Posts on Can That Be Accessible?

Documentation – How did you make this accessible?

Tue, 23 Jun 2026 01:39:54 +1000

This blog post is also available in multiple formats:

PDF version (PDF, 108 KB)
Word version (DOCX, 243 KB)

Scope

My portfolio is the Can That Be Accessible? website.

This is solo exploration of whether certain things can be made accessible. I fundamentally believe that when you plan properly, you plan for accessibility.

In Can a Medieval Fayre be accessible?, I explore whether a rustic, loud, and crowded event can be immersive while being accessible. In Should accessibility ever be de-linked from disability? I explore an underlying tension in justifications for accessibility. This blog post is based on a real conversation I had at work about how we frame accessibility to a wider audience.

My four documents are:

Can a Medieval Fayre be accessible? (Multimedia)
Can a Medieval Fayre be accessible? Word transcript (DOCX, 25 KB)
Should accessibility ever be de-linked from disability? (HTML)
Should accessibility ever be de-linked from disability? PDF version (PDF, 214 KB)

Introduction

A good accessibility advocate should follow what they preach.

While I’m no preacher, I’ve gone beyond simply choosing a template—I’ve actively built accessibility into the structure of this website and its supporting materials.

1. Website

Hugo and Zen

I used Hugo, an open-source static website generator, to create this website. It’s command line–based software. I chose it because earlier in 2026, I learnt how to use Hugo so that I could create websites unfettered by subscription fees. Static websites have identical content for every user, which was not an issue for being the website for Can That Be Accessible?

Hugo offers a wide range of community themes that define layout and include CSS, reducing the need to build everything from scratch. With basic HTML and CSS, these themes can be customised further.

I went with Zen by frjo (GPL-2.0), which prioritises accessibility. As frjo notes:

[Zen] uses HTML5 with a modern CSS grid and flex layout. Care has been taken to produce semantic and accessible code.

Unlike other Hugo themes, Zen was built with accessibility in mind. I found Zen through a forum post made by another accessibility-interested Hugo user. As suggested in that thread, I ran the Zen demo site through WAVE web accessibility evaluation tool. This returned a high score and no critical issues for manual review.

Making an accessible theme more accessible

Despite its strengths, Zen does not have a “Skip to main content” link—one that benefits keyboard and screen reader users. I added a skip link in the base HTML file (baseof.html).

<a class="skip-link" href="#main-content">
 Skip to main content
</a>

I ensured all pages had the matching target this by updating taxonomy.html:

<header>
<h1 class="title">{{ .Title }}</h1>
</header>

{{ .Content }}

{{ range .Pages.ByTitle -}}
{{ .Render "taxonomy-summary" }}
{{ end -}}
</main>

This created a consistent landmark for the skip link to land on. While the indentation may not be perfect, the “Skip to main content” link is functional.

Assessment

I tested the Should accessibility ever be de-linked from disability? page using WebAIM WAVE, which returned an AIM Score of 9.9/10 with zero errors and four alerts. The 0.1 reduction was due to:

Two redundant links (the logo and website title linking to the home page)
Links to DOCX and PDF alternatives which WAVE could not fully evaluate. These were intentional trade-offs: I provided alternative formats to improve user choice, even if WAVE could not verify them.

YouTube The YouTube video, Can a Medieval Fayre be accessible?, was produced from scratch, combining video editing and accessibility design.

YouTube supports audio description tracks for some creators, however I was not able to use the feature. According to the YouTube Help page about multi-language features, this was only available to a “subset of creators with access to Advanced features as we are expanding access gradually.” I therefore uploaded a separate audio-described version.

Recording the audio description required matching the length of the original video precisely. I could only describe during pauses in my original narration. I chose to read Dr Stephen Stone’s quote verbatim rather than using my identity-first re-phrasing so that I was accurate to what was on screen. Similarly, I continued reading the credits even after it disappeared from the video.

Additional accessibility features include:

Closed captioning, including description of music
On-screen text being held for at least one second
Clean, clear audio using a lapel microphone with light post-processing
Controlled background noise with minimal ambient elements
High-contrast text over background elements
Alternative formats (HTML, PDF, and DOCX transcripts and audio-described video)
Keyboard-accessible embedded YouTube player.

Stock footage was primarily sourced from Pexels, with attention to diversity and inclusion, including people without visible disabilities.

3. Website Documents (PDF and DOCX)

Approach

The PDF and DOCX files were designed as alternative formats rather than primary content. The HTML versions were prioritised for accessibility, but the downloadable formats were still carefully structured.

