# Accessibility in Software Practice: A Practitioner's Perspective

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.08778 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.08778/

## Key facts

- Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 16 Mar 2021.

## Built on by (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [A Design Space for Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14117/) (2024)
- [AXNav: Replaying Accessibility Tests from Natural Language](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02424/) (2023)
- [AccessGuru: Leveraging LLMs to Detect and Correct Web Accessibility Violations in HTML Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.19549/) (2025)
- [A Benchmark for Localizing Code and Non-Code Issues in Software Projects](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25242/) (2025)
- [Automated Code Fix Suggestions for Accessibility Issues in Mobile Apps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03827/) (2024)
- [From Questions to Insights: Exploring XAI Challenges Reported on Stack Overflow Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.03085/) (2025)
- [Human-Aligned Enhancement of Programming Answers with LLMs Guided by User Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.17604/) (2026)
- [Agentic Web Accessibility Auditing: A Criterion-Specific Framework for Translating WCAG Requirements into Assessments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.09379/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Being able to access software in daily life is vital for everyone, and thus accessibility is a fundamental challenge for software development. However, given the number of accessibility issues reported by many users, e.g., in app reviews, it is not clear if accessibility is widely integrated into current software projects and how software projects address accessibility issues. In this paper, we report a study of the critical challenges and benefits of incorporating accessibility into software development and design. We applied a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach for gathering data from 15 interviews and 365 survey respondents from 26 countries across five continents to understand how practitioners perceive accessibility development and design in practice. We got 44 statements grouped into eight topics on accessibility from practitioners' viewpoints and different software development stages. Our statistical analysis reveals substantial gaps between groups, e.g., practitioners have Direct v.s. Indirect accessibility relevant work experience when they reviewed the summarized statements. These gaps might hinder the quality of accessibility development and design, and we use our findings to establish a set of guidelines to help practitioners be aware of accessibility challenges and benefit factors. We also propose some remedies to resolve the gaps and to highlight key future research directions.