I wanted to follow up on yesterday's email about showing people why they should care about accessibility.
I think it's important to understand that the teams I've worked with generally want the same things as I do. The problem is we rarely all agree on how to get them. This is because people aren't always rational, but on some level are always self-centred.
If you show a developer why semantic HTML makes their life easier, they will agree that accessibility matters. But they still push back on the implementation approach.
Why?
Because logic isn't enough.
Developers worry about tight deadlines. They're anxious about learning new patterns. They've had bad experiences with accessibility audits before. Their resistance isn't about the end goal. It's about the path. They will always choose the one of least resistance.
Designers aren't that different. They agree about contrast ratios, but hate it when I mess with their colours. They want readable text too, but they're protective of their visual identity. Same destination, different route.
This is where most most teams get stuck. We think agreement on principles means agreement on practice. It doesn't.
Instead of fighting their preferred approach, I try to work with it.
I ask them what concerns them about the method. The goal is to find out what success looks like from their perspective. Then I adapt my solution to fit their workflow, not mine.
When the dev is worried about deadlines, I show them how my approach actually saves time in the long run. And the designer protecting their brand will accept suggestions easier when they can see how accessible design will strengthening the brand instead of compromising it.
People will take the path that feels right to them. It's usually the one where they see less resistance. Most of the time, whatever I'm proposing equals resistance.
My job is to figure out how make the accessible path feel like their path.