Accessibility vs. Usability: what’s the difference (and why it matters)
Digital teams often use “accessibility” and “usability” in the same breath. Both are about making services easier for people to use. But they are not the same thing and treating them interchangeably can leave important gaps in your product, website, or service.
The necessity of this integrated approach has never been clearer. Recent reports have shown that the federal government is falling behind on its commitments to accessibility for public servants, citing a lack of external consultation and delays in providing accommodations, especially for IT and mental health barriers. This news underscores a critical point: merely having policies is not enough. Digital services must be designed with both usability and accessibility in mind from day one.
At Jumping Elephants, we think of accessibility and usability as partners: each brings something distinct, and together they help you deliver digital services that are inclusive, compliant, and genuinely easy to use for everyone.
Accessibility vs usability: quick definitions
If you’re searching for “accessibility vs usability” or “what is the difference between usability and accessibility”, you’re usually trying to answer a simple question: what exactly are we talking about?
Usability: how easy something is to use
Usability is about how easy it is for people to complete their tasks successfully, efficiently, and without unnecessary frustration.
Plain language version: making things easy to use.
For example:
Can someone quickly find the right benefit program on your website?
Can they complete an online application without getting stuck or confused?
Do they feel confident they’ve done the right thing when they hit “Submit”?
Usability focuses on behaviour, clarity, and flow for the people you’re designing for, who may or may not have disabilities.
Accessibility: who can use it in the first place
Accessibility is about whether people with a wide range of disabilities can perceive, understand, navigate, and interact with your service, often using assistive technologies like screen readers, screen magnifiers, voice input, or alternative keyboards.
Plain language version: removing barriers so more people can use what you’ve built.
Good accessibility usually involves:
Meeting standards like WCAG 2.1 AA and aligning with laws such as the Accessible Canada Act and AODA
Supporting keyboard-only use and screen readers
Providing text alternatives for images, captions for video, and transcripts for audio
Ensuring enough colour contrast and readable text
Accessibility is an equity issue. More than eight million Canadian adults live with disabilities at any given time, many relying on accessible digital services to work, study, access benefits, and participate fully in public life.
How accessibility and usability overlap
Accessibility and usability are tightly connected. In practice, you don’t want one without the other. WCAG compliance provides the technical foundation (accessibility), but user research validates the practical experience (usability). WCAG ensures the service can be used; usability testing ensures it is efficient, effective, and satisfying.
Some shared goals:
Real people, real contexts – Both focus on how people actually use a service in day-to-day life, not just how it was intended to work.
Reducing friction – Both aim to remove barriers, confusion, and unnecessary effort.
Human-centered design – Both fit within a broader human-centered design (HCD) approach that starts with people’s needs and works backwards to solutions.
You’ll often hear phrases like “usability and accessibility” or “accessibility usability testing” because teams are trying to bring these lenses together in one process. That’s a good instinct.
But there are important differences to keep in mind.
Usability vs accessibility: key differences
| Aspect | Usability | Accessibility |
|---|---|---|
| Core question | “Is this easy to use?” | “Can people with disabilities use this?” |
| Primary focus | Efficiency, clarity, satisfaction for target users | Removing barriers for people with diverse disabilities |
| Driven by | Best practices and user expectations | Legal requirements, policies, and standards (e.g., WCAG, ACA, AODA) |
| Typical methods | Usability testing, analytics, A/B tests, heuristic reviews | Accessibility audits, code review, assistive technology testing, policy compliance checks |
| Success signals | Faster task completion, fewer errors, fewer support calls, higher satisfaction | Standards compliance, fewer reported barriers, inclusive participation, reduced legal and reputational risk |
In short:
Usability makes things easy to use.
Accessibility makes things possible for everyone to use.
You need both.
Real-world examples: when one is missing
Seeing the difference between usability and accessibility is easier with concrete examples.
“Usable” but not accessible
An online tax form:
Clearly worded
Simple, step-by-step progress
Helpful error messages
Where this falls apart:
Form fields don’t have proper labels, so screen readers can’t announce them
Error messages are only shown in red without text or icons
Key actions can’t be done with a keyboard
For many sighted, or those that use a mouse, this feels “usable”. For a blind person using a screen reader, or someone who can’t use a mouse, it’s effectively unusable. You have usability for some, but poor accessibility overall.
Accessible on paper, but not usable
A service portal technically passes accessibility checks:
All images have alt text
Accessible colour contrast
The page is keyboard-accessible
Where this falls apart:
The navigation labels are vague (“Click here”, “More”, “Resources”, “Information”, “Tools”)
Forms ask for the same information multiple times
The main task (for example, “Renew my license”) is buried three levels deep
A checklist might say you have “good accessibility”, but people, with disabilities or not, are still lost. You’ve ticked the boxes, but the real experience is frustrating.
