20. Accessibility isn’t what they think

WE OFTEN DEFINE ACCESSIBILITY as the quality of products being operable by people with permanent disabilities, and this is partially true.

It’s also true for people with temporary disabilities or those conditioned by technology.

For example, a right-handed person who has fractured their dominant hand and can’t use a mouse, someone with a poor internet connection who can’t access audiovisual material supplementing a webpage, a parent trying to make a purchase with a crying baby in their arms, or a person who can’t read their cellphone screen because of too much sunlight on the street and the interface not offering adequate contrast.

In short, there are multiple common situations where products do not present the appropriate level of accessibility.

Just as a ramp that eases the transition between the sidewalk and the road for wheelchairs also facilitates the movement of baby strollers, shopping carts, bicycles, tricycles, skateboards, and even people with crutches or a cane. Similarly, adapting our products to accessibility standards makes life easier for all users.

There is no scenario where benefiting a growing number of users is bad business.

You might be thinking, “How likely is all this? Is it worth preparing for these exceptions?”

The answers to these questions are: “Very likely” and “Yes.”

But there are additional reasons:

• Accessibility has a series of standards that are increasingly demanded in products with various features.
• There is a growing universe of product developers who consider accessibility a fundamental pillar in their design.
• This is where you can clearly see the difference between a mediocre product and an extraordinary one.
• It’s good business.

But if we understand that the usability of a product depends on the user’s knowledge, the task, and the context of use, we must also consider Accessibility as an appendage of Usability.

That’s why we should extend the concept of Accessibility and think about improving Usability in a growing number of common situations where products tend to fail. This is a significant differential that our products must exploit.

Assuming that a feature will only be used in the “appropriate” context is a misinterpretation of the word “appropriate.”

There is no ideal usage situation, one in which the user is seated, 100% focused on the task, without distractions, or permanent or temporary impediments.

The reality is much harsher.

We can continue to refer to Accessibility as an additional value or, better yet, consider that we are not designing and building a product for all the situations in which our users will operate it… and correct that.