In an increasingly digital world, millions of disabled people are being systematically excluded from critical services every day, from their medical records to bank accounts to emergency response systems.
These services are frequently hosted on digital platforms which can be inaccessible to disabled people, the consequences of which can be life-altering.
Blind people, for example, have reported being unable to book vaccinations during the pandemic due to websites that block screen readers. Wheelchair users report having to give their secure card details to strangers when they cannot reach a payment kiosk.
Disabled voters may face challenges accessing online voter registration systems or digital voting platforms that are not designed with accessibility in mind, effectively excluding them from participating in democratic processes.
The new book Digital Accessibility Ethics : Disability Inclusion in all Things Tech, with contributions from a global coalition of experts and advocates, calls for urgent action.
“Digital accessibility is not a luxury, it’s a civil and human right,” the editors Lainey Feingold, Reginé Gilbert and Chancey Fleet argue. “Without it, disabled people are excluded from participating in society, and the digital world cannot be ethical.”
Inequity in the digital age
The team of 39 expert authors demonstrate how the digital accessibility gap, a component of the digital divide, harms disabled people, who make up over 1 billion of the global population according to the World Health Organisation.
The experts argue that inaccessibility is pervasive and a daily challenge. As more services move online and technology continues to advance, without digital accessibility the digital divide will continue to widen.
“Increasingly, everything is digital,” the editors explain. “Our devices help us find our next job, our next love, our community gathering places. Learning and teaching happen online – in and out of the classroom, the workplace, the library. We depend on computers for work, entertainment, shopping, civic participation, and connection. Digital tools allow us to withdraw our own money, listen to music, play games, follow our favourite teams, and participate in local government.
“Legal problems are increasingly handled online. Daily, we look to our phones to find our way. In an emergency, the digital devices in our pockets offer critical safety information and unite us with loved ones.
“None of this is possible for people with disabilities when digital tools and content are not accessible.”
Inaccessibility has economic and social consequences for disabled people, who are more likely to live in poverty, face higher unemployment rates and lack access to critical services due to systemic barriers. Employers also miss out on the skills and creativity of a large section of society when disabled people are blocked from leadership potential by inaccessible workplace tools.
Systemic exclusion
One example where the stakes could not be higher is in emergencies and crises. According to the United Nations, only 20% of disabled individuals can evacuate without support, but less than 40% of emergency plans mention disability at all.
“These statistics are not coincidences,” explains Erin E. Brown, a Bahamian Disability Inclusion Consultant. “They are symptoms of structural ableism, where emergency preparedness frameworks fail to incorporate basic accessibility, digital or otherwise. And in a world increasingly reliant on technology to issue warnings, give directions, and provide services, the absence of digital accessibility is more than a design flaw. It’s an ethical breach.”
Emergency alerts and news updates often fail to include captions, sign language interpretation or screen-reader-friendly formats, leaving deaf, blind and neurodivergent individuals without critical emergency information.
A roadmap for change
The authors introduce a Digital Accessibility Ethics Framework, a tool designed to guide governments, corporations and people in creating inclusive digital environments.
The authors call for immediate action in several key areas, including introducing the Ethics Framework into organisational decision-making before exclusion happens, calling for more government accountability and enforcing compliance with the growing number of digital accessibility legal requirements across the globe.
The authors also suggest organisations should focus on creating digital tools and content that disabled people can use just as easily and independently as everyone else. This means adopting policies to ensure all technologies, whether purchased, licensed, or free, provide equal access to everyone.
They also suggest organisations should provide accurate and current accessibility information about their products and services, including a clear roadmap for addressing accessibility gaps. A robust feedback loop should be established to capture, remediate, and report on issues identified by disabled individuals, ensuring their voices are heard and acted upon, they advise.
“While technology and law are rapidly changing, one thing remains constant: the continued growth of the digital world. In the coming years, more decisions will be made about digital tools and content that impact ever-increasing aspects of our lives. Digital accessibility ethics must be part of that decision‑making,” the editors conclude.