Skip to main content

Disinformation and Misinformation

When narratives, data, or claims about accessibility are misleading or false, diverting attention from systemic issues and hindering effective solutions.

What It Is​

Disinformation and misinformation refer to the spread of false or inaccurate information related to accessibility, disability, or inclusive design. This can manifest as:

  • False claims about compliance: Companies asserting their products meet accessibility standards when they do not.
  • Exaggerated solutions: Marketing quick-fix tools, such as single-line-of-code overlays, as complete accessibility solutions that obviate the need for foundational work. These are often built without disabled people and fail to address real access needs.
  • Downplaying disability prevalence or impact: Suggesting that disabled users are "edge cases" or that issues reported by them are "not a priority".
  • Misleading narratives: Framing accessibility as a "nice-to-have" or an optional add-on rather than a necessary form of care or a core obligation.
  • Obscuring true causes: Blaming disabled individuals or their assistive technologies for access failures, rather than acknowledging poor design or development.

Why It Happens​

Disinformation and misinformation thrive on several factors, often mirroring reasons for other disabling forces:

  • Lack of disabled stakeholders or lived experience: Solutions or narratives are developed in isolation, without input from the community they aim to serve, leading to guesses at needs and an overvaluation of novelty.
  • Techno-solutionism: The belief that disability is a problem to be "fixed" by gadgets or AI, rather than recognizing inaccessibility as a systemic issue requiring human-centered design. This mindset can contribute to disability dongles, tools created that nobody asked for.
  • Savior narratives: Companies prioritize public relations wins over sustainable usability and equity, often marketing products designed for PR wins and awards, not sustainable usability or equity.
  • Bias and ignorance: When teams say "we don't have disabled users", or believe certain access needs are "not legally required for our sector" or can be "added later if we have time".
  • Ambiguity: Vague responsibilities, unenforced standards, or incomplete documentation can allow false claims to persist without challenge.

Where It Happens (ENABLE Stages)​

Disinformation and misinformation can influence or arise at nearly every stage of the ENABLE model:

ENABLE StageHow Disinformation and Disinformation disables
Set Requirements that Include AccessibilityMisinformation about legal obligations (e.g., "It's not legally required for our sector") or the perceived scope of accessibility needs.
Create Accessible ContentFalse assumptions that visuals are "self-explanatory" or that there's "no time to caption this".
Design Accessible ExperiencesBeliefs that "Screen readers will figure it out, right?" or that design is "for normal users," ignoring inclusive patterns.
Develop Accessible ImplementationsDevelopers being told "We'll fix accessibility later" or that "Keyboard support isn't part of MVP" based on misleading priorities.
Test for AccessibilityMisinformation that automated tests are sufficient, leading to "skipping testing" or not conducting "user testing with people with disabilities".
Triage and Prioritize Accessibility IssuesDeprioritizing issues because "Only one user reported that issue, so it's not a priority," or reclassifying critical bugs as minor "feature requests".
Iterate to Address ShortcomingsCommunity feedback being "ignored" or improvements focusing "on optics" rather than genuine fixes.
Create StopgapsOverlays being marketed as complete solutions, effectively misrepresenting temporary measures as permanent fixes for underlying issues.
Post-launch CompensationsUsers are left to use assistive technologies or workarounds after they were misinformed about product accessibility, or because misleading claims prevented pre-launch care.
Submit Feedback to CreatorsUsers' feedback being dismissed as "isolated issues" or their labor in reporting issues being unpaid and unacknowledged due to a prevailing false narrative of product completeness.
- Assert One's Rights
- Stage a Protest		Institutions might spread misinformation to discredit claims or justify inaction, forcing disabled people to escalate to formal action or public pressure as a last-resort compensation.

How It Disables​

Disinformation and misinformation actively disable by:

  • Delaying real solutions: Diverting resources and attention away from fundamental fixes for systemic inaccessibility.
  • Undermining trust: Leading disabled communities to distrust future interventions and promises of inclusion.
  • Normalizing neglect: Creating a false sense of security that accessibility is "taken care of" or not needed, preventing genuine acts of care from being implemented.
  • Wasting resources: Funds and effort are expended on superficial or ineffective solutions, duplicating solutions that already exist.
  • Shifting burden: Reinforcing the idea that disabled people are responsible for patching access themselves, rather than developers building it in.
  • Eroding autonomy: By creating barriers that are hard to identify or challenge due to misleading information, users are deprived of their independence.

Why It Matters​

Disinformation and misinformation are not merely errors; they are structural forces that perpetuate inequity. They gaslight disabled people by telling them that their needs are met when they are not, or that their struggles are unique rather than systemic. This leads to:

  • Continued exclusion: Genuine barriers remain unaddressed, impacting participation in education, employment, healthcare, and civic life.
  • Increased frustration and fatigue: Disabled individuals are forced to repeatedly advocate, correct false narratives, and explain basic accessibility concepts, leading to burnout.
  • Erosion of public accountability: When false information is widely accepted, it becomes harder to hold institutions responsible for their neglect.
  • Cycle of betrayal: When prior victories are undone or promises of access are revealed as hollow, it reactivates trauma and teaches people to expect betrayal.

Real-World Scenarios​

  • A company launches a new product, claiming it is "fully accessible with our AI overlay," when in reality, the overlay introduces new conflicts with screen readers and fails to address core WCAG violations. As a result, users purchase the product under false pretenses and are left with an unusable system, forcing them to rely on complex workarounds or seek human assistance.
  • During a public awareness campaign about digital government services, a government agency publishes infographics stating that "all online forms are now screen-reader compatible," despite internal audit reports showing significant inaccessible components. This misinformation leads disabled citizens to attempt to use the forms, only to be met with inaccessible experiences, causing them to miss deadlines for critical benefits.
  • A university department purchases a new learning management system (LMS) after the vendor assures them it "meets all federal accessibility guidelines." This claim is based on outdated information or a superficial review. Faculty are later informed by disabled students that course materials are inaccessible, leading to a scramble for alternative formats and a breakdown of trust in the university's commitment to inclusion.

What Care Sounds Like​

When addressing or preventing disinformation and misinformation, care sounds like:

  • "We committed to transparency about our accessibility shortcomings and our plan for full remediation".
  • "We conducted user testing with people with disabilities, and their feedback guides our improvements".
  • "We hired disabled designers from the start and co-designed this with the disabled community".
  • "We actively monitor and correct false claims about accessibility, especially those promoting 'quick-fix' solutions."
  • "Accessibility failures are production bugs, not edge cases, and we're prioritizing fixing them ahead of new features".

What Neglect Sounds Like​

When disinformation and misinformation are allowed to flourish, neglect sounds like:

  • "Our marketing team said it's accessible, so it must be".
  • "We'll just add an accessibility widget; that should cover us legally".
  • "Nobody complained, so it must be working for everyone".
  • "Real accessibility is too expensive, so we just focus on making it look good".
  • "It's not perfect, but it won an award".

Thinking about disinformation and misinformation in accessibility is like trying to navigate a maze where some of the maps are intentionally misleading, and others are just poorly drawn. You might be told a path is clear, only to hit a dead end, or that a shortcut exists that actually leads you further away from your goal. The real solution isn't to draw more confusing maps, but to build clear, consistent pathways that don't require a map at all.