Accessibility and inclusive design must be central to digital development, driven by personal experiences and informed by lived expertise, while overcoming organizational resistance and reliance on automated tools. The discussion underscores ethical, economic, and legal imperatives for embedding accessibility, advocating for human-centered solutions over speculative technologies.

The Engineering Quality Podcast

The Engineering Quality Podcast - hosted by Alessandra Moreira, Royalee Martin, and Veronika Pliusnina. Testing focused panel discussions.

• https://www.engineeringqualitypodcast.com/
• https://music.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqUuvcBX10HyISlL5fhvGJosizW8PD9rV

Episode Details

• Show Notes: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/engineering-quality/episodes/18-Not-Accessible--Not-Ready-e3i92ck
• Published: 2026-04-22T11:30:00Z
• Duration: 00:57:07
• Author: Engineering Quality

Overview

The podcast emphasizes the critical need for accessibility and inclusive design in digital spaces, highlighting practical strategies to ensure universal access for people with disabilities. It explores how personal experiences, such as Krystal Preston Watsons relationship with her grandmother who lived with diabetes and lost both legs, shaped her commitment to accessibility advocacy. Watsons career transition from journalism and web design to QA testing underscores the integration of investigative problem-solving skills into accessibility work, while her own visual impairments further informed her understanding of the challenges faced by users relying on tools like screen readers. The discussion stresses that accessibility should not be an afterthought but a core principle embedded into software development, requiring leadership prioritization, policy integration, and continuous testing to avoid regression or legal risks.

Key challenges in adopting accessibility practices include organizational inertia, lack of leadership buy-in, and cultural biases like ableism, which often deprioritize accessibility in favor of short-term financial goals. The conversation critiques the overreliance on automated tools for accessibility testing, emphasizing that they cannot replace human testingespecially with people who have disabilitiesto uncover nuanced usability issues. It also addresses the ethical imperative to hire individuals with disabilities for testing roles, ensuring fair compensation and leveraging lived experience. Additionally, the discussion highlights the economic and ethical arguments for accessibility, noting that ignoring it risks lawsuits, revenue loss, and exclusion from a growing market segment. While AI is briefly examined as a potential tool for accessibility, the podcast cautions against overhyping it, advocating instead for user-centered innovations that address real needs rather than speculative solutions.

What If

• What if you embedded accessibility checks into every sprint of your development process?
  Concrete move: Create a sprint checklist that requires accessibility validations (e.g., keyboard navigation, screen reader compatibility) for all user-facing features.
  Why now: Companies often face lawsuits when accessibility is ignored; proactive integration avoids legal risk and reduces regression tickets.
  Expected upside: Fewer post-deployment fixes, stronger compliance with standards like WCAG, and a more inclusive product that attracts a broader user base.

• What if you partnered with local disability groups to conduct real user testing for your software?
  Concrete move: Identify a community organization that supports people with disabilities and offer to test your product with their members, compensating them fairly for their time.
  Why now: Automated tools miss 80% of accessibility barriers (per the text), but real user feedback uncovers critical issues like confusing navigation or screen reader conflicts.
  Expected upside: Discovery of hidden usability flaws, improved product quality, and a stronger ethical reputation that differentiates you in the market.

• What if you built an accessibility ROI case study tailored to your business?
  Concrete move: Calculate the cost of hiring an accessibility professional ($500,000/year) versus the cost of litigation ($30 million in fixes) and present it to your leadership or investors.
  Why now: Decision-makers prioritize financial risks over ethical considerations; framing accessibility as a risk mitigation strategy aligns with their priorities.
  Expected upside: Securing funding for accessibility tools, training, or hiring, and embedding accessibility as a core business value rather than a side project.

Takeaway

• Integrate accessibility into your development workflow from the start by treating it as a non-negotiable requirement, not an afterthought. Use tools like axe or WAVE for initial checks, but prioritize manual testing (e.g., keyboard navigation) to identify critical barriers early.
• Advocate for leadership buy-in by framing accessibility as a financial imperative: highlight the cost of potential lawsuits ($30M+ fixes) versus investing in accessibility professionals ($500K/year) to mitigate long-term risks.
• Conduct real user testing with people with disabilities to uncover issues missed by automated tools, such as screen reader compatibility or nuanced usability problems, and ensure your product works for all users.
• Embed keyboard-only testing as a routine practice to identify accessibility barriers like keyboard traps, which directly impact users relying on assistive technologies, and use this as a low-cost, high-impact starting point.
• Educate yourself and your team on inclusive design principles through continuous learning, such as workshops or accessible design guidelines, to foster empathy and ensure accessibility becomes a cultural priority, not just a compliance checkbox.