Is technology truly inclusive if affordability limits access?
Accessibility shouldn’t be an upgrade – it’s a fundamental right
Hi Folx! I hope you’re having a good week. I’m thrilled to share that Reframing Disability has a brand-new logo! Since Substack doesn’t permit alt-text, I’ll describe it here: “A logo on a bright purple background showing two white hand illustrations forming an open rectangular frame. Inside the frame, the words ‘Reframing Disability’ are written in white text, symbolising a fresh perspective on disability.” Let me know what you think about it!
Reframing Disability’s social media accounts are also live on Instagram and Facebook. Please follow and share widely! Award-winning author, Aditi Sowmyanarayan, who is now a part of the team is supporting the designing and posting. Kudos to Aditi for her good work!
Another important step Reframing Disability has recently taken is commissioning its first story to a freelance writer. Today’s piece, written by Padmaja Bandi, marks both her first published story and Reframing Disability’s first commissioned article.
Support Reframing Disability
If you like what Reframing Disability is doing for the community and if you can, please make a one-time payment of any amount or set up a custom or recurring monthly subscription through this link. If you use PayPal, pay to pritisalian@gmail.com. Hit reply if you want to pay through UPI, do a bank transfer or need an invoice. Find a list of other ways to support this newsletter.
The debate over accessibility behind paywalls centres on the ethical and practical implications of restricting essential accessibility features behind paid subscriptions. As streaming platforms and digital devices and services monetise accessibility, the conversation continues about where to draw the line between financial sustainability and the right to access. Padmaja Bandi asks Indian experts and reports.
An accessibility icon from The Noun Project
Can tech be truly inclusive if access depends on the ability to pay?
Parita Dholakia, who lost her hearing progressively over the years, has learned to navigate the digital world through technology in her day-to-day life. “Right now, I am completely relying on captions to figure out the conversation that I am in [with you],” she told me while I was interviewing her on Google Meet.
Accessibility is not just a matter of convenience. It determines participation, independence, and dignity. Yet, across digital platforms and devices, accessibility features like live captions, transcriptions, and screen reader compatibility that are lifelines for people with disabilities are often locked behind paywalls, forcing them to pay for what is a fundamental right.
Whether due to monetisation strategies, cost of tech, or poor design priorities, these decisions by companies subtly decide who gets to fully access the digital world and who is left out.
Accessibility matters
For instance, a feature as basic as lyrics – critical for deaf and hard of hearing individuals – was briefly made a paid feature on Spotify. After the backlash, the company rolled back the change, stating it would expand lyrics access for free users globally.
A hard of hearing user on the Spotify community forum summed it up: “I’ve always had a hard time deciphering words, so I used to always have lyrics open so I could actually understand anything. I listen to music 24/7—it’s a huge part of my life, and I really hate not being able to see them without paying.”
Parita has walked out of meetings held on Zoom because she had no choice. Unlike Google Meet or Microsoft Teams, where participants can independently enable captions, Zoom meetings require the host to activate them. While users can request captions mid-meeting, they remain at the mercy of the host’s awareness.
Discord, a widely used platform for voice and video communication, especially among younger users and communities does not offer a built-in live captioning feature for its voice channels or video calls. This absence has sparked active discussion on user forums, with individuals pointing out the platform’s inaccessibility for those with hearing disabilities. When live captioning remains unsupported, it leaves deaf and hard of hearing users to seek third-party services or external tools to solve their problem.
For people with visual disabilities, it becomes problematic when digital products are not compatible with screen readers – assistive software that reads the screen. Pranav Savla, a blind accessibility expert says that he can’t use low-cost smartwatches because they don’t come with screen reader compatibility. Devices like Wear OS by Google and Apple Watch are priced prohibitively and remain out of reach for many people.
Not one-size-fits-all
Most people don’t understand how diverse disability is.
Deaf people who use hearing aids may navigate without captions or interpreters, while others, like Parita, rely entirely on real-time transcription. People with blindness may or may not require audio descriptions - a spoken narration of silent visual content that conveys scene changes, expressions, and actions to make videos more accessible. Those with low vision might need to magnify text on their screen.
“The first thing that comes to people’s mind when I say I’m completely deaf is maybe I need a sign-language interpreter,” Parita says. But she doesn’t use sign language. “People cannot imagine that a deaf person can talk,” Parita says.
She uses the Google Live Transcribe to get captions of conversations during face-to-face interactions.
“[Without the app] my independence is lost,” Parita says. Even a doctor’s visit becomes a series of hurdles. From booking to communicating, she needs to constantly remind staff to speak through the app, which often fails in places with poor connectivity.
A lack of awareness about how accessibility needs are different for everyone often influences how accessibility is imagined or overlooked during product design.
On X, for example, users can’t edit alt-text after posting. For screen reader users who depend on that text to access visual content, if the description is vague or incorrect, like “image 1” or a mislabelled photo, the assistive tech reads out meaningless or misleading information. The only fix for the author is to delete and repost the entire tweet, which is not possible.
