From Prototype to Market: How Brands Test Accessibility Features
Written By: Hamza
Introduction
Here's something that should be obvious but apparently isn't: designing products that people can actually use requires asking those people what works. Revolutionary concept, right?
And yet, for decades, the beauty and personal care industry designed products almost exclusively with able-bodied consumers in mind. The result? Millions of people struggled with packaging they couldn't open, applicators they couldn't grip, and products that seemed designed to exclude them from the simple pleasure of a skincare routine.
That's changing. Slowly, imperfectly, but meaningfully. And the brands getting it right aren't just slapping "accessible" on their marketing rather they are fundamentally rethinking how products get developed in the first place.
Let's talk about what that actually looks like, from the first prototype to the store shelf.
User testing protocols with people with various disabilities
The gold standard in accessibility testing isn't complicated to explain, though it requires genuine commitment to execute: include people with disabilities in every stage of product development, not just at the end when you're looking for approval.
The W3C Web Accessibility Initiative puts it plainly,conformance testing alone isn't enough. You can check every box on a technical standards list and still create something that's genuinely frustrating to use. That's because lived experience reveals barriers that no checklist anticipates. Someone using a product with arthritis-affected hands, limited vision, or chronic pain will discover usability issues that able-bodied testers simply cannot.
Effective user testing protocols involve recruiting participants across the full spectrum of disability types. This means people with motor impairments , visual impairments (, cognitive differences, and chronic conditions like arthritis that affect dexterity and endurance. Each group interacts with products differently, and a design that works beautifully for one might completely fail for another.
Research from Smashing Magazine and Nielsen Norman Group emphasizes several critical practices: let testers use their own familiar assistive devices and adaptive strategies rather than standardized setups, conduct sessions in comfortable environments, and allow flexible timing. For example,someone with a fatigue condition may need breaks that your testing schedule didn't anticipate.
Perhaps most importantly, user testing should happen early and often, not as a final validation step. As accessibility researcher Shawn Lawton Henry notes, informal evaluations throughout development are more effective than formal usability testing only at the end of a project. By then, you've already locked in design decisions that may be expensive or impossible to change.
The Fable platform, which connects companies with people who use assistive technologies, describes this as "pulling accessibility further left",meaning earlier in the timeline. Their clients report that testing with assistive technology users during the design phase, rather than after development, catches problems when they're still cheap to fix.
Feedback integration during product development
Getting feedback is one thing. Actually using it to change your product? That's where most companies fall short.
The Centre for Inclusive Design estimates that retrofitting accessibility features into an existing product can cost up to 10,000 times more than building them in from the start. That's not a typo. Changing a jar lid design after you've designed the manufacturing line is significantly more expensive than getting the design right during prototyping.
Effective feedback integration requires what accessibility professionals call an "iterative, collaborative workflow". Essentially,not a handoff where designers throw specs over a wall to developers and call it done. Section508.gov recommends agile development approaches where accessibility concerns get addressed in every sprint, with continuous feedback loops allowing real-time course corrections.
So what does this actually look like? Olay's Easy Open Lid development involved meeting with consumers who had dexterity conditions, limb differences, chronic joint pain, and visual impairments. They did this not only once, but multiple times throughout the design process. The team also included external experts and drew on personal experiences from team members with disabilities. Each round of feedback shaped the next iteration, resulting in a lid with winged caps for easier opening, extra grip texture, high-contrast labels, and Braille text.
Critically, feedback integration means being willing to make significant changes based on what you learn. A 2023 systematic review of assistive technology development found that while most studies reported "iterations" based on user feedback, the depth of those iterations varied enormously. Some teams made cosmetic tweaks while others fundamentally redesigned their products multiple times based on what users actually needed.
The difference between performative consultation and genuine co-design often comes down to power dynamics. Are disabled testers advisory, or do they have real influence over design decisions? Can their feedback result in a product being delayed or redesigned, or is testing just a final stamp of approval?
Men's Reversible Front Vest with Magnetic Closure
Iterative design improvements based on real-world use
Here's where things get interesting but also where manybrands quietly drop the ball.
Getting a product to market with accessibility features is just the beginning. Real-world use reveals problems that even the best testing protocols miss. People use products in ways designers never anticipated. Environmental conditions vary. Assistive technologies get updated. What worked in a controlled testing environment may fail in someone's actual bathroom.
The best brands treat product launch as the start of a learning process, not the end of one. They monitor customer feedback, track complaints, and actively seek input from disability communities about what's working and what isn't. New features can break accessibility unless it's part of your design culture. As the Interaction Design Foundation notes, brands should "include accessibility in every sprint and backlog refinement" and "track accessibility bugs like any other issue."
This matters especially for physical products where design changes require retooling. Brands committed to genuine accessibility build feedback mechanisms that allow for iterative improvement across product generations. The current version informs the next version, which informs the one after that.
Consider Microsoft's Adaptive Accessories, developed through extensive user research with people who have motor disabilities. The system isn't static, but ratherit's designed as a modular, customizable platform that can evolve based on how people actually use it. This approach acknowledges that accessibility needs vary enormously between individuals and that the first design, no matter how carefully researched, won't be perfect for everyone.
The critique leveled at some accessibility initiativesis that they launch as "limited editions" or website exclusives rather than standard products available on store shelves. Real iteration based on real-world use requires products to actually be in the world, being used by the people they're designed for. A prototype that never scales beyond a PR campaign isn't iterating,it's performing.
