We Got Roasted in Live Accessibility Testing: 8 Signals You Should Listen For (With Quotes)
So you’re planning to run accessibility tests with real users?
Buckle your seatbelt.
Get ready for some candid quotes from your test participants.
Here are a few of our favorites from a recent project:
“I deal with inaccessible crap like this all the time.”
“All these cute little pictures mean nothing to me.”
“Okay, you really might want to rethink your life choices because you're using light blue on blue…”
“Critique your website? I'll tear it up. I've been known to do that.”
So much guidance on web accessibility focuses on what you can audit: alt text, headings, labels, etc. Fixing those issues certainly helps create a good experience for all users, but just as important (and often neglected) is live testing with actual humans.
In a moderated session, you’ll hear first hand what it actually feels like to use the web, from people who are paying the cost of unclear interfaces every day.
As our quotes show, they tend not to hold back. And if you built that interface, this can sting. But their bluntness is hugely valuable. It’s evidence. It’s lived experience.
We watched a group of people with different disabilities try to complete straightforward tasks in an academic course catalog, such as search, filter, compare, and register.
This interface wasn’t “broken.” It even had plenty of the usual compliance work already done.
Some of the most valuable insights had nothing to do with missing attributes. They were about confidence, cognition, and context.
What follows is a set of signals you can listen for, to get the most out of your moderated sessions, and to go beyond participant emotions to find the real usability barriers.
1. Unrecognized Success
(They did the thing, but don’t feel done)
The participant completes the task but lacks confidence that they’re finished.
Without clear confirmation, they backtrack, repeat actions, or start over unnecessarily. This can lead to frustration, because it wastes the user’s time.
“I got here via the homepage on the first try, but didn’t realize Iʼd succeeded.”
This is one of the most costly failure modes, often causing the user to abandon their goal.
2. Unclear State
(Are the filters on? Off? Who knows?)
The interface changes state, but the participant can’t tell what’s active or what changed.
As a result, users re-check filter menus, doubt the results they’re seeing, and may unknowingly stay stuck in a narrowed view.
"See, I just unchecked the filter and it didn't tell me that it was a checkbox or anything. Is there a ‘clear’ button to clear the filters?" ~ participant using a screenreader
When the state isn’t clearly communicated, users lose trust in the interface and its results.
3. Misaligned Expectations
(Familiar patterns are missing)
Labels and controls don’t align with how people imagine the task should work, forcing them to second-guess key actions.
“I suppose I'm good at knowing where things are expected to be. But I get easily flummoxed when they're not there.”
“That button says ‘take the course’. That's premature to registering, isn't it? Wouldn't you register first and then take the course?"
Even when accessible, this mismatch erodes confidence and leads users down the wrong path.
4. Visual Noise
(Decoration becomes distraction)
Graphics and animations compete with content, making it harder to focus or absorb key information.
Users skim but don’t absorb, and may even miss calls to action that are visible right in front of them.
“All these cute little pictures mean nothing to me. Teachers in a classroom, students in a classroom. That's useless, really. I'd rather have a list than a guy looking at his computer.”
“If I look at too many things, I get overwhelmed and confused and distracted.“
What feels engaging to some users becomes a cognitive barrier for others.
5. Disorientation
(Where am I? Why am I here?)
The interface lacks context, putting an undue burden on the user’s short term memory, and making them struggle to keep track of where they are.
This can show up as missing elements like breadcrumbs or sticky menus, or as long, dense blocks of text that cause re-reading and excessive scrolling.
"This doesn't actually tell me, what page am I actually on and how do I get back to where I was going? I have no idea where I'm at.”
“I think it would be interesting to have this information in bullets, because this is already like, kind of buried. As a person with ADHD, you've already lost me by this point.”
If a page doesn’t keep users oriented, they can’t build momentum or make confident, informed decisions about how to proceed.
6) Workarounds
(Users invent a second interface to survive the first)
Users bypass navigation by switching to external tools, shortcuts, or non-standard techniques to accomplish tasks more efficiently.
"I would honestly type that in and look at that mess of stuff and go, this doesn't exist, and possibly try to back out and Google search for it or something using something like the search bar."
“I’ll just use this [JAWS link list] to find the word ‘business’ as a link.” ~ participant using a screenreader
Those who use workarounds may still feel frustrated that they’re forced to do so, while those without workarounds could feel alienated and leave the site entirely.
7. Invisible Functionality
(Controls pretending to be content)
Interactive elements are visible and functional, but not clearly communicated as interactive, especially to screen reader users.
This forces people to rely on trial and error, power-user habits, or lucky guesses. Some users may miss key features entirely.
"When I hit ‘price’, I didn't know that would actually pop up a dialog box that gives me my options. Because I deal with inaccessible crap like this all the time, I know that sometimes if I click a word like that, it will open a box. But someone who isn't a power user with screen readers would not know to click that.”
When functionality is invisible, success depends on guesswork instead of clarity.
8. Great Ideas!
(Valuable ideas beyond the test script)
Participants often surface thoughtful feature suggestions that reflect real-world needs and workflows, even when those ideas fall outside the immediate scope of testing.
“That's a big hassle on online courses, you'll sign up for something that doesn't start for a month, and then unless you put it on your calendar in a month, you forget about it. I don't know if it's possible, if there's a way to send somebody like, ‘here are all the calendar files for all the deadlines for this course’. Because I live and die by my calendar, so if I have the calendar, then I remember not to over-schedule myself, and to try to have available time for the course.”
These moments highlight unmet expectations and reveal opportunities to advance your mission by releasing features that best align with your users' needs.
Conclusion
Sometimes the most important accessibility failures don’t show up as obvious “errors.” Instead they show up as hesitation, workarounds, second-guessing, and impassioned feedback that can be hard to hear, but incredibly useful.
That emotion is not a problem to manage away. It’s a signal.
If you’re seeing similar patterns in your website’s user testing, you’re not alone. We can help you translate candid, emotional feedback into practical fixes that improve user experience and move your mission forward.
