In a recent conversation with an expert digital and UX designer, I mentioned that it is generally not a good idea to consider accessibility and user experience as the same thing. Their response was that accessibility is simply "good UX for everyone." While that is a poetic way to put it, I still believe it is a mistake to treat accessibility merely as a subset of user experience.
To begin with, how we evaluate each one is fundamentally different. Although best practices exist, UX is measured on a project-by-project basis depending on how a person perceives, uses, and successfully completes specific tasks. In that sense, being satisfied with the outcome or achieving our initial goal is not necessarily the same thing.
Understanding the history of UX as a discipline is vital here. While we can look at early advances in ergonomics or psychology as precursors, it was in 1982 that the concept of Human-Computer Interaction emerged, focusing on making interaction possible and effective. Following the publication of Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich’s "10 Usability Heuristics" in 1989, the term "usability" gained popularity, focusing on error reduction and efficiency.
"User Experience" was a concept coined by Don Norman while working at Apple in 1993. It focused on analysing systems holistically, always from the user's perspective. This marked an essential shift in approach: what the user thinks, experiences, or feels became the primary metric of success. Throughout the first decade of the 2000s, the idea spread that all processes and decisions should be measured through the lens of UX.
This was revolutionary, especially from a commercial standpoint, but it also complicates certain conversations. For instance, a concept born from this design philosophy is the "optimistic user interface" (link to the article "True Lies Of Optimistic User Interfaces" by Denis Mishunov). This is based on the idea that when interacting with a mobile interface, instead of waiting for a server response, the UI should show that the task is already complete—even if it hasn't happened yet. This creates an illusion of instantaneity for the user; if an error eventually occurs, it can be reported later. We see this daily on social media when we "like" a post or add a comment; the UI updates instantly, even before the data has actually reached the server.
In this case, the interface is lying to sell us an illusion of speed. The logic is that the positive effect of instant feedback outweighs the negative impact if the interaction disappears due to a later failure. This illustrates how, by mixing so many disciplines in the same pot, UX always ends up being a negotiation between multiple factors.
When we talk about accessibility, however, the criteria are usually much more rigid. Is the component properly implemented for screen reader use? Can the user stop or pause videos and animations? Is there alternative text for images or multimedia? The answer is usually a "yes" or "no"—there is no room for negotiation. In accessibility, it is not acceptable to have an undersized button or poor color contrast just because it might provide a different "emotional experience" for the user.
Therefore, while integrating accessibility into various stages of the process (such as design or development) helps a constantly evolving project remain accessible, we must understand that accessibility criteria are non-negotiable minimum requirements. They are not optional goals to be traded off against other design considerations.
Fran Rosa, Senior Developer