Accessibility Trauma: Removing the Barrier Does Not Remove the Memory of Hitting It

I recently came across an insightful article by Paul Smyth MBE, Director of Digital Accessibility at Barclays and Board Member of the Business Disability Forum, titled Accessibility Trauma: Removing the Barrier Does Not Remove the Memory of Hitting It.

His central argument is both simple and powerful: while organisations may remove accessibility barriers from technology, they do not automatically remove the lasting impact of years spent encountering those barriers.

Smyth introduces the concept of "accessibility trauma", not as a clinical diagnosis, but as the cumulative emotional, psychological, and practical effects of repeatedly encountering inaccessible systems. One inaccessible website is frustrating. Hundreds of inaccessible websites, apps, and online services over many years teach a person to expect exclusion.

Eventually the question stops being, "Can I do this?" and becomes "Will this work for someone like me?"

The Accessibility Tax

Many disabled people become experts at navigating barriers. We learn alternative routes, develop workarounds, switch devices, use assistive technology, call customer support, or rely on family and friends to complete tasks that others can accomplish independently.

Smyth refers to this as the accessibility tax. It is the additional time, effort, emotional energy, and problem-solving required simply to access the same service as everyone else.

Organisations may view an online transaction as a success because the customer eventually completed it. What the analytics fail to capture is the hidden cost: perhaps it took five times longer, required multiple failed attempts, involved switching devices, or ended with someone else completing the task on the person's behalf.

The transaction was completed, but independence was lost.

When Barriers Become Expectations

One of the most thought-provoking points in Smyth's article is that repeated barriers change expectations.

After enough negative experiences, disabled people may begin to think:

"This probably won't work for me."

"I'll need someone to help."

"It's easier just to phone."

"I don't do things like that online."

At this point, the barrier is no longer simply on the screen. It exists in the memory of previous experiences.

This resonated strongly with me because it mirrors a broader understanding of trauma. Experiences shape expectations. Repeated negative experiences can alter how we approach future situations, even after conditions have improved.

A Brief History of Accessibility

Historically, disability was viewed primarily through a medical lens. The focus was often on fixing or treating the individual rather than removing barriers within society.

Over time, disability movements around the world advocated for a social model of disability, arguing that people are disabled less by their impairments and more by inaccessible environments, attitudes, and systems.

This shift led to improvements in:

• Physical accessibility through ramps, lifts, and accessible transport.
• Communication accessibility through alternative formats and assistive technologies.
• Digital accessibility through screen readers, captioning, accessible web design, and inclusive technology standards.

As technology became increasingly central to everyday life, digital accessibility became just as important as physical accessibility.

The Digital Revolution and Disability

The rise of the internet fundamentally changed opportunities for many disabled people.

Tasks that once required physical travel could now be completed online. Shopping, banking, education, healthcare appointments, and social connections became more accessible for many individuals with mobility impairments, chronic health conditions, sensory disabilities, or fatigue-related conditions.

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated another significant shift: remote work and flexible working arrangements.

For decades, disabled people advocated for workplace accommodations such as flexible hours, working from home, virtual meetings, and reduced commuting requirements. What many employers once considered impossible suddenly became standard practice.

Remote work has benefited many disabled workers by:

• Reducing transportation barriers.
• Conserving energy for those managing chronic illness or fatigue.
• Increasing flexibility around appointments and health needs.
• Reducing the physical demands of office environments.
• Expanding employment opportunities beyond geographical limitations.

While remote work is not suitable for everyone, it demonstrated that many barriers were organisational choices rather than unavoidable realities.

Looking back, that seemingly simple shift represented two different ways of understanding disability. One focused primarily on impairment. The other focused more on function, participation, and removing environmental barriers.

Accessibility Trauma and Intergenerational Trauma

Although accessibility trauma is distinct from clinical or intergenerational trauma, there are some useful parallels.

Intergenerational trauma refers to the way the effects of traumatic experiences can influence future generations through family relationships, community narratives, behaviours, and social conditions. The original event may have occurred years or decades earlier, yet its effects may continue to shape expectations, trust, and coping mechanisms.

Similarly, accessibility trauma highlights how past experiences continue to influence future behaviour. A person who has repeatedly encountered exclusion may approach new opportunities with caution, scepticism, or reduced confidence, even when accessibility has improved.

The key lesson is that changing a system is important, but rebuilding trust often takes much longer.

Accessibility Is About Trust

For many years, accessibility conversations focused on compliance.

Can disabled people access the service?

Can they complete the task?

Does the product meet accessibility standards?

These remain important questions. However, Smyth challenges us to ask something deeper:

Can disabled people use the service independently?

Can they use it without paying an accessibility tax?

Do they trust the service will work for them?

Do they feel confident enough to try?

Removing barriers remains essential. But accessibility maturity may ultimately be measured not only by compliance and usability, but also by trust.

Because removing the barrier does not automatically remove the memory of hitting it.

Reference

Smyth, P. (2026, August 28). Accessibility trauma: Removing the barrier does not remove the memory of hitting it. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/accessibility-trauma-removing-barrier-does-remove-memory-smyth-mbe-cpoae/