Accessibility in design has long been treated as a compliance checkbox tacked onto projects near the finish line. Kane Hawkins, creative director at design studio Something Familiar, is calling out this approach as indefensible—and he has evidence to back it up.
Key Takeaways
- Accessibility integrated from day one shaped intentional design choices without constraining creativity
- Industry-standard practices often exclude accessibility, from concept presentation to color description
- Designers must discuss accessibility at the proposal stage, not the delivery stage
- Tools like Stark in Figma enable WCAG-aligned checks; overlays should be avoided
- Rebranding Onvero, a non-profit led by blind CEO Sandi Wassmer, exposed gaps in assumed best practices
How a rebrand for a blind CEO changed everything
Something Familiar took on the rebranding of Onvero, a DEI-focused non-profit led by blind CEO Sandi Wassmer. The project became a reckoning. As Hawkins reflects, accessibility in design revealed assumptions baked into what the studio had always called industry standard. Concept presentations, tool choices, work-sharing methods, even the way designers describe colors—all fell short when tested against real accessibility needs. The team asked, listened, and iterated far more than usual. That transparency made the work better, not slower.
The revelation was humbling. What the industry treats as normal turned out to be fundamentally inaccessible. Yet the project did not stall. Instead, every decision—from the logo’s form to typeface selection to the color palette—was shaped by accessibility requirements, and the work never suffered for it. In fact, it became more intentional. Constraints that designers often fear as limiting actually forced clearer thinking.
Accessibility in design must start at proposal stage
The old model separates accessibility from design. You design first, then bolt on accessibility as a final pass. Hawkins now rejects this entirely. Accessibility in design needs to be part of the conversation from day one, not a tickbox exercise toward the end. Since completing the Onvero rebrand, Something Familiar has shifted its own process. Partners now discuss accessibility requirements at the proposal stage, not at delivery.
This shift matters because it changes what gets designed. When accessibility is a constraint added late, it becomes a problem to solve. When it is a requirement from the start, it becomes a principle that guides every choice. The difference is not semantic—it is architectural. A logo designed with accessibility in mind looks different than one retrofitted with accessibility overlays afterward.
The myth that accessibility constrains creativity
Designers often resist early accessibility integration, citing time, budget, and creative freedom. The Onvero project dismantles this myth. Accessibility in design does not shrink possibility—it sharpens it. Every design decision became more deliberate because the team had to justify it against accessibility requirements. That is not a constraint; it is clarity.
The industry’s resistance stems partly from treating accessibility as a specialized skill rather than a core competency. Yet the rebranding showed that accessibility in design enhances empathy and forces better outcomes across the board. When you design for someone who cannot see your color palette, you think harder about contrast, hierarchy, and meaning. Those choices benefit everyone.
Tools exist—use them correctly
Designers have technical resources to check accessibility in design without excuses. The Stark plugin in Figma enables WCAG-aligned checks on typography, palettes, and contrast directly in the design tool. These checks take minutes, not hours. What designers should avoid are accessibility overlays—quick-fix scripts that claim to make sites accessible but often create new problems instead.
The tooling is mature. The process is clear. What is missing is the commitment to treat accessibility in design as a first-class concern rather than a last-minute fix. Hawkins and Something Familiar have proven that the commitment, not the capability, is the bottleneck.
Why industry standards are not actually standard
Hawkins’ biggest surprise was realizing how much of what he considered industry standard simply was not accessible enough. This should trouble every designer. If industry standards fail accessibility, then the industry standard is broken. The problem is not that accessibility in design is hard to achieve—it is that most studios have never tried to achieve it from the beginning.
The Onvero project became a mirror. It showed that designers’ assumptions about how to present work, which tools to use, and how to communicate design decisions were built on convenience, not inclusivity. Once those assumptions were questioned, the team found better paths forward. That is available to any studio willing to ask the same questions.
What happens when accessibility in design is not an afterthought?
The outcome is a rebrand that works for its intended audience—and for everyone else. A logo that is accessible to someone who cannot see color is a logo with stronger form and structure. A typeface chosen for digital readability and accessibility serves all readers better. A color palette built around contrast and intentionality is simply better design. These are not compromises; they are improvements.
Since the Onvero work, Something Familiar continues these conversations with other partners as early as the proposal stage. The studio is not alone in this shift. Designers across the industry are beginning to recognize that accessibility in design is not a burden—it is a skill that improves every project.
Is accessibility in design really impossible to implement early?
No. The Onvero rebrand proves that accessibility in design can shape work from day one without derailing timelines or budgets. The shift requires changing when conversations happen, not adding new steps. Starting with accessibility requirements at the proposal stage, rather than treating them as a late-stage delivery task, makes the difference.
What tools should designers use to check accessibility in design?
Use the Stark plugin in Figma to perform WCAG-aligned checks on typography, color palettes, and contrast. Avoid accessibility overlays, which often create more problems than they solve. These tools are straightforward and integrated into standard design workflows.
Can accessibility in design actually improve creative outcomes?
Yes. The Onvero project shows that accessibility requirements make every design decision more intentional and defensible. Rather than constraining creativity, accessibility in design focuses it. Designers working within accessibility parameters often produce clearer, more purposeful work than those designing without constraints.
The conversation around accessibility in design has stalled because studios treat it as a compliance problem rather than a design problem. Kane Hawkins and Something Familiar have shown what happens when you flip that assumption: accessibility becomes the foundation, not the afterthought. Every designer now has a choice—follow industry standard practices that are demonstrably broken, or build accessibility in design into the work from the start. There is no excuse for the former anymore.
Edited by the All Things Geek team.
Source: Creativebloq
