I've recently had to fake a smile when I heard someone dismiss accessibility feedback as "user error."
It wasn't on purpose, I'm sure. But it gave me pause and I had to try to understand where they were coming from. After all, "user error" sounded fishy to me.
The myth of intuitive design
As far as I could tell, they weren't idiots. They just fell into a dangerous trap. They assumed that what was intuitive to them must be intuitive to everyone. As technical people and product creators, we sit in a comfortable bubble of technical expertise. We're surrounded by others who share our mental models and vocabulary. So when users struggle with our product, our first instinct is often to defend our choices rather than question our assumptions.
"It's so obvious" becomes a defense mechanism and once we go into defensive mode, we dismiss everything that doesn't fit our assumptions.
Different doesn't mean wrong
In basically every usability testing session I've been in, I quickly discovered that users interact with the product in ways I never imagined. For example, a keyboard-only user will have developed incredibly efficient shortcuts that seem bizarre to mouse users, but are perfectly logical for their needs.
These aren't the "wrong" approaches. They're adaptations that work for real people with real needs. So when we label these approaches as incorrect, we're just dismissing valid user experiences.
Break the blame cycle
Better accessibility starts with a fundamental shift in how we process user feedback. Instead of saying "the user didn't understand," try "we didn't make it clear enough." Instead of "they're using it wrong," consider "we didn't account for their needs."
Yes, it might feel like semantic gymnastics. But it's this repositioning that places responsibility where it belongs: with us, the builders and designers of these products.
Because after all, users aren't stupid. And neither are you.