Why Now is the Right Time for Accessibility

In projects, we often experience the same moment: A website looks good, loads quickly, has clear messages—and yet someone can't get in.

This can start very trivially. You want to fill out a form, but the focus jumps invisibly elsewhere. You want to open a menu, but it only reacts to hover. Or you want to understand a video, but without subtitles, it remains silent.

For many, this is a minor annoyance. For others, it is exclusion.

And that is precisely where accessibility becomes a question of digital inclusion: access to information, to offers, to education, to help. Not as a friendly extra feature, but as a basic requirement.

Why is this so urgent right now? Because the gap on the web is vast—and becoming visible. Audits show that the vast majority of websites fail to meet basic accessibility requirements. One evaluation speaks of over 95 percent failing. testparty.ai

If you read this and think "Then we're not alone," that's true. But that's exactly the point: When almost everyone fails, accessible quality becomes a real distinguishing feature.

Our most important perspective shift: Accessibility is not just a tech topic. It is a quality promise. And it is closely related to what we at Pola stand for: "Access for all"—as a social part of sustainable digital work.

In our projects, a small heuristic that quickly brings clarity helps us: "Can you do it without eyes, without a mouse, without sound?" If the answer is "no" in several places, it's not a flaw in you—but a signal that real users are running into walls.

And then the question is no longer whether you should care about it. But how.

When we talk to teams about accessibility, there's often a sentence that's meant sincerely: "We have hardly any users with disabilities."

The problem: You rarely see them—precisely because barriers make them leave early.

In the EU, nearly 89 million people live with disabilities. European Commission In Germany, around 7.8 million people with severe disabilities are mentioned. digitalagenten.com These are not niche numbers; these are life realities.

And it's not just about "disability" as a fixed category. It's about situations: glaring sun on the phone, an arm in a sling, a baby in your arms, stress, fatigue. Barriers also arise when language is too complex or interfaces are overloaded.

Additionally, there is a digital divide that we should not ignore. People with severe disabilities use the internet less frequently than those without disabilities—78 percent compared to 93 percent in the EU (2024). thueringen.de Part of this gap is infrastructure, part is education—and part is barriers in digital offerings.

Our first "Unique Angle" is therefore deliberately human: Digital inclusion is not just compliance. It's participation.

In workshops, we often ask: "What task does someone need to accomplish here when they have no resources?" A person who wants to file an application. Someone urgently needing a replacement part in the shop. Someone looking for a therapy place. In such moments, your website is not marketing—it's infrastructure.

If it's then not usable, it doesn't act neutrally. It acts excludingly.

And that's why accessibility is brand work for us: Not in the sense of "we adorn ourselves with it," but in the sense of trustworthy, fair digital relationships. Those who make it easy for you show respect. Those who make it impossible send—often unintentionally—the opposite message.

Initially, the WCAG seems like a rulebook from another world. Many teams know the feeling: You read "perceivable, operable, understandable, robust"—and wonder what that means for your homepage.

That's why we don't use the WCAG as a checklist but as a common language within the team. Once design, development, and content share the same principles, accessibility becomes suddenly planable.

The four principles can be translated as follows:

Perceivable: Content must reach people—even without perfect sight or without sound. An image without alternative text is simply invisible to screen readers. Light gray text on a white background disappears for many people.

Operable: Everything must work with a keyboard. No mouse, no touch—just Tab, Enter, Arrow keys. It sounds strict, but it's the quickest reality check we know.

Understandable: Language, structure, and interaction must be predictable. This is where a lot of silent failure happens: overly complex forms, unclear error messages, "Click here" links.

Robust: Clean code, semantic structure, no makeshift solutions. So that assistive technologies can reliably interpret the page—today and in two years.

If you have a team that doesn't live in the WCAG universe daily, a simple work rule helps, which we repeatedly use: "First principle, then pixel."

This is our third "Unique Angle"—and at the same time a method: We first define what an element means (navigation, button, note, error message) and then design the optics. This results in semantic clarity in the code and visual clarity in the interface.

WCAG levels (A, AA, AAA) are like seat belts in different stages. In many legal contexts, WCAG 2.1 Level AA is the relevant target state. digitalagenten.com

Our practical tip: Don't start with all criteria at once. Start with the usage paths that mean money, trust, or participation—contact, purchase, appointment, application. If they function barrier-free, the most important step has been taken.

There's a sentence we hear more often in project work than we'd like: "Accessibility is important—but we also have to watch the budget."

That's understandable. Yet it's often flawed thinking because it treats accessibility as a cost center.

The numbers tell a different story. A study reports that 71 percent of customers with accessibility needs leave a website if it's hard to use. wonderful.io That means: You don't necessarily get complaints. You get silence. And lost conversions.

At the same time, market potential is huge: The global "Disability Market" is cited to have around 13 trillion USD purchasing power. testparty.ai That's not an "extra audience," it's part of the market.

What especially convinces us: Accessibility often pays off not just through new target groups, but through less friction for everyone. A documented example: After an accessible redesign, conversion increased by 31 percent, including measurable ROI. accessibility-test.org

If you translate this, it's ultimately simple: Accessibility reduces misunderstandings, dead ends, and abandonments.

