By Sarah Horton and David Sloan — A deeper understanding of disability involves an awareness of how disability is represented in everyday life. In particular, we want to look specifically at the language of disability and how disability is represented in media, which are both significant and dynamic areas of activism. Given digital accessibility’s close connections to disability rights and social inclusion, it’s important to understand how to ensure that disability is addressed and represented positively and sensitively, so that language and representation do not get in the way of progress.
The language of disability is a constantly evolving phenomenon, shaped by changing cultural norms and differing across geographical locations. What’s acceptable in one country might not be appropriate in another country. It’s possible for a product team to spend a lot of time in debate, exploring the nuances of appropriate language of disability. Language use is incredibly important, but you might find that some of that time could have been spent fixing accessibility issues and building accessible digital products—which is arguably more impactful in the long term. That said, there are certain guiding principles that you can follow to ensure that when discussing and representing disability and accessibility, for example, in discussions, training and marketing materials, and product documentation, you do so in a way that minimizes the chances of causing offense or undermining accessibility and disability inclusion efforts.
There is a long‑running debate over the use of “people‑first” language versus “identity‑first” language—in other words, whether to reference “people with disabilities,” with disability status an attribute of the individual, or “disabled people,” which positions disability status as a primary aspect of identity. This conceptual difference is connected to the wider debate around the social and human rights models and medical models of disability. Perspectives and preferences on approach vary according to factors such as global location, disability group, and individual identity. Unlike our bias toward social and human rights disability models, we do not take a position on language, but rather use both constructs throughout. Both approaches have compelling arguments and promoters, and ultimately the most important decider is individual and group preferences. The best approach is to do research, ask people for their preference, and seek to understand the approach that is most acceptable based on your context. And we encourage you always to refer to disability directly and avoid euphemisms like “differently abled” or “special needs.”
There are a few things you should avoid when trying to use disability‑inclusive language:
- Terms that are recognized to be offensive. If you are unsure or need to ask whether a disability‑related term is offensive in your language, it’s likely that it will be. When in doubt, use an alternative term.
- Terms that “other” people with disabilities. If you use language that implies that you’re talking to nondisabled people, then you naturally exclude anyone who identifies as disabled. When addressing an audience, “Those of us who are deaf may not hear the alert” is inclusive language. “You and I hear the alert, but people who are deaf may not” is not. Pay close attention to your assumptions about who is in the room and who isn’t.
- Language that references legal status. Focusing on laws in disability language can have the effect of categorizing people with disabilities as a legal compliance problem rather than as people you are trying to support. For example, avoid using language like “ADA customers” (referring to people covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act in the United States). Instead, include disabled people as customers and users who share the needs and wants of other customers.
From Horton, S., & Sloan, D. (2024). What Every Engineer Should Know About Digital Accessibility. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Know About Accessibility 