Accessibility as a quality feature – not as a compulsory exercise

A question right at the outset: what actually makes a good digital product?

• Is it the number of functions?
• A modern design?
• Or the fact that as many people as possible can use it without frustration, detours or explanations?

This question is rarely asked openly. And that is precisely why accessibility is often misunderstood.

Why do we accept that people fail with digital products?

That they don't understand the content, can't find their way around or give up because it's unnecessarily complicated to use? Such situations are often dismissed as marginal cases. As individual problems. As something that ‘just happens’. But this is precisely where the error in thinking lies.

Because when people fail at digital offerings, it's rarely their fault. It is due to decisions: a lack of clarity, unnecessary complexity and the fact that accessibility has been treated as an add-on for too long.

Accessibility is therefore often classified as one of those unpopular mandatory topics: necessary, but annoying. Something that is only done because there are guidelines, not because it is understood as a quality feature. It is precisely this attitude that stands in the way of better products.

Accessibility ends up where mandatory topics end up

It is something that has to be done because there are requirements, not because it is understood as genuine added value. However, the problem is not the effort involved, the problem is the attitude behind it. Those who view accessibility as nothing more than an obligation automatically treat it as an add-on. Something that ‘also’ has to be taken into account. Yet practice has long shown something different.

Accessible offerings are rarely inferior – in most cases, they are superior

Accessible products are generally not limited solutions. They are often clearer, more comprehensible and more robust. And not just for a specific user group, but for everyone.

A good digital offering does not have to constantly explain itself. It is logically structured, comprehensible and intuitive to use. This is precisely where accessibility comes into play – not as a special discipline, but as a quality principle.

Those who formulate content clearly, organise information sensibly and avoid unnecessary complexity automatically lower barriers. For people with disabilities and also for:

• people under time pressure,
• people with little context and
• people with small or unfavourable screens, accessibility is a must.

Accessibility forces us to ask ourselves honestly:

• What is really relevant?
• What is just a distraction?
• What needs to be clear so that no one fails?

These questions do not make products poorer, but better.

Complexity is not a sign of professionalism

Many organisations believe that complexity signals seriousness. A product only appears ‘valuable’ if it is extensive, convoluted and requires explanation. However, the opposite is true.

Complexity often arises where no one has prioritised. Where requirements have been added instead of decisions being made. Where internal logic was more important than actual use.

Accessibility acts as a corrective here. It reveals where structure is lacking, language is unnecessarily complicated or interfaces are overloaded. Not because it restricts, but because it demands focus. An accessible offering does not ask, ‘What else can we include?’, but ‘What is really needed for it to work?’.

Accessibility is a promise of quality

Many discussions about accessibility revolve around minimum requirements. This raises the question of what is just enough. But quality does not begin where rules are met.

An accessible product signals something else, namely:

• We have thought about usability.
• We take orientation and comprehensibility seriously.
• We do not accept that people fail just because we wanted to make things easier for ourselves.

This is not a moral claim, but a professional self-image. Those who build good products take responsibility for their usability – regardless of the conditions under which they are used.

Inclusive thinking has an impact beyond the moment

Companies that think inclusively today are not only forward-looking, but also consistent. They do not base their offerings on the lowest common denominator, but on genuine usability. The result is long-term, sustainable solutions that can cope with different needs, situations and contexts of use.

This perspective not only makes offerings more accessible, but also more sustainable. What is clearly structured, comprehensibly formulated and deliberately reduced remains stable – even if requirements, target groups or usage scenarios change. Inclusive design reduces rework, avoids subsequent corrections and creates substance instead of short-term optimisation.

Above all, however, it changes the way users are viewed. They are not regarded as special cases, but as a natural part of reality. This is precisely where accessibility becomes human – not in the sense of care, but in the sense of respect. Companies that take this claim seriously are ultimately not only legally compliant, but also more credible, reliable and closer to the people for whom they design.

Maturity is reflected in clarity

Companies that understand accessibility as a quality feature ask different questions. They no longer discuss whether the effort is worthwhile, but how they can improve their offerings. This attitude shows maturity:

• in design, because clarity is more important than effects,
• in language, because comprehensibility takes precedence over technical jargon, and
• in structure, because orientation is more important than completeness.

In this understanding, accessibility is not an external constraint, but an expression of an inner attitude and a benchmark for quality.

Our task as an IT service provider: making attitudes visible

As an IT service provider, we are responsible for how accessibility is understood and implemented by our customers. Our task does not end with the delivery of concepts, designs or functions. It begins where decisions are made: in priorities, in considerations and in the question of what is considered ‘sufficient’.

Promoting accessibility does not mean quoting specifications or emphasising risks. It means creating clarity. Pointing out where unnecessary complexity arises. Pointing out when solutions exclude people, even though this could be avoided. And having the courage to demand quality – even if it has not been explicitly requested.

As a good IT service provider, we not only deliver what is requested, but also what is sustainable in the long term. We make accessibility visible as a quality feature, not as an add-on. As part of good design, not as a special case. This is precisely where our contribution lies: supporting customers in making better decisions for more accessible, sustainable and credible products.

Conclusion: What actually makes a good digital product?

Not the number of features, not the complexity of the solution. But rather the fact that it works – for as many people as possible, without barriers, without explanations, without detours. Accessibility is not a compulsory exercise for checklists and audits. It is a quality filter:

• It separates well-thought-out offerings from overloaded ones,
• clear solutions from complicated ones, and
• mature products from half-finished ones.

And that is exactly how you recognise quality.