Switch to an Alternative

Description

When a system, product, or environment is inaccessible, some users are forced to abandon it entirely and search for an alternative. This act of switching in this scenario is compensation. It's an act of survival, not a choice of preference. It comes with emotional, social, financial, and cognitive costs.

For those with the means, switching might mean using a different app, device, or service. For others, there may be no viable alternative -- or switching may not be permitted, especially in institutional, educational, or workplace settings. In these cases, the user faces exclusion, reduced opportunity, increased compensatory labor, or harm.

Role in the ENABLE Model

Switching is an early and common compensation -- it can happen the moment a user encounters a barrier, before feedback, legal action, or protest are even considered. A person doesn't need to exhaust every option before abandoning an inaccessible system; sometimes the first encounter is enough. But switching is not a resolution. It's a reflection of structural failure and displaced burden. The builder avoids responsibility; the user bears the consequence.

Why it happens

Users are forced into switching when:

• The original system is inaccessible and unfixable from the outside.
• Earlier compensations -- assistive technologies, third-party tools, system settings, or workarounds -- fail or introduce their own burdens.
• The barrier is severe enough that switching is faster than trying to fix or work around the problem.
• A viable alternative exists and the person has the resources to reach it.

warning

Switching depends on privilege -- digital literacy, financial resources, time, and energy. Those without these privileges may have no way out. Worse, some users cannot switch due to workplace mandates, institutional requirements, or vendor lock-in. In these cases, switching isn't an option -- it's an impossibility. The result is endured -- whether that means weathering the inaccessible system at a cost paid in eroded time, money, and health, or weathering the exclusion itself.

In some scenarios, switching to an alternative can still result in exclusion, for example an employee switching to remote work due to lack of on-premise accommodations can result in exclusion from water-cooler conversations and serendipitous conversations with colleagues.

Examples

In the news

Disney DAS Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Disability Policy Changes (February 2025)
-- FindLaw

• A class action lawsuit alleges Disney's updated Disability Access Service policy forces guests with physical disabilities to switch to alternatives -- re-entry queues and "return times" -- that impose additional burdens and fail to provide equivalent accommodation. For some guests, no viable alternative exists: they cannot wait in standard queues, the new alternatives don't meet their needs, and leaving Disney means losing access to experiences their families and peers enjoy.

A comparative study: Zoom preferred over Teams, Meet, Skype for accessibility (2024)
-- Behaviour & Information Technology

• A 2024 study found 56.1% of disabled users preferred Zoom for video conferencing, with MS Teams a distant second at 15.9%. Users noted Teams had better captioning but was otherwise "a poor second to Zoom." When one platform fails accessibility needs, users must switch to alternatives -- but in workplace or educational settings, the choice may not be theirs to make, leaving them stuck with inaccessible tools.

DOJ Settlement Required Louisiana Tech to Replace Inaccessible Learning Tool (2013-ongoing precedent)
-- Inside Higher Ed

• A DOJ settlement required Louisiana Tech University to stop using an online learning tool that a blind student couldn't access and procure an accessible alternative. This case established that when institutions adopt inaccessible platforms, they -- not students -- bear responsibility for finding accessible replacements. Users shouldn't have to independently switch to alternatives when institutions have the power and obligation to provide accessible options.

• A blind user leaves a grocery delivery app with unlabeled buttons and switches to one with better screen reader support.
• A student with ADHD abandons a learning platform with distracting animations and uses a plain-text version of course materials from a peer.
• A Deaf user stops using a video platform without captions and switches to one where every video is reliably subtitled.
• A user with limited mobility switches from a drag-and-drop web app to a keyboard-accessible competitor.

Compensation sounds like

"I had to use a different app. The original one wouldn't let me sign in without solving a visual CAPTCHA."
"I moved all my files to another service because the sharing screen was impossible to navigate by keyboard."

Burden sounds like

"The alternative doesn't have the same features. It costs more. It takes longer. I shouldn't have to work harder just to do the same thing."
"Switching means I'm no longer part of the same conversation. I miss context. I miss opportunities."

Real-world Scenario

Larry is locked out of their bank account because the fraud protection system uses a speech recognition phone bot that cannot understand their stutter. They attempt to resolve the issue through support channels but encounter barriers at every turn. Eventually, they switch banks -- but it comes at a cost: hours of effort, disrupted payments, stress, and mistrust. Not everyone has the privilege to switch banks. And even when switching is possible, it shouldn't have to be.