Aglet

Prioritize Accessibility Evidence Gaps

A study that excludes a critical access context can make a harmful workflow look acceptable. Prioritize gaps that could change task completion, independence, comprehension, or trust. Compare research preparation with the consequence of carrying an untested barrier into design and delivery.

Decide where the work belongs

  1. Compare barrier consequence

    Describe the outcome affected when each access context is absent, including failed recovery, dependence on assistance, or inability to complete the task. Give weight to barriers hidden by a convenient lab setup or polished prototype.

  2. Assess evidence routes

    Choose an adapted session, contextual observation, assistive technology review, or follow-up interview. Compare fidelity, participant burden, preparation, privacy, and what the method can reveal. Record what cannot be learned from a standard session.

  3. Choose an inclusion action

    Select the gap, participant support, owner, and review date. Defer lower-risk gaps only with a clear boundary and trigger. Pause a broad product conclusion when the missing context could reverse the design choice.

What to carry forward

The priority output is an accessibility research queue with consequence, affected context, method, support, owner, and review trigger. Address the gap most likely to change an outcome or exclude someone. Keep narrower gaps visible rather than assuming they are irrelevant.

Technical background: GOV.UK user research guidance.

Keep the decision with the work.

Use a Work Item in Aglet to record the problem, the evidence you have, and the next decision. Add an owner and priority, then keep updates in the discussion so the next person can follow the reasoning.

Create an account See the product workflow