Accessibility Through the Five Senses: Why It Matters More Than We Think

Many people think of accessibility as something visible: a ramp leading to a door, a button that opens it, or a sign that points the way. In this view, accessibility is functional, mechanical, and reactive. It is often reduced to a checklist of features, something to be installed after the fact rather than considered from the beginning. Yet accessibility is not merely a feature of good design. It is a mindset, an ethic rooted in the principle that no individual should have to work harder than others just to be present, to engage, or to feel welcome.

Despite growing awareness of inclusion, there remains a persistent belief that accessibility is optional, something relevant only to a specific group. This belief is not always expressed outright. Often, it is assumed unconsciously. Yet this assumption, this idea that accessibility is someone else’s concern, continues to reinforce barriers, often unnoticed by those who don’t face them.

Part of the issue lies in how disability is commonly imagined. It is typically associated with the most visible markers: someone using a wheelchair or walking device, or a white cane on a sidewalk. These images hold a powerful sway over public perception, shaping understanding in ways that ultimately constrain a fuller grasp of exclusion.

While some forms of exclusion are overt and recognizable, many others emerge more subtly, embedded within the routine decisions that shape everyday design. These decisions often overlook the sensory dimensions through which people engage with their environments, thereby marginalizing those whose experiences fall outside the assumed norm.

Sight
Visual impairments are not always absolute, as many individuals live with partial vision, reduced contrast sensitivity, or have difficulty reading small text. Many environments are designed with the assumption that everyone has ideal vision, an oversight that can unintentionally exclude many people. For example, websites frequently use low contrast fonts that are difficult to read, signage is often poorly lit or positioned too high to be easily seen, and instructions may rely solely on color coding without providing text alternatives.

While these design choices are not always made with the intent to exclude, they still create significant barriers for individuals with visual impairments. Clear, high contrast, and scalable design elements are beneficial for all users, but for those with limited vision, they are not just helpful—they are vital. Vision differs from person to person, and inclusive, thoughtful design should reflect that reality.

Hearing
Barriers to auditory access often arise not from what is present, but from what is missing. When announcements come through unclear speakers, when meetings proceed without captions, or when videos are shared without transcripts, individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing may be left without access to important information.

These situations are not uncommon; they occur regularly and reflect a broader oversight. They can unintentionally suggest that the needs of all listeners were not fully considered. Ensuring that information is available in spoken, written, and visual forms should be a standard part of inclusive design, rather than viewed as an added feature.

Touch
In an era of sleek surfaces and minimal interfaces, the sense of touch is frequently overlooked. Glass panels now dominate phones, elevators, and appliances. While they may appear modern, they often lack tactile feedback, making them difficult or impossible to use for individuals who are blind or who experience limited sensation.

Raised buttons, textured surfaces, and Braille are not outdated features; they are tools that allow more people to navigate independently. The assumption that all users rely on sight and fine motor skills fails to reflect the diversity of how people interact with their surroundings.

Smell
Scent is rarely mentioned in conversations about access, yet it plays a significant role in whether an environment is usable. Strong fragrances used in cleaning products, air fresheners, or perfumes can trigger migraines, asthma, or sensory overload.

For individuals with scent sensitivities or certain neurological conditions, these environments are not just unpleasant—they can be dangerous. Creating spaces that are low-scent or fragrance-free is a small shift with a large impact. It signals consideration, safety, and care.

Taste
Although taste might seem unrelated to accessibility, it is central to shared experiences. Meals are often the setting for connection—in meetings, events, or informal gatherings.

For individuals with allergies, medical dietary restrictions, or sensory aversions, such moments can sometimes feel isolating. The recurring experience of having limited or no safe options, or needing to politely decline food, can create a quiet sense of being overlooked.

These small experiences may build up over time, contributing to a feeling of exclusion. Offering clearly labeled and inclusive food choices helps ensure that everyone feels acknowledged and welcomed, not just those whose needs are more frequently anticipated.

Understanding Why It’s Dismissed
Why, then, is accessibility so often overlooked? In many cases, it’s because well-executed accessibility tends to go unnoticed. A ramp that isn’t personally needed blends effortlessly into the surroundings. Captions that aren’t read slip quietly into the background.

A scent-free policy might appear as just another line of text, easily missed by those it doesn’t directly impact. When something functions smoothly for one person, it can be easy to overlook the fact that, without those accommodations, someone else might not have been able to participate at all.

This lack of awareness is not evidence that accessibility is unnecessary. It is a reminder that those who benefit from accessible design are not always visible. The absence of complaints does not indicate the absence of barriers. A solution that serves one individual may still fail to meet the needs of another.

When accessibility continues to be treated as optional, it can quietly suggest that not everyone was fully considered from the start. It suggests that inclusion is a secondary concern, rather than a fundamental part of the design.

Toward a More Inclusive Standard
Designing with the five senses in mind isn’t about adding extras; it is about broadening the default to reflect the diverse ways people live, feel, and connect. Instead of asking, “Is this good enough?” the more crucial question becomes, “Who might be excluded by this?” That shift transforms design from a solution into an invitation.

Accessibility often goes unnoticed when it is done well—but poor accessibility never does. That fact alone makes it clear: accessibility isn’t a bonus; it is a baseline. It is not a special favor or an extra step. It’s common sense—a foundational principle that fosters participation, inclusion, and a genuine sense of belonging.

This is not merely a matter of policy or law; it speaks to a deeper respect for each individual—the belief that everyone deserves the same opportunities to engage with their surroundings. Accessibility means giving everyone an equal opportunity to participate.

It goes beyond physical accommodations to embrace all five senses—sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste—because these are how we connect, communicate, and find belonging. Whether it’s entering a building, sharing a meal, or joining a conversation, every person deserves to feel included, respected, and truly part of the community.

---