Theerath, an IT professional who is autistic and neurodivergent, faces a different kind of barrier. “Strictly not an accessibility feature, but bright ads in many apps cause sensory overload, and removing the ads requires a paid upgrade.” He says how streaming platforms like Hotstar dramatically increase sound levels for ads, disrupting the experience. For neurodivergent individuals, sensory overload can make it difficult to focus, process information, or even use certain apps comfortably. “I had to stop using those apps and rely on browsers using readability options (that remove clutter and simplify content), ad blocking (which eliminates flashing ads and pop-ups), and forced dark mode (to reduce brightness).”
Do these external tools help? Yes. But they are only workarounds, not real solutions.
The good and the thoughtless
While some platforms restrict accessibility behind a paywall, others have shown what thoughtful design looks like without extra costs. Netflix and Uber, and YouTube’s free version offer robust accessibility. Netflix is widely praised for offering audio descriptions and captions in multiple languages across all original programming. YouTube allows users to turn on live captions freely. Uber is appreciated for design choices that consider both drivers and passengers with disabilities. “When you book an Uber cab, if the driver is hard of hearing, the app notifies the rider. That level of awareness makes a huge difference,” says Pratik Ingale, a blind content creator and assistive technology advocate.
Zoom’s “Dim Screen Share Video” is another example of inclusive design. It automatically detects flashing or strobing visuals during screen sharing and dims the video, reducing the risk of seizures or discomfort for people with photosensitive epilepsy, visual sensitivities, or migraines. For users who may not be able to anticipate or react quickly to such triggers, this feature adds a layer of safety without requiring them to opt in every time or rely on others to modify content.
The XL Cinema AD app is gaining popularity among blind folks in India. The app gives them access to free audio descriptions while watching films in a theatre.
Some apps try to be inclusive, but fall short. Hotstar’s “Inclusive Commentary” feature marketed as a support for blind people to watch cricket is complex to navigate as the app’s design isn’t screen reader-friendly. “I can’t even reach the point where I can select a [cricket] match and play it on Hotstar. You have to ask someone for help, guess what’s on the screen, and by then, you’ve missed a lot of the game,” Pratik explains.
Profit vs inclusion
If the technology for accessibility is already built in, should platforms lock basic features like real-time captions or screen reader compatibility behind a paywall?
In India, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) guarantees barrier-free access across both physical and digital spaces.
“Placing accessibility features behind a paywall could be seen as discriminatory”, explains Amar Jain, corporate lawyer and co-founder of Mission Accessibility, an initiative that advocates for accessible digital platforms.
Yet, there are no legal restrictions preventing companies from doing so. “It’s a free pricing world,” Amar says. “Most of the time, pricing isn’t specifically for accessibility. These are bundled services on devices which are selling at a high cost and also provide accessibility tools,” he adds.
Amar says that currently the law does not specify whether companies can or cannot charge a premium for such services. "The law should provide for affordable assistive technology. And if not law, then the government schemes should provide for it in conjunction with private participation because technology and accessibility should be made available for everyone as a fundamental right, “ he says. “I think the government is aware of that gap, they are trying to figure out ways to address that."
India has already mandated the inclusion of captions and audio descriptions in feature films, a sign that accessibility regulation is possible and necessary. But as with most legal interventions, implementation remains the true test.
There is also a cultural gap. "In most companies, accessibility is treated as a compliance checkbox, not a real commitment to inclusion," says accessibility specialist Raghavendra Satish Peri. "Most Indian companies only care about accessibility because their clients in the US or Europe demand it. They don’t see it as something that benefits disabled users, it’s just about legal compliance."
He explains that many business-to-business (B2B) products (software products made for use by other companies rather than the general public) only implement accessibility features to meet client demands for Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) reports and proof of compliance. Companies need to make inclusion and accessibility a part of their core values and culture.
Amar points to one of the potential solutions. "Similar to how safety features were mandated for smartphones, we should require all digital platforms to provide a minimum set of accessibility features regardless of price."
As the Bureau of Internet Accessibility (BOIA), which helps organisations achieve and maintain website compliance under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), notes, “Accessibility expands your digital audience and improves the user experience.” Features like captions, alt text, and screen reader compatibility may be essential for some users, but they benefit everyone. The BOIA urges companies to consider real-life use cases when developing their services and to include accessibility experts and people with disabilities in usability testing. “Remediating issues is much more expensive than building with an accessible mindset,” their guidance states.
Because at its core, this isn’t just about technology. It is about fairness, access, and digital justice. Not blocking accessibility behind paywalls is a choice. And that choice says a lot about a company’s true commitment to inclusion.
Reporting assistance and editing by Priti Salian
Padmaja is a marketing communications specialist and freelance writer. Through her work, she helps bridge the gap between what technology can do and why it matters to the people who use it.
What do you think about accessibility behind paywalls? Is it justified? What could be other possible solutions? Let’s connect if you are working to change things for the disability community. Hit reply or find me on LinkedIn and Instagram!
Better still, book a 15-minute free call with me on Topmate to discuss how we can work together.
I conduct training/workshops on disability inclusion and accessibility in communications, storytelling and all kinds of content. Write to me for a customised training for your organisation.
I’m a journalist and researcher: My byline appears in the BBC, Guardian, The Lancet, The British Medical Journal, CNN, Stanford Social Innovation Review and the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Check my portfolio for my recent work. I’m open to commissions.
Warmly,
Priti