Why you shouldn't argue morally for digital accessibility

The moral argument is dead. Unfortunately I have to say it so clearly. Every day we are bombarded with moral appeals that at best leave us pensive, but most of the time they leave us peripherally affected. I myself am very quick to shut down when someone comes to me with moral arguments, even if I think the fundamental point is correct.

A moral argument is that you have to implement accessibility because it is simply the right thing to implement it. What is not moral, however, is the suggestion that every person should have equal access, at least when we are talking about equal access to information and services. A democratic society must strive for equal access for everyone; this is also anchored in various international treaties and in democratic law, so it is not a purely normative task. Equality of opportunity must be guaranteed, but not social equality, i.e. that everyone earns the same, has the same living space or something similar.

Acting morally makes sense, of course. The problem is that almost every person or institution believes that they are acting morally correctly: the left, the right, the liberals, the conservatives, the church, various sects and many others. Every person can justify exactly why what they do is morally appropriate, even if objectively it would not be so. Leave trash in the park? "Unfortunately there was no trash can nearby, we can't take the stuff with us. Others also leave their trash lying around, someone will clear it away, we pay taxes for that." Accessibility? "Between us, hardly anyone needs that, it looks crappy, it's expensive, it limits our design options, it takes a lot of work, did I already say it looks crappy?".

Let me give a more vivid example than digital accessibility. Do you know anyone who would say it's okay for animals to be exploited or killed for meat, eggs and milk? Probably not. You probably don't think that's right either. The morally correct consequence would be to avoid meat, milk and eggs as much as possible. Hardly anyone does that. Almost everyone says they would like to eat less of it. And that is correct in that they could eat more of it than they currently do. When I once suggested a vegan company breakfast, I was laughed at. This means that many people are unwilling to give up animal products even for a single meal that someone else is paying for. By the way, these were people with an academic and digital-savvy background, probably more left-liberal and well-informed about environmental protection and climate change. If you can't get people like that away from the meat pot for a single, relatively unimportant meal, how can you do that with other people who think climate change is an invention and meat/milk is vital and a delicacy?

That means many people know what the right thing to do is and don't do it. With veganism it is usually the convenience, but for poorer people it may also be the price. No matter what people do, they tend to rationalize, i.e. to find reasons why their actions are right or why they have no other choice.

When it comes to digital accessibility, there is a second aspect: the gap between professional and private life. Privately, almost everyone would say that all people should have equal access to facilities or to the digital world. However, you have to take many other aspects into account professionally, especially economic efficiency.

We A11y professionals are quite good at ducking away when the question of costs is asked. You can't afford interpretation in plain language or sign language? Apply for funding. Oh, that takes six months and requires a stack of papers as high as Mount Everest? If you want to be good, you have to suffer. Oh, you're not eligible at all? Then let it be, better nothing than 100 percent accessible. Nobody says that, but don't many people think that way?

I assume that everyone wants to act morally correctly. Nobody wants to be made aware that they are not doing this. The well-intentioned will agree and then do what they did before, perhaps with a guilty conscience. The rest will simply shut down or even view the topic negatively. We see this very clearly in veganism. That's why the strategy of organizations like Extinction Rebellion is counterproductive, they achieve exactly the opposite of what they want to achieve if their goal was to convince people of the need for action. If that is the interest at all, some organizations are just interested in generating as much attention as possible.

Another problem I see is that disabled people are often made into objects to be helped in such communications. It is the classic scheme of the caring idea: it is often non-disabled people who argue this way towards other non-disabled people.

The moral argument often appears to be the last resort: you can't think of anything else, the moral finger is quickly raised and you can't argue against it sensibly. Hardly anyone doesn't implement accessibility because they find it stupid or unnecessary. Yes, those people exist, but in our area they are rare. They don't implement it because they think it is too expensive, too complicated and not important enough, because they think the target group is too small. They implement it because they sometimes believe in it, but most of the time they do so because they are obligated to do so. We still convince them that it makes sense, but the moral argument does not come up in this discussion, at least on our side.

Conclusion: There may be a few people who can be won over with moral arguments, but this tends to scare the majority away. There are plenty of other arguments that work better. The moral argument is pointless. In the end, you always have to adapt the argument to the target group.

I almost only deal with people in a business context: I argue in a variety of ways, for example with competitive advantages, purchasing power, better usability and so on. I don't actually need moral arguments.

More on Accessibility Consulting