- Accessibility Drives Aesthetics, is an exploration of the implications and impacts of designing for inclusivity.
- It explains how personally connecting to designing for accessibility can unlock creative potential and lead to a more aesthetic experience.
- Key learnings from this book include understanding the diverse user needs, designing for fluidity and comfort, and embracing creativity within accessibility.
- As a UX Designer, this book offers an overview of how designing with an accessible mindset can lead to powerful and meaningful designs. It provides helpful insight on how to create an aesthetic and sophisticated UX.
- Other books related to UX Design that may interest you include Don't Make Me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability, Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software and Design of Everyday Things.
✏️ Highlights
There’s an article circulating that claims accessibility and aesthetics are at odds with each other, creating a paradox that forces us to compromise.
Here’s why I find that belief completely and utterly false:
The article claims that if we are “too accessible,” we will meet the needs of the minority but end up hurting those of the majority.
To provide an example of how this plays out in planning, the 80–20 rule suggests that we should focus development efforts on the majority use case that plays out 80% of the time.
This rule is intended to focus on the most common user goals and scenarios. Take a pet supply online store, for example. If 80% of people want to buy pet food, we can de-​prioritize the case where 20% of people want a treat tasting subscription service. But people should be able to buy pet food whether they are Blind, or Deaf, or have cerebral palsy, or have any kind of disability that requires accessibility.
Normal is a lazy word. When people say someone is normal, they usually mean able-​bodied. Or white. Or cisgender. Or male. Or heterosexual. Normal is an othering tool because it implies marginalized people are abnormal.
In an age where technology is constantly straining our eyes, breaking our posture, and forcing us into sedentary lifestyles, having access needs is normal.
When nearly 13% Americans have a disability and nearly 75% use some sort of vision correction, disability is normal (disability source, vision source
I find it’s helpful to use specific terms: Blind vs. sighted Deaf vs. hearing Disabled vs. non-​disabled Disabled vs. able-​bodied
Instead of acting as an inhibitor, accessibility is often a driving factor in aesthetics. You don’t need to sacrifice aesthetics in order to be accessible (and if you think the two concepts are polar opposites of each other, I don’t think you’re trying hard enough). To prove it, here are some of my favorite examples of beautiful accessible design: OXO Swivel Eames leg splint RX bar packaging Prime Access Consulting Gov.UK design system Cash App
The visual clutter on the Louvre’s site is distracting and makes it difficult to look for and focus on what you want to do. In comparison, the clean aesthetic of the Field Museum’s site — with big bold text, helpful visuals, and clear call to actions — is more accessible and better looking.
Government agencies are required to meet rigorous accessibility standards (as they should, they serve the people). But I think anyone who has used a government institution’s website can relate to these sites being difficult to use. Often stuck in the 90’s, they typically have small font sizes, overly dense text, and are not responsive on mobile.
Cash App is the most intuitive. When you open it, you can immediately request or pay money without having to navigate to another page. Its simple interface creates a playful and minimalist look.
The color contrast runs just shy of passing WCAG compliance
This means accessibility is not just a matter of compliance, it’s a means of working toward restorative justice.
disability rights is about disabled people. It’s also about women.
And race. And class. Every social issue is also a disability issue.
When we prioritize aesthetics over accessibility — as subjective as that judgment may be — we actively oppress disabled people further.
When we declutter our designs to focus on the essentials, we create minimalist interfaces that are accessible for people with cognitive disabilities. And aesthetic.
Accessibility drives aesthetics because the ability to use something is beautiful.
There’s an article circulating that claims accessibility and aesthetics are at odds with each other, creating a paradox that forces us to compromise.
Here’s why I find that belief completely and utterly false:
The article claims that if we are “too accessible,” we will meet the needs of the minority but end up hurting those of the majority.
To provide an example of how this plays out in planning, the 80–20 rule suggests that we should focus development efforts on the majority use case that plays out 80% of the time.
This rule is intended to focus on the most common user goals and scenarios. Take a pet supply online store, for example. If 80% of people want to buy pet food, we can de-​prioritize the case where 20% of people want a treat tasting subscription service. But people should be able to buy pet food whether they are Blind, or Deaf, or have cerebral palsy, or have any kind of disability that requires accessibility.
Normal is a lazy word. When people say someone is normal, they usually mean able-​bodied. Or white. Or cisgender. Or male. Or heterosexual. Normal is an othering tool because it implies marginalized people are abnormal.
In an age where technology is constantly straining our eyes, breaking our posture, and forcing us into sedentary lifestyles, having access needs is normal.
When nearly 13% Americans have a disability and nearly 75% use some sort of vision correction, disability is normal (disability source, vision source
I find it’s helpful to use specific terms: Blind vs. sighted Deaf vs. hearing Disabled vs. non-​disabled Disabled vs. able-​bodied
Instead of acting as an inhibitor, accessibility is often a driving factor in aesthetics. You don’t need to sacrifice aesthetics in order to be accessible (and if you think the two concepts are polar opposites of each other, I don’t think you’re trying hard enough). To prove it, here are some of my favorite examples of beautiful accessible design: OXO Swivel Eames leg splint RX bar packaging Prime Access Consulting Gov.UK design system Cash App
The visual clutter on the Louvre’s site is distracting and makes it difficult to look for and focus on what you want to do. In comparison, the clean aesthetic of the Field Museum’s site — with big bold text, helpful visuals, and clear call to actions — is more accessible and better looking.
Government agencies are required to meet rigorous accessibility standards (as they should, they serve the people). But I think anyone who has used a government institution’s website can relate to these sites being difficult to use. Often stuck in the 90’s, they typically have small font sizes, overly dense text, and are not responsive on mobile.
Cash App is the most intuitive. When you open it, you can immediately request or pay money without having to navigate to another page. Its simple interface creates a playful and minimalist look.
The color contrast runs just shy of passing WCAG compliance
This means accessibility is not just a matter of compliance, it’s a means of working toward restorative justice.
disability rights is about disabled people. It’s also about women.
And race. And class. Every social issue is also a disability issue.
When we prioritize aesthetics over accessibility — as subjective as that judgment may be — we actively oppress disabled people further.
When we declutter our designs to focus on the essentials, we create minimalist interfaces that are accessible for people with cognitive disabilities. And aesthetic.
Accessibility drives aesthetics because the ability to use something is beautiful.
