Accessibility is not an “unreasonable burden”
A current proposal to reform Germany’s disability equality legislation is facing criticism. The key issue: accessibility could become optional in some cases, justified by claims of an “unreasonable burden” for companies.
When accessibility becomes the exception
Accessibility is not a convenience feature. It determines whether people can use services, understand information, or participate at all.
When it is deemed “unreasonable,” something fundamental happens: access becomes negotiable.
It is no longer a given, but rather depends on trade-offs, budgets, or priorities.
Accessibility affects more than one area
Accessibility is often thought of primarily in terms of physical infrastructure: ramps, elevators, and entrances. These measures are important, but they do not go far enough.
Accessibility encompasses several levels: physical, digital, and communicative.
While physical barriers determine whether places are accessible, digital and communicative barriers determine whether information is accessible and understandable at all.
This is precisely where an imbalance arises: physical modifications are often seen as costly, whereas digital accessibility would be comparatively easy to implement, yet is consistently overlooked far more often.
Especially in the digital realm, accessibility is no obstacle
While physical modifications can be costly, this is only true to a limited extent when it comes to digital accessibility.
Especially when it comes to documents, implementation is no longer a specialized topic. Tools and solutions make it possible to create accessible content directly during the creation process, without adding complexity.
The problem, therefore, is rarely a lack of capability, but rather a lack of prioritization. In many cases, digital accessibility is not a cost factor, but rather a matter of implementation.
Accessible documents without extra effort
With the right tools, accessible documents are created right from the start.
Source (in German)
