Designing for Belonging
This study explored how blind and low-vision (BLV) adults define and experience digital inclusion. We identified barriers that persist despite implemented accessibility checklists and developed implications for future designers. We conducted four semi-structured interviews and a qualitative analysis to discover how inclusion and exclusion manifests in lived experiences beyond standard compliance checklists.
Role
UX Researcher
Affiliation
DePaul University, CDM
Areas
Accessibility
To address the inaccessibility to digital spaces for blind and low vision (BLV) users, accessibility standards such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) established expectations for inclusive digital content [11]. Accessible design not only enhances satisfaction among users with disabilities, but improves user experience for everyone, and drives business success [2,9]. Consequently, leading digital products are frequently espoused as accessible and inclusive [9].
96% of those using assistive technologies encounter daily accessibility barriers [10].
Social and emotional factors have a substantial influence on how and whether users engage with digital experiences and assistive technologies [3].
Leading accessibility efforts focus on identifying barriers and implementing fixes, however research suggests these approaches overlook the competencies and workarounds that BLV users regularly rely on [1].
How do adults with blindness or low vision describe digital inclusion, and what makes them feel included or excluded online?
What frustrations and barriers do they experience when using websites or applications that claim to be accessible?
What opportunities exist for designers to create more inclusive digital experiences that reflect user’s needs, emotions, and identities?
Four BLV adult participants who regularly use assistive technology to navigate digital spaces were recruited with the assistance of Dr. Oliver Alonzo. All interviews were conducted remotely via Zoom.
We conducted four semi-structured interviews, recording audio and transcription with an informed consent protocol.
To analyze the interview transcripts and notes, we conducted individual inductive coding, collaborative coding, affinity diagramming, and a final synthesis powered by NotebookLM.
How do adults with blindness or low vision describe digital inclusion, and what makes them feel included or excluded online?
Participants explained that inclusion means completing everyday tasks like reading emails, sending messages and accessing documents without extra steps or workarounds. Participants shared that they do not want novel specialized or complex tools. Instead, they want websites, apps, and assistive technologies that already exist to function together properly.
What frustrations and barriers do BLV users experience when using websites or applications that claim to be accessible?
When it isn’t, they are forced into unnecessary struggles with products that often claim to be accessible. Participants relied on community and sighted peers to develop workarounds.
What opportunities exist for designers to create more inclusive digital experiences that reflect user needs, emotions, and identities?
Participant #2 explained: “They obey all the formal rules, but they don’t test with anybody who actually uses it. Enough of us would love to volunteer our time.” Participant #4 emphasized the same point: “Bring people with different disabilities on the development team.” Participants strongly believe that early and continuous involvement of BLV users, rather than late-stage testing, would prevent many of the barriers they face.
Participants reported that small issues often create the biggest barriers, such as unlabelled buttons, confusing layouts, inaccessible forms, and unexpected pop-ups that slowed down tasks and increased frustration.
Participants appreciated when websites had clear structure, predictable layouts, properly labelled inputs, and descriptive alt text. These features allowed assistive tools to work correctly and made digital tasks simpler.
Participants felt motivated when digital tools worked consistently and allowed them to complete tasks independently. Reliability played a key role in their trust and confidence.
Some participants shared that they relied on community resources, online groups, peers with similar experiences, and online services that specialize in assisting BLV users. These spaces helped them discover workarounds when accessibility failed.
Integrate BLV users early and consistently in the design and testing process rather than waiting until the final stages.
Treat BLV users as co‑designers and collaborators, not only testers of finished products, to ensure meaningful change.
Prioritize structural clarity and predictable layouts since these patterns make digital environments easier to navigate and support assistive technologies reliably.
Avoid color‑only indicators, unclear validation messages, and inaccessible CAPTCHA formats, as these introduce unnecessary barriers and force users into workarounds.
These implications complement existing guidance on accessibility implementation processes and policy by emphasizing lived experience and continuous user involvement.