Accessible communications, legal and PR, and accessible purchasing

Why it matters

Accessibility extends beyond technology to the way organizations communicate, manage risk, and make purchasing decisions. The final three sub-topics of Domain 3F — accessible communications, legal and PR strategy, and accessible purchasing — are management-level concerns that shape whether an organization’s accessibility commitment is genuine or cosmetic. (BoK p. 70)

Accessible communications (3F.8)

Organizations produce a constant stream of communications: press releases, social media posts, annual reports, training videos, internal announcements. Making these accessible requires both language choices and format choices. (BoK p. 70)

People-first language is the default recommended by the BoK. Refer to the person before the disability (“a person with a visual impairment” rather than “a visually impaired person”) in organizational documents and external communications. Recognize, as the BoK does, that some communities prefer identity-first language (e.g., many Deaf and autistic communities), and that individuals should be asked their preference when possible. (BoK p. 70)

Plain language means writing clearly: short sentences, active voice, familiar vocabulary, well-structured headings, and no jargon. Plain language benefits everyone but is essential for people with cognitive disabilities, low literacy, and users reading in a second language. (BoK p. 70)

Multimedia accessibility: Any video content in organizational communications requires captions (for users who are Deaf or hard of hearing) and audio description (for users who are blind or have low vision, to describe visual content not conveyed in the soundtrack). This applies to training videos, product demonstrations, webinars, and promotional content. (BoK p. 70)

Legal and PR considerations (3F.9)

Accessibility decisions have both legal and reputational dimensions, and organizations must manage the intersection carefully. (BoK p. 71)

Legal liability: Inaccessible products and services expose organizations to enforcement actions, litigation, and financial penalties. The risk has grown as accessibility laws have expanded (ADA Title III litigation, EU EAA enforcement, WAD monitoring). Proactive investment in accessibility reduces legal risk more cost-effectively than reactive remediation after a complaint or lawsuit. (BoK p. 71)

PR and accessibility statements: Organizations that publish accessibility statements, announce disability inclusion initiatives, or make public commitments to accessibility should do so carefully. Public statements that overpromise conformance can become evidence in enforcement actions if the reality does not match the claim. The BoK notes that accessibility-related communications should involve both the accessibility team and legal counsel. (BoK p. 71)

Accessible purchasing (3F.10)

When organizations buy products or services from vendors, they bear responsibility for the accessibility of what they deploy. The BoK recommends a structured approach to accessible purchasing: (BoK p. 71)

Verify claims: Vendors often claim that their products are accessible. Organizations should not accept these claims without evidence. Ask for conformance reports, VPAT (Voluntary Product Accessibility Template) documents, third-party audit results, or demonstration access to verify claims independently. (BoK p. 71)

Contract terms: Accessibility requirements should be written into supplier contracts. This creates enforceable obligations: if the vendor delivers an inaccessible product, the organization has contractual remedies. Key contract terms include the applicable standard (e.g. WCAG 2.1 AA), the conformance level required, and the remediation timeline for identified issues. (BoK p. 71)

Vendor roadmap: When a vendor’s product has known accessibility gaps (which is common), the organization should request a roadmap — a published plan showing which gaps will be fixed in which release. This helps the organization assess whether to proceed, accept a temporary deviation, or seek an alternative vendor. (BoK p. 71)

Real-world example

A financial services firm selects a new customer relationship management (CRM) system. The vendor’s sales team provides a VPAT claiming WCAG 2.1 AA conformance. The firm’s accessibility lead asks for the underlying audit report and discovers it is 18 months old and covers only one module. The firm negotiates a contract term requiring the vendor to maintain WCAG 2.1 AA conformance, provide an updated audit report within 90 days of contract execution, and publish a roadmap for fixing the three known high-impact issues. The contract terms give the firm legal recourse if the vendor fails to deliver. The firm’s internal communications team, briefed by the legal department, updates the CRM procurement policy to include this verification step as a standard requirement for all future software purchases.