In a recent webinar, Amy Graves of Hidden Consumers Consulting described accessibility as a series of small, achievable steps that shape who can participate in an organization’s work. The premise was straightforward.
Amy encourages us to think about accessibility as something wholly achievable for enterprises of all sizes: not as an abstract value or a future-state aspiration but as a value expressed through everyday decisions about websites, communications, and physical spaces. Those decisions determine who can engage, who feels welcome, and who quietly opts out.
For organizations whose missions are defined by inclusion, participation, and trust, accessibility cannot be peripheral. It has to be committed to, then baked in.
What follows are the core insights from Graves’ presentation, with an emphasis on actions that social enterprises can realistically take without major structural disruption.
The “hidden consumer” and why accessibility affects participation
Amy uses the term “hidden consumers” to describe people whose disabilities or access needs are not always visible or disclosed. These needs may be physical, sensory, cognitive, or health-related, and many people actively avoid drawing attention to them.
This has direct implications for social enterprises. Participation is central to the model: customers, members, donors, volunteers, employees, and partners all need to be able to engage with an organization’s work. When systems are not accessible, many people do not complain or ask for accommodations. They simply disengage.
Accessibility, then, is closely tied to growth and sustainability. Organizations that unintentionally exclude large portions of the population limit their reach and undermine alignment between mission and practice.
As Amy noted during the session, becoming accessible is not an overnight process. What matters is identifying where small changes can immediately expand who is able to participate.
Takeaway 1: Website accessibility shapes who can engage at all
Graves began with websites because they are often the first point of contact and because technical choices can quietly prevent people from accessing information in the first place.
Website builders and load time
Many organizations rely on visually complex website builders that prioritize design flexibility but add significant load time. For users who rely on assistive technologies, slow-loading or script-heavy sites can be difficult or impossible to use.
Graves shared examples where simplifying website infrastructure dramatically reduced load time and increased engagement. These changes benefited all users, not only those with accessibility needs.
Accessibility and search visibility
While search engines do not typically penalize sites explicitly for inaccessibility, they do track engagement. When users leave a site quickly because they cannot read, navigate, or understand the content, overall engagement metrics decline. Over time, this can reduce organic visibility.
From this perspective, accessibility supports discoverability by helping people stay on a site long enough to meaningfully interact with it.
Writing for clarity and assistive technology
Graves also emphasized the importance of clear, concise writing. Screen readers deliver content in a flat, monotone voice, which means long or complex sentences that rely on rhythm or inflection can lose meaning.
Improving accessibility does not require oversimplifying content. It often involves tightening language, clarifying structure, and ensuring that headings, links, and descriptions communicate purpose directly.
Takeaway 2: Visual design choices can quickly widen or narrow access
Many of the fastest accessibility improvements are visual and relatively easy to implement.
Color contrast and readability
Graves highlighted how common brand color combinations can unintentionally exclude people, particularly those with color vision differences. Poor contrast between text and background makes content difficult to read, even for users without diagnosed impairments.
Testing real pages and graphics, rather than relying on brand guidelines alone, can reveal where contrast needs adjustment.
Background color and reading comfort
Pure white backgrounds can be difficult for some people with dyslexia or other processing differences. Graves described clients who experienced visual distortion or fatigue when working with high-glare backgrounds.
Using a subtle off-white background can reduce strain while maintaining a clean design aesthetic.
Fonts and spacing
Readability depends not only on font choice but also on spacing and weight. Graves recommended sans serif fonts for most body text, adequate spacing between letters, and sufficient thickness so text stands out clearly from the background.
She also noted that some widely dismissed fonts, such as Times New Roman, remain highly accessible due to their familiarity and legibility.
Takeaway 3: Marketing materials signal who is welcome
Marketing graphics and social media posts often communicate accessibility, or lack of it, before a single word is read.
Graves shared examples of promotional images overloaded with text, decorative fonts, and busy backgrounds. These designs may appear visually appealing but require effort to process, especially for people with visual or cognitive challenges.
More accessible approaches include limiting text on images, using overlays or solid backgrounds behind text, and focusing on a clear headline and single call to action. These choices improve both accessibility and engagement.
Accessibility at live events requires verification, not assumptions
For organizations that host in-person events, accessibility extends beyond online systems.
Graves described experiences with venues labeled as “ADA accessible” that were not functionally usable without assistance. Doors that could not be opened independently, narrow pathways, and poorly planned layouts all limited participation.
Beyond mobility, acoustics also play a significant role. People with hearing aids, sensory sensitivities, or processing differences may struggle in noisy or echo-prone environments. Simple measures, such as captions, interpreters, or quiet spaces, can make events more inclusive.
A key insight from the discussion was that when access requires visible workarounds, many people choose not to attend at all.
Accessibility as an ongoing practice
In closing, Graves outlined a progression that many small and mid-sized organizations can follow:
- Listen to current and former participants about barriers they experience
- Implement immediate fixes related to design, layout, and communication
- Consider an accessibility audit when resources allow
- Build accountability through advisory groups or structured feedback
Throughout, she emphasized the importance of asking people directly what they need. Many access needs remain hidden unless organizations create an environment where it is safe to name them.
Practical starting points for social enterprises
Web and content
- Test site accessibility using built-in browser tools
- Improve alt text, link descriptions, and page structure
- Reduce unnecessary scripts and heavy visual elements
Design and branding
- Check contrast on real content, not mockups
- Replace pure white backgrounds with off-white tones
- Use readable fonts and consistent spacing
Events and convenings
- Verify physical accessibility in person
- Plan layouts that allow movement throughout the space
- Offer captions, interpreters, or quiet areas where possible
Organizational culture
- Ask participants what accommodations support engagement
- Normalize accessibility features as standard practice