We like to think in terms of "friction costs" in such cases. Every point where people fail creates follow-up costs: support queries, follow-up questions, manual processes, bad reviews, lost leads.

And here's our perspective as a sustainable digital agency: Good accessibility is often also resource-efficient. Clear structures, fewer unnecessary effects, sensibly used media—this not only makes pages more accessible but often faster and lighter. This is a quiet, yet real synergy between social and technical quality.

So when you think about ROI, don't just ask “What does it cost?” Also ask: What does it cost you every month if people drop out—and you don't even notice?

When accessibility stalls in teams, it's rarely due to lack of will. Usually, it's myths that feel plausible—and still steer you the wrong way.

The most common myth: "It only affects a few." In fact, around 15 percent of the world's population lives with a disability. a11ymyths.com And even if you were to ignore this number: The "temporary barriers" catch us all. That's exactly why accessibility is not a special discipline but part of good UX.

The second myth: "Accessibility makes design ugly." We see the opposite. If you're forced to solve structure, contrast, and hierarchy cleanly, an interface often becomes calmer, clearer, more mature. Not because it's boring, but because it guesses less.

The third myth is the most dangerous: "We'll just install an accessibility overlay." Overlays can temporarily help individual users, such as adjusting font sizes. But they don't solve the root causes. And they can create new problems because they work on top of the content.

Here's a hard but fair fact: Automated tests find only a part of accessibility issues—in one study, about 57 percent are mentioned. Deque So if you only rely on scanners and widgets, much of your issues remains invisible.

The fourth myth: "It's the developers' job." The truth is, accessibility often fails in content (unclear language, missing image descriptions) or design (focus not provided, contrast not checked). Accessibility is teamwork—and that’s precisely why it needs a process.

We use a simple internal rule that quickly de-emotionalizes discussions: "Whoever builds the barrier also helps dismantle it." If a button is created without a label, it's not just due to code. If a text is incomprehensible, it's not just due to layout. It sounds strict but leads to something good: Responsibility is distributed—and the topic becomes lighter.

And if you're thinking "This is a lot": Yes. But it's not chaotic. It's structured. And it is learnable.

Tools are great—as long as you use them as a flashlight, not a judge.

To start, we recommend a small tool combination that you can use in 30 minutes:

• WAVE for a quick visual scan
• Lighthouse in Chrome for basic scores and tips
• axe DevTools for more thorough technical findings

But: Automated tests are limited. A study describes that automated testing detects about 57 percent of the problems on average. Deque

The remaining 43 percent are often the crucial ones: Is the alternative text meaningful? Is the order logical? Is the error message understandable? No machine can reliably assess that.

That's why a manual part is always included for us. And it's less mystical than it sounds.

We usually start with a Screenreader Reality Check: On macOS/iOS with VoiceOver, on Windows with NVDA. You don't have to be a pro. It's enough to hear how your page "sounds" once. Suddenly, you'll notice where structure is missing—and where things are "seen" but not "expressed."

Then we test the critical flows: contact, checkout, sign-up. And we check focus management with modals or menus. Many problems lie right there.

It's also important for us that accessibility doesn’t exist as an end test, but as a routine. A small example: If you reuse components, you can fix accessibility in the component—and it gets better everywhere.

If you already have a design system, it's a gift. If you don't, accessibility is a good reason to build one.

And if you're wondering whether you need external help for this: It depends less on "can we do this?" and more on "do we want to establish it as a process?" If yes, an audit plus enablement is almost always worth it—because it makes your team faster in the long run.

If you see 2025 as a target mark, you're thinking too short—even if the law currently appears that way.

We expect accessibility to experience three major movements in the coming years.

First: Standards continue to evolve. WCAG 2.2 brings new criteria, and WCAG 3.0 is in the works. This means: Those who only "fix" things sporadically today will have to rework them tomorrow. Those who build process and system today will be much more relaxed.

Second: Demography makes accessibility mainstream. With an aging population, visual, auditory, and motor impairments increase. This is not a special future scenario; it’s a realistic trend changing the user base.

Third: Technology helps—but doesn’t replace. AI can now generate subtitles, describe images, or simplify content. At the same time, the crucial quality arises from the interplay of structure, language, and interaction.

We are already seeing that large companies increasingly demand accessibility from partners and suppliers. Statistics describe that 89 percent of companies expect WCAG compliance from vendors. allaccessible.org

This is a quiet but powerful push: Not only legislators, but markets also demand inclusion.

Our view on this is hopeful: When accessibility becomes standard, better products emerge. Not perfect, but more human. Less friction, more clarity.

And for purpose-driven brands, it means even more: a credible translation of values into interface decisions.

If you don't want to "catch up" by 2030 but instead "shape" it, now is a good time to lay the foundation: design systems, content routines, QA processes, responsibility in the team.

Then accessibility is no longer the project you "also still" have to do.

Then it’s simply: digital quality.