On the Self-Interest of Accessibility Manifestations

The ENABLE Model is more than just a framework for understanding accessibility; it's a "field guide for making accessibility happen -- and for understanding what happens when it doesn't". A critical component of this model is its "Manifestations" section, which offers a comprehensive list of real-world organizations, tools, and actions that exemplify both proactive care and reactive compensations. These manifestations aren't just static examples; they form a dynamic network.

Many, if not all, of the manifestations identified in the ENABLE model are driven by a form of self-interest, whether explicit or implicit.

Self-interest plays a role for both "Acts of Care" ( Pre-launch Interventions ) and "Acts of Survival" ( Post-launch Compensations ), as well as "Forces that Disable".

1. Pre-launch Interventions (Acts of Care):

Pre-launch Interventions represent "the acts of care that prevent inaccessibility before something ships". While often framed in terms of ethics or social responsibility, these actions frequently align with strategic self-interest for organizations and individuals.

• Market Expansion & Competitive Advantage:
  Companies proactively designing for accessibility can access new customer segments and gain a competitive edge. For example, Nike studying its hands-free FlyEase mechanisms to build shoes for users who can't tie laces demonstrates inclusive design in consumer products that opens up new markets. Similarly, OXO Good Grips adopting universal-design handles for kitchenware ensures their new utensils are grip-friendly for arthritic users, broadening their appeal.
• Brand Reputation & Public Relations:
  Proactive accessibility can enhance a company's image. NBCUniversal Media's proactive captioning of Olympic livestreams certainly positions them as a responsible media entity. However, while "Savior narratives" and products "designed for PR wins and awards" are explicitly mentioned as drivers, they sometimes lead to the creation of Disability Dongles.
• Legal Compliance & Risk Mitigation:
  Many organizations implement accessibility to avoid costly lawsuits or regulatory penalties. Examples like the European Commission setting ICT accessibility standards, Microsoft requiring WCAG AA compliance in supplier clauses, or Walmart enforcing internal WCAG audits indicate a self-interest in minimizing legal exposure and maintaining regulatory adherence.
• Talent Attraction & Retention:
  Companies that prioritize accessibility are acting in their self-interest to tap into diverse talent pools and improve product quality. Specialisterne Global partnering with corporations to redesign hiring tests and onboard autistic talent demonstrates a pre-emptive commitment to inclusive processes that can secure valuable employees. Fable allowing product teams to hire disabled testers improves product quality and leverages diverse perspectives
• Investment & Funding Conditions:
  Enable Ventures explicitly ties investment tranches to "measurable inclusion metrics". These acts of care are not merely altruistic; they reflect an enlightened self-interest, where doing the right thing also makes good business or strategic sense. Their self-interest is in both "closing the disability wealth gap" and "achieving competitive, market-rate returns". This demonstrates a clear financial self-interest driving accessibility from the outset.
• Internal Efficiency & Ethics:
  Some organizations may prioritize accessibility due to internal values or a recognition that inclusive practices lead to better products for all users, reducing future technical debt and support costs. This can be a form of enlightened self-interest.

2. Post-launch Compensations (Acts of Survival):

When accessibility is neglected, disabled individuals are burdened with "Post-launch Compensations," which are "acts of survival people are burdened with when accessibility is an afterthought". These are almost universally driven by the self-interest of the disabled individual or community to gain access, participate, and maintain autonomy, often against systemic barriers.

• Personal Autonomy & Participation:
  Users who employ Assistive Technologies (e.g., NVDA screen reader, JAWS, Be My Eyes), Third-Party Tools (e.g., SignUp Chrome extension), or System Settings are acting out of a fundamental self-interest to access information, complete tasks, and maintain independence when systems fail them. These actions are a direct manifestation of their self-interest in existing in the world. These tools "place the burden on the user to adapt", and this adaptation is a drive for survival and their need to function.
• Advocacy & Systemic Change:
  When individuals or groups resort to Human Help, Feedback & Bug Reports, Legal Action (e.g., DREDF, Lainey Feingold), or Protest & Public Pressure (e.g., 504 Sit-In, Capitol Crawl), their self-interest (or the collective self-interest of their community) is to overcome barriers, enforce rights, and drive institutional change when "every other avenue has failed". This is about survival, securing long-term equity and fundamental human rights.
• Avoiding Exclusion:
  Switching to an Alternative (e.g., AccessNow map, Bookshare) is driven by the self-interest to gain access that a primary service denies, even if "it comes with high emotional, social, financial, and cognitive costs". This also sends a market signal that can influence companies' behavior.

These compensations reveal the invisible labor and the significant burdens disabled individuals face when accessibility is neglected. They underscore that when accessibility breaks, someone pays for it. It's not the company or the developer, but the person who needed it most.

3. Forces that Disable:

The ENABLE Model identifies Forces that Disable, which are "structural, cultural, and organizational choices... that result in accessibility failures". These forces often stem from a negative form of self-interest, prioritizing certain factors over accessibility:

• Abandonment: When care is withdrawn, it's often due to perceptions of "modernization, efficiency, or cost savings", or a "calculated decision to cut disabled people loose". This is an organizational self-interest (e.g., prioritizing speed or cost-cutting over accessibility) that results in harm and "cripples" those who relied on the previous access. For example, a government site that once had a plain-text alternative silently removes it during rebranding.
• Disability Dongles: These "inventions that nobody asked for" are frequently driven by the self-interest of designers and companies seeking "PR wins and awards" rather than genuine solutions. They divert attention from the problems that need fixes, reflecting a self-interest to appear innovative without addressing root causes. For example, a single-line-of-code overlay that claims or insinuates it can make websites fully accessible, when that's far from the truth.
• Disinformation/Misinformation: Spreading false claims about accessibility is driven by a self-interest to protect reputation, avoid investment in real solutions, or mislead consumers. This can manifest as marketing quick-fix tools as complete accessibility solutions to avoid foundational work.

In essence, the ENABLE Model is not just mapping what happens, but implicitly revealing the underlying incentive structures and motivations that drive or derail accessibility efforts.

Accessibility is not a neutral landscape but a dynamic interplay of competing self-interests. By understanding these motivations – from a company's desire for market expansion to an individual's drive for autonomy and participation – we gain a deeper insight into why accessibility happens, or why it fails to. This understanding is crucial for leveraging the model for behavior change interventions, helping to make care scale -- not by accident -- but by design.

Consider the ENABLE Model's network of manifestations as a vast, interconnected ecosystem. Each organism within it (be it a company, a non-profit, a specific technology, or an individual's coping mechanism) is driven by its own form of self-preservation, growth, or desire for interaction within that environment.

Help companies see the reputational and market benefits of care (or the costs of neglect). Help individuals and advocates see the power of collective action to demand their fundamental right to access.