The goal is accessible and usable: a service that meets standards, feels straightforward and humane for everyone who needs it.
When to do usability testing (and where accessibility fits)
A lot of people land on this topic by searching for “when to do usability testing” or “why do usability testing”. The short answer: earlier and more often than you think.
We usually recommend usability testing at four key points:
Early concepts:Test simple sketches or click-through prototypes to see if people understand your idea and can find the main paths.
Mid-design: Run usability testing on more complete prototypes before investing heavily in the build. This is also a good moment to start incorporating accessibility considerations (for example, keyboard flows, focus states, error handling).
Pre-launch: Test the almost-final service on real devices, with real content and real assistive technologies (for example, screen readers) where possible.
Post-launch and after major changes: Continue testing and measuring task success, especially for high-stakes journeys like benefit applications, appointment booking, or tax filing.
Usability testing gives you direct evidence of how people use your service, not just how you hope they’ll use it. That’s one of the reasons Jumping Elephants invest so heavily in UX research and testing as a core service.
Usability vs accessibility testing
Teams often ask for “usability vs accessibility testing” as if they need to choose one. In practice, they work best in combination.
Usability testing
In usability testing, you:
Ask people to complete realistic tasks (“Apply for the housing benefit”, “Renew your passport”, “Change your address”)
Observe where they hesitate, backtrack, or abandon
Listen to what they say, but prioritize observing what they do
You’re looking for friction, confusion, and unexpected paths, across all users, not just those with disabilities.
Accessibility testing
Accessibility testing usually includes a mix of:
Automated scans to catch common issues (for example, missing alt text, low contrast)
Manual code and content review against standards like WCAG
Assistive technology testing (for example, screen readers, zoom, voice control)
Sessions with people with disabilities using their own tools and setups
Here, the focus is on barriers: “Where does this break for someone with a particular access need?”
Accessibility and usability testing together
When we talk about “accessibility and usability testing” or “accessibility usability testing”, we usually mean combining these approaches in one research plan:
Running usability testing with a diverse mix of participants, including people with disabilities
Layering in structured accessibility checks
Prioritizing fixes that improve both accessibility and usability for everyone
Because accessibility is foundational to our human-centered design approach, Jumping Elephants chooses to recruit participants with a range of abilities and backgrounds, including people who are often excluded from traditional research.
What good accessibility looks like in practice
“Good accessibility” is more than passing an automated tool once before launching. In our work across Canadian public and private sectors, we see strong accessibility practices share a few traits:
Built-in from day one
Accessibility isn’t a compliance check at the end. It’s part of design decisions, content patterns, and technical architecture from the start.
Plain language
Content is written in clear, direct language that’s easier for everyone to understand, including people with cognitive disabilities, people reading in their second language, and people scanning quickly on mobile.
Consistent structure
Headings, labels, and patterns are predictable. This helps screen reader users and supports faster scanning for everyone.
Keyboard and assistive tech support
People can use the service without a mouse, including all key actions. Focus indicators are visible. Screen readers announce information in a logical order.
Inclusive, people-first examples
Content, imagery, and scenarios represent a wide range of ages, cultures, abilities, and geographies, reflecting the diversity of Canadians who rely on digital services.
Ongoing monitoring
Accessibility is checked regularly, especially after design changes, technology upgrades, or content migrations.
If you add images or diagrams to a blog like this, remember to include meaningful alt text and make sure any colour used has enough contrast.
How a usability and accessibility partner can help
Many teams are searching for “usability testing services”, “accessibility consultant”, or “usability testing blog” because they know they need support bringing all of this together.
As a Canadian UX and Human-Centered Design consultancy, Jumping Elephants helps public and private sector teams:
Plan and run usability testing across the full lifecycle from early concepts to live services
Conduct accessibility testing and audits, aligned with WCAG, AODA, the Accessible Canada Act, and Government of Canada standards
Recruit diverse participants, including people with disabilities, rural residents, newcomers, and other underrepresented groups
Synthesize findings into clear, actionable recommendations your design, product, and policy teams can use
Build internal capacity through training and accessibility & inclusive design workshops
If you’re trying to decide where to start, accessibility vs usability, audits vs testing, the good news is you don’t have to choose one forever. The most resilient services treat accessibility and usability as ongoing practices, not projects.
Bringing it back to the core question
So, what is the difference between usability and accessibility?
Usability is about making your digital services easy and intuitive to use.
Accessibility is ensuring everyone, including people with disabilities, can use your products and services.
Both are essential if you want digital services that are compliant, equitable, and genuinely effective for the people you serve.
If you’d like help designing or testing a service with both accessibility and usability in mind, we’d be happy to talk.