Accessibility is not one-size-fits-all, and that’s exactly why it matters

Marking Global Accessibility Awareness Day, we want to highlight a few accessibility principles that are well established, and a few that still do not get enough attention.

Author: Athena-Maria Enderstein, Global Head of DEIB, and Améliane F. Chiasson, Games Accessibility Lead

Date Published: 21/05/2026

Split image showing 3 different digital experiences. - a game controller being customised, a TV show with subtitles, a mobile app interface with strong contrast in colours

When people hear the word accessibility, they often think about a compliance checklist or a handful of add-on features near the end of production.

That is still one of the biggest misunderstandings when teams within the digital space plan for accessibility.

Accessibility is really about making products, services and environments usable and enjoyable by more people. And in digital experiences, that means thinking carefully about who might be excluded, where barriers may show up, and how to design with those realities in mind from the start—avoiding late production hindrances and accidentally letting unnecessary barriers weave their way into design systems.

That matters in games. It matters in media and entertainment. It matters on websites, internal communication platforms and hiring processes too.

And it matters because while accessibility is crucial to people with permanent disabilities, needs can also be temporary or situational. Someone recovering from surgery may need different ways to interact with a product. Someone holding a newborn in one arm may need to navigate a mobile device one-handed and without sound. Good universal design thinking will increase access while often improving experiences far beyond the audience a feature was originally designed for.

That is the curb cut effect in action. The classic example is the dropped kerb on a pavement: originally piloted in 1945 with disabled veterans in mind, it is now helpful to parents with prams, travellers with suitcases, delivery workers and plenty of others too. In digital spaces, the same principle applies. Features designed for accessibility often create better, more flexible experiences for everyone.

That is why accessibility should be treated as part of inclusion, quality and good design practice, not as a separate box to tick later.

The problem with treating accessibility as a late-stage fix

Many teams still leave accessibility until the end. By that point, design choices are already locked in, production is under pressure, and teams are trying to patch around avoidable barriers.

That approach is expensive. It is frustrating for teams. And it usually leads to worse outcomes for users.

A better approach is to build accessibility into decision-making earlier, when it can influence design patterns, content structures, interaction models and testing plans before those things become harder to change. In practice, that means asking accessibility questions at the same time as teams are discussing user flows, controls, pipelines, subtitles, UI hierarchy, media delivery or platform requirements.

The earlier teams start, the easier it becomes to make accessibility feel like a natural part of the experience rather than an obvious layer added on top. If you’re finding yourself in late-production, don’t give up. Time and time again, teams find that it is never too late to improve accessibility, even in small ways, and then use those learnings to make their next iteration better.

Accessibility is not one-size-fits-all

Another common mistake is assuming there is one universal solution in tackling accessibility, like a straightforward standardized checklist or design document.

There isn’t. Of course many guidelines exist, like WCAG for web, and the BBC Subtitles Guidelines for video content, or the Xbox Accessibility Guidelines for gaming. But while those are incredibly helpful to inform and plan around the implementation of best practices, there is great nuance and a need for adaptation from one project to another.

The barriers someone faces on a website are not the same as the barriers they might face in a film, a YouTube clip, or a video game. Even within the same medium, accessibility needs can differ based on the user, the context and the type of experience being designed. Users with disabilities aren’t a monolith—their needs and how they experience digital products can widely vary. Disability is a spectrum.

That is why accessibility works best when teams combine standards, expert input and feedback from the people we are trying to include.

Automation can help, but it cannot do the thinking for you

There is a growing temptation to assume that automated tools (like accessibility overlays for websites), or AI, will solve accessibility on their own.

They will not.

Automation can support parts of the process. Automated captions, for example, can speed up workflows. Automated testing can flag a handful of low hanging fruits. But neither should be treated as a magic fix. Unedited captions can be inaccurate. Automated checks can miss real usability barriers. And quick overlay-style solutions often create a false sense of security rather than a genuinely better experience.

Accessibility always needs human judgement.

It needs people who understand the product, the audience and the limitations of the tools involved. And it needs testing with the right users wherever possible.

“Nothing about us without us” is still the foundation

One of the most useful principles in accessibility is simple: involve the people you are trying to support.

That could mean bringing in accessibility specialists early. It could mean research with players or users with disabilities. It could mean reviewing hiring or workplace processes with disabled employees in mind. It could mean pressure-testing assumptions before they become expensive mistakes. No matter where you’re at or where you’ve started your accessibility journey, it’s always a good idea to proactively engage with those experts and communities.

Too often, accessibility decisions are made for disabled people without including them in the process.

That is where good intentions can still lead to poor outcomes, including a breach of trust with your audiences.

The strongest accessibility work usually comes from collaboration: experts, users, creators and delivery teams working together to understand the barriers that actually exist in a specific experience.

Why this is a business issue as well as a design issue

There is a human case for accessibility that should be reason enough.

But there is also a practical business case.

In the UK, this is often discussed through the idea of the Purple Pound: the spending power of disabled households. Purple Tuesday now puts that figure at £446 billion a year. That is a reminder that accessibility is not a niche concern. It affects a significant audience, and the organisations that overlook it are not just excluding people, they are also missing real commercial opportunity.

Studios and digital teams are also under pressure to reduce risk, improve quality and future-proof what they build. Accessibility sits inside all of that. When experiences are easier to use, clearer to navigate and less likely to exclude, that is not just good for one audience. It is good for the resilience and relevance of the product itself.

There is a legal dimension too. In the EU, the European Accessibility Act sets accessibility requirements for certain products and services across the single market, and it has applied since 28 June 2025. For teams working across regions, platforms and customer touchpoints, accessibility is increasingly something to plan for proactively, not something to revisit only when issues appear.

The real shift

The most important shift is not adding one more feature.

It is changing the question from “How do we make this accessible at the end?” to “How do we design this better from the start?”

Accessibility is one of the clearest ways to build digital experiences that are more usable, more thoughtful, more innovative and hence more future-ready.