Redefining the Standard: Why “Access” is the Problem, Not the Goal
One of the most common strategic imperatives in the work we do at 2axend involves dissecting the language of inclusion.
We’ve noticed a persistent trend: organizations celebrate "accessibility" as if it were the ultimate finish line. Progress is marked by the installation of a ramp, the activation of captions, or the fulfillment of a compliance checklist.
The recent Max Value podcast episode, 'Building Bridges, Not Just Businesses,' featuring Convo Communications’ Jarrod Mussano and Wayne Betts Jr., reinforced my conviction that we must continue to challenge the existing accessibility framework.
The Problem with the "Access" Lens: A Paternalistic Burden
Jarrod didn’t hold back during this compelling discussion: "I frankly hate the term access or accessibility... it feels like a dirty word to us." His pushback wasn’t against the result of accessibility, but rather the power dynamic the word reinforces.
The traditional lens of accessibility is systemically paternalistic. It reinforces a hierarchy where the dominant group holds the keys to a space and graciously chooses to "allow" others to enter.
As highlighted in the podcast, this framing shifts the burden in a subtle but damaging way. When an aid or service is labeled as an "accommodation," it sends a message that the system was built for "us," not for "you," and a special adjustment was made just so you can participate.
As I shared in last week’s blog post, this perpetual issue is a byproduct of a lack of authentic representation at the design table. When the people building the system or experience don't share the lived experience of the people using it, "access" will always feel like an afterthought.
The "Invisible Bridge" and the Reality of Disconnect
At 2axend, we often describe ourselves as the bridge to the Deaf, DeafBlind and hard of hearing community.
You may ask why this ‘bridge’ is necessary. It exists because the hearing world is inherently disconnected from the Deaf, DeafBlind and hard of hearing community.
In any high-level strategic partnership, the ultimate goal is to solve a problem so fundamentally that the "fix" becomes a permanent part of the organization's infrastructure. Our business philosophy at 2axend is mirrored through that same lens. If we do our jobs right, we should eventually be unnecessary. Our goal is to address this systemic disconnect so thoroughly that the bridge itself is no longer required.
As Wayne and Jarrod discussed with Ben Towne, the very metaphor of "building a bridge between two worlds" implies two separate, disconnected sides that require a special, external structure to interact. I absolutely agree that the goal should be to move beyond this. True equity isn't about maintaining a permanent, visible bridge; it is about creating a seamless environment where the connection is natural.
In today’s world, the disconnect persists because organizations are too busy building "clunky" bridges based on compliance measures and reactive checklists. Unfortunately, these ‘solutions’ actually act as bottlenecks and highlight the gap rather than close it.
Ultimately, these organizations turn to 2axend, to build accessible environments from the ground up by re-engineering the system until connection is the default setting.
Flipping the Switch: From "Needs" to "Connection"
Recently, I covered the importance of shifting to asking people what their access needs are as opposed to focusing on what type of accommodations they need. After listening to Jarrod and Wayne talk about the innate human "crave for connection," I’m convinced it’s pertinent to move even further and ask:
"What do I need to connect with you?"
This verbiage indicates a radical shift in responsibility and transfer of ownership. Asking 'How can I connect with you?' moves the labor away from the person seeking access and places it on the relationship itself. It acknowledges that communication is a reciprocal act where both parties have mutual responsibility.
How User-Centric Architecture Supports Adoption
This same philosophy requires seeing individuals as consumers with agency rather than passive recipients of a service.
Historically, the accessibility industry has focused on ensuring compliance. This means that brands rarely view the community as customers who deserve an intuitive, high-quality experience. They are attempting ‘one-size-fits-all’ without looking into the true demographics.
Wayne and Jarrod illustrated this with their "hang-up campaign." Historically, systems were designed so that an interpreter stayed on the line after a caller hung up to finish a script for the hearing person. By re-engineering this so the call ends for everyone simultaneously, they respected user autonomy. This kind of intuitive design only happens when the people in charge of the "product integrity" are the ones who actually use the product.
With this in mind, I ask: Is your brand merely checking a compliance box, or are you truly designing for a consumer who expects and deserves autonomy and seamless engagement?
The Legacy of Autonomy as an Economic Utility
In closing, I want to reinforce that the ultimate goal of this critical user-centric reframing is to transition how we view access from a "special request" to a standard baseline utility.
Just as we don't view electricity or indoor plumbing as "accommodations," we should not view the tools of human connection as outlier expenses.
Jarrod and Wayne argued that communication access should be viewed like a "light bill"—a non-negotiable, foundational utility. When inclusion is treated as infrastructure rather than an 'extra,' it is protected from budget cuts and becomes a permanent part of the organizational DNA.
This is the legacy we should all be striving for: building a world where the "ramp" is no longer the story, the "compliance check" is not an afterthought, and autonomy grounded in lived experience is the default setting.
When you stop trying to "provide access" and start trying to "enable connection," you stop seeing a demographic to be served and start seeing individuals with value, talent, and agency.
Remember, it’s not enough to just be "allowed in the room." Let’s partner together and build a world where everyone’s access to the room is so fundamentally accessible that communication and connection is the only thing that matters.
