choice: conformity is mandatory.

However, this approach becomes problematic where it doesn't go beyond mere adherence to the standards. In practice, we frequently encounter situations where an application or website is formally considered "compliant," but the actual user experience for people with disabilities is inadequate or even frustrating. An example of this is blind users who have to navigate through numerous, largely irrelevant focus points using the keyboard to even reach a central function. Overly complex or cumbersome descriptions can also significantly impair usability. The same applies to neurodiverse individuals, for whom a user interface may be formally accessible but cognitively very challenging.

These are real problems that arise directly from the user perspective of the individuals affected. However, these aspects are inadequately represented in existing standards or are hardly considered in practical implementation. Consequently, it is difficult to convincingly communicate this difference between formal conformity and actual usability in client meetings. In such situations, I try to at least indirectly introduce this perspective or advocate for user-centered improvements with objective arguments. At the same time, this reveals a structural dilemma: For years, strong arguments for conformity have been made – including by ourselves. As a result, it is now difficult to convince clients to go beyond the minimum requirements.

Furthermore, there is a fundamental problem with the WCAG conformance model itself. The model's logic is only partially realistic. The idea that a website can be "100 percent WCAG-compliant" is hardly tenable in practice. Nevertheless, this is precisely what is required, as organizations must achieve one of the conformance levels A, AA, or AAA. In most countries, level AA is considered the mandatory standard. Failure to meet this level can result in legal consequences.

However, as soon as a website reaches a certain level of functional or technical complexity—which applies to most professional web offerings—fully complying with the requirements becomes extremely challenging. While simple, static HTML pages can be implemented relatively easily to ensure compliance, more complex applications quickly reach their limits. Consequently, the pursuit of full conformance ties up considerable resources. A great deal of time is spent fixing minor issues that offer little or no added value to actual users, while substantial improvements to the user experience are neglected.

In my view, this is a key weakness of the current conformance model.Unfortunately, it is foreseeable that little will change in this situation in the short term. As long as we work with WCAG version 2.x, the existing conformance model will continue in its current form. This situation is likely to persist for some time. Accordingly, no fundamental solution is currently in sight.

The core problem is that we, as accessibility experts, must insist on conformance because it is strongly required by law and regulation. At the same time, it should be clear to anyone who delves deeper into the topic that the importance of conformance is often exaggerated and overestimated. It is frequently treated as an end in itself, although it should only be a means to enable genuine accessibility and good user experiences.

Poor Communication Regarding Overlays

Another sensitive issue is so-called accessibility overlays. I would like to address this only briefly here, as this topic has already been discussed extensively. The central problem is that our arguments and communication against overlays have little practical effect. Overlay providers have a clear advantage over us in public communication and marketing. They specifically address the needs and fears of website operators and promise simple, quick solutions.

Against this backdrop, new strategies are needed. It is not enough to argue solely within the accessibility community or to convince experts. Rather, we need to specifically reach out to website operators who use such overlays or are considering using them. This target group needs to be informed objectively, comprehensibly, and in an easily accessible way about the actual problems and risks of overlays.

In my view, this requires an independent organization, such as an association or foundation, that systematically addresses this task. Such an organization could conduct high-profile campaigns, take a clear stance against the use of overlays, and simultaneously seek direct dialogue with website operators to inform them about alternatives and sustainable solutions.

Aktion Mensch is excluded from this discussion for well-known reasons, as it supports an accessibility overlay provider itself. This effectively means it has withdrawn from the debate. Its influence on digital accessibility had already diminished significantly: the "Einfach für alle" (Simply for Everyone) platform was discontinued several years ago, and the Biene Award for accessible websites has been defunct for about 15 years. Consequently, Aktion Mensch has largely removed itself from this field and currently makes no relevant contribution beyond its own public relations efforts.

Exclusion through Complexity

Another highly relevant issue, in my view, is exclusion due to complexity. This refers in particular to the multitude of rules and standards – above all, WCAG, as well as the numerous national, European, and international guidelines that are intertwined. I have been asking myself fundamental questions about this for some time now.

This complexity is effectively off-putting and largely excludes newcomers from the topic. Many people are unwilling or unable to delve deeply into the various standards, their scopes, and their interrelationships. Whether EN standards, WCAG, national regulations, or international guidelines like Section 508 – the overall system is highly complex, difficult to access, and, in many parts, linguistically unappealing. Even the individual sets of rules are demanding and require considerable training.