Certifications indicating accessibility standards (e.g., Arthritis Foundation)
So how do you know if a brand's accessibility claims are legitimate? Third-party certification provides one answer.
The Arthritis Foundation's Ease of Use Certification program is the most established accessibility certification for consumer products in the United States. Products and packaging undergo rigorous evaluation by the Intuitive Design Applied Research Institute (IDARI), founded by Dr. Brad Fain at Georgia Tech. The testing combines lab analysis with human factors evaluation,meaning both technical measurements and testing with actual people who have arthritis.
The process is pass/fail. Products are evaluated from packaging opening through actual use, assessing factors like grip requirements, force needed, and ease of manipulation. If a product passes, brands can license the Ease of Use seal. If it fails, the report includes design suggestions for improvement.
According to the Arthritis Foundation's 2024 study with Stable Kernel, 90% of consumers often need help opening packaging, and 70% of consumers with arthritis have abandoned a product because it was too difficult to use. The Ease of Use certification serves as a "shelf differentiator",a signal that someone has actually tested whether a product works for people with dexterity challenges.
The Foundation has also partnered with Target to develop Ease of Use Design Guides(the first of their kind in the United States!) providing engineers and industrial designers with proactive guidance on accessibility during the requirements and development stages. These guides cover rigid packaging, films and pouches, boxes and bags, and more, offering specific recommendations for everything from edge finishing to grip zones.
For digital products, accessibility certifications look different. There's no single "WCAG certified" stamp because accessibility is an ongoing process, not a fixed state. However, third-party accessibility audits from qualified professionals provide documentation of conformance, and VPATs (Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates) offer standardized reporting of how products meet accessibility standards. The International Association of Accessibility Professionals (IAAP) provides certification for individuals, establishing recognized expertise in the field.
Beyond formal certifications, some brands pursue partnerships with disability organizations or research institutions. Rare Beauty worked with Casa Colina Research Institute to identify features that make products easy to open and close. These partnerships don't always result in a certification seal, but they represent genuine engagement with accessibility expertise.
Transparency in communicating accessibility research findings
Here's where we get to the heart of the matter: how much do brands actually tell you about their accessibility work?
Transparency serves multiple purposes. It builds consumer trust, allows disability communities to evaluate claims for themselves, and pushes the industry toward higher standards by making accessibility efforts visible and comparable. Research on brand transparency consistently finds that consumers respond positively to brands that openly communicate their processes and values—and negatively to those that make vague claims without evidence.
What does genuine accessibility transparency look like? At minimum, it includes publishing an accessibility statement that explains what standards you're targeting, what testing you've conducted, and what known limitations exist. The W3C provides guidance on accessibility statements, recommending that brands communicate clearly and in plain language about their commitment to accessibility and the specific measures they've taken.
Better transparency goes further. Olay published the specs for its Easy Open Lid and explicitly chose not to patent the design, making it available for any beauty company to use. Chris Heiert, Senior VP of Olay, stated: "We can't do it alone, which is why we've chosen not to patent this lid, and rather share the design widely with the beauty community. Our hope is that others will join us in our efforts in making products more accessible for everyone."
This kind of open-source approach to accessibility design accelerates industry progress by removing proprietary barriers to good ideas. When one company solves an accessibility problem, the solution can benefit everyone on the condition that the company is willing to shareHowever, transparency also means acknowledging limitations honestly. The Fast Company critique of Olay's Easy Open Lid noted that the product was only available through the brand's website and not on store shelves,making it harder to access for the very consumers it was designed to serve. The ad campaign announcing the lid was shared on social media without alt-text, meaning blind consumers couldn't fully access information about a product ostensibly designed for them.
Genuine transparency includes admitting what isn't working yet, where compromises were made, and what you're still learning. An accessibility statement that only highlights achievements while hiding limitations isn't transparency,it's marketing.
The bigger picture
Accessibility testing isn't a checkbox. It's a commitment to including people with disabilities as valued consumers throughout the entire product development process:not as an afterthought, not as a marketing angle, but as people whose needs matter as much as anyone else's.
The brands doing this well share common characteristics: they engage disabled consumers early and often, they're willing to make significant design changes based on feedback, they iterate beyond the initial launch, they pursue meaningful third-party validation, and they communicate openly about their process and its limitations.
The brands doing this poorly share characteristics too: they test only at the end, they make cosmetic changes rather than substantive ones, they launch "accessible" products as limited editions or PR stunts, they make vague claims without evidence, and they disappear from the conversation once the press cycle ends.
Consumers, bothdisabled and non-disabled alike,are increasingly paying attention to which category a brand falls into. According to Nielsen, 66% of consumers are willing to pay more for products from companies committed to positive social impact. A 2016 Nielsen survey found that 72% of consumers would switch brands if a product were certified as easy to use.
The market opportunity is real. The ethical imperative is clearer. What remains is for more brands to do the actual work,not the performance of work, but the genuine, iterative, humble process of learning what people need and building products that deliver.
Recovery Pants with Side Snaps | Post-Surgery Adaptive Clothing
For more insights delivered to your inbox, scroll to the very bottom left to sign up.
Share your experience in our 5-minute survey to inform our first accessible hygiene line. Get a chance to win a $50 gift card. Link Here”