This situation is quite convenient for recognized experts, as it leads to a kind of special status. Those who know the rules and can interpret them correctly become indispensable. For everyone else, this inevitably creates a dependency on these specialists. While this may offer short-term advantages for existing experts, it contradicts the actual goal of accessibility. The aim should be to engage as many people as possible with the topic, to broadly develop expertise, and to establish accessibility as a natural component of digital work.

Against this backdrop, I'm rather surprised that people still venture into this field. Many of them simplify their entry for understandable reasons, initially focusing on concrete requirements and practical implementations without delving deeply into the legal intricacies or the complex interrelationships between national, European, and international regulations. This reluctance is rational, as the regulatory framework is simply too complex for most.

At the same time, this very system prevents newcomers from engaging with accessibility in a sustained and in-depth manner. This effect is exacerbated by the often highly complex technical language used in many articles, as well as by a sometimes lamenting or moralizing undertone. In my experience, the tone in parts of the public debate is not only negative but sometimes also aggressive – certainly not consistently, but definitely noticeable.

Such posts are disproportionately visible, especially on social media. Content that strongly complains, expresses outrage, or portrays people as victims generates more attention and is shared more frequently than factual, neutral, or constructive posts. This can generate empathy within the existing community, especially among those who are already convinced of the importance of accessibility.

However, for people outside this community, or for those who have only peripherally engaged with the topic, this form of communication tends to be off-putting. While a basic understanding or sympathy is often present, it rarely creates the motivation to engage more intensively, sustainably, and actively with the issue of accessibility.

This complex of exclusionary mechanisms due to complexity also includes the linguistic conventions in the disability and accessibility discourse. Whether one can actually speak of "rules" here is questionable; the more accurate term is probably "conventions." These are linguistic agreements that have developed over many years, are considered sensible within the community, and are simultaneously constantly evolving.

For outsiders, however, these conventions are hardly comprehensible. It is a highly specialized language with clear ideas about which terms should be used and which are considered unacceptable. Even from my perspective – after many years of working on this topic – a large part of these linguistic conventions is difficult to understand. Often, there is no transparent or rational justification. Instead, they are simply rules imposed: at some point, it was decided that something must be said in a certain way – and no other.

Those who do not adhere to these conventions are often excluded, regardless of the content of their contribution. The quality or relevance of the statement fades into the background if the word choice does not conform to established expectations. This particularly affects people without an academic background, people with a migration history, or people who simply express themselves in a different, less formalized language. They formulate their thoughts to the best of their knowledge and conscience, yet they are frequently confronted with harsh criticism or personal attacks.

For people unfamiliar with these linguistic conventions, such reactions seem completely disproportionate. They express a viewpoint and are not criticized for that viewpoint – which would be legitimate – but for their choice of words. In my view, it is obvious that this cannot be in the spirit of an inclusive and open debate. It should be noted that this is likely a relatively small group that insists on these linguistic conventions particularly strictly. However, these few individuals often become very vocal, active, and sometimes even aggressive when their expectations are not met. This creates a climate that many find off-putting.

I myself have had similar experiences and can personally handle them. For many others, however, this is a clear breaking point. They often withdraw completely and abandon the discussion with the resigned conclusion that this topic should simply be left to others.

Cognitive Disability as a Gap

Another, in my opinion crucial, problem is the systematic exclusion of a large segment of disabled people, namely those with cognitive impairments. "Cognitively impaired" is not easily defined, but essentially encompasses the processing and reception of information. This includes the ability to absorb, store, and combine content, as well as aspects of neurodiversity, such as differences in perception, response to visual stimuli, animations, movement, or specific color combinations.

This area has received insufficient attention in the field of digital accessibility. While the B3C working groups have issued recommendations for users with cognitive impairments and for neurodiverse requirements, as long as these remain merely recommendations and are not translated into binding standards, they will hardly be implemented in practice. The problem is not due to a lack of research or awareness—the issue is recognized—but rather to the fact that digital accessibility continues to focus heavily on compliance with existing conformity rules. As long as perception and cognitive requirements are not included in these binding rules, there is no instrument to enforce their implementation with clients. Recommendations can only be "smuggled in" to a limited extent, and the possibilities are restricted.

From my perspective, a revision of the rules, as envisioned with WCAG 3.0, is urgently needed to better address the needs of people with cognitive impairments and neurodiverse users. Unfortunately, this revision is still a long way off—if it ever happens at all. Until then, the challenge remains to better integrate this topic into the existing standards, even though there is no easy solution.