The Word documents made use of:

Semantic structuring with only one H1-level heading per document
Proper use of heading styles
Document title in the metadata
Alt text for images that convey meaning.

These documents therefore passed the basic Microsoft accessibility checker.

Well-structured Word documents allowed for straightforward PDF export with minimal remediation. Caption text was standardised at 12pt for readability, overriding Word’s default 9pt caption style.

Assessment

The Should accessibility ever be de-linked from disability? PDF version passed Adobe Acrobat’s accessibility checker with no critical errors detected. I manually examined whether the document had a logical reading order and sufficient colour contrast.

Both navigation using keyboard and the tab order were logical. I ensured there was sufficient contrast using WebAIM contrast checker.

Overall, the PDF met accessibility standards.

Reflections

Planning for accessibility upfront significantly reduces effort. Choosing an accessible Hugo theme covered most structural requirements, and properly formatted Word documents naturally produced accessible PDFs.

However, accessibility was demanding when making the video. This was the case for writing and then timing the audio description narration. I think this came more from my inexperience in audio description.

At my workplace, I often use GenAI to draft alt text, which I then refine. A similar workflow for audio description (e.g. having a GenAI model come up with descriptions based on excerpts or single frames) would improve efficiency.

This project reinforced a key lesson: designing for accessibility is far easier than retrofitting it.

When I began working at an unnamed government agency, I thought cramming everything into one complex table was best approach—it displayed all information at once. In hindsight, those tables were not user friendly and would be difficult to remediate. In many cases, it’s easier to just have three simple tables that can get the information across more effectively and accessibly.

Should accessibility ever be de-linked from disability?

Mon, 22 Jun 2026 18:39:54 +1000

This blog post is also available in multiple formats:

PDF version (PDF, 214 KB)
Word version (DOCX, 997 KB)

Introduction

One time at work, a colleague suggested that I change a Slido quiz answer that read: “Universal design benefits everyone, not just people with disability.” They said this shouldn’t be the primary framing. At the end of the day, universal design is about removing barriers affecting people with disability—when you centre it on anything else, you lose that focus.

I pushed back. I suggested keeping the line because it’s a justification that resonates better with people who don’t have disability. It was consistent with the origins of universal design—the world of physical infrastructure. Kerb cut outs, accessible toilets, and ramps can all be used by people with disability as well as people who don’t have disability.

On reflection, the disagreement wasn’t about whether the answer was true. It was about what should take centre stage when we champion universal design—and who gets sidelined when it doesn’t.

When I tried to make universal design more appetising, did I de-link disability from accessibility? Should we ever do that?

Other thoughts – What does Reddit think?

In gathering my thoughts, I found two helpful Reddit threads that explored the same tension.

The first one, Thoughts on “accessibility benefits everyone?”, questioned whether accessibility should be viewed through its universality. The upvoted responses suggested the “benefits everyone” framing was a persuasive argument; it was attractive to people in positions of power. This question was asked on the r/disability subreddit, where responses were informed by lived experience of disability.

The second thread, Why is accessibility being de-linked from disability — and what does that say about us?, posted in the r/accessibility subreddit, reflected a more cynical tone.

u/Fragrant-SirPlum98 wrote:

I’ve literally walked into workplaces with a cane and got told why accessibility didn’t matter or it was “too much trouble when we know who uses this”.

The threads showed that the disagreement existed not just in a meeting room at my workplace or in an academic journal but was an underlying tension out there.

From what I saw in the two Reddit threads, disability can be de-linked from how we frame accessibility—but in a reluctant, strategic, or resigned way.

The problem with “as shown below”

When we make things accessible, we remove barriers that impact people with disability.

Alt text breaks down communication barriers: if the image has meaningful content, then a person using a screen reader will be able to get that meaning.

Suppose I say: “As shown in the graph below, most screen reader users believe more accessible web sites have more impact on accessibility”.

Did you get any of the meaningful content from that graph?

How about I show you its alt text:

Pie chart showing opinions from screen reader users on improving web accessibility: 85.9% favour making websites more accessible, while 14.1% favour better assistive technology.

You can learn more about the WebAIM’s Screen Reader User Survey #10.

Alt text enables people who use screen readers (predominantly people with vision impairment) to do their job, participate in the community, and feel included. As a blind colleague told me: when you don’t put alt text, you’re effectively telling her that she doesn’t matter.

Accessibility helps people with disability—that should be a strong argument for an organisation that is being responsible.

Unfortunately, not every organisation is like that.

Alt text in Ken and Barbie’s World

A coworker with disability of mine described the perfect individuals as “Ken” and “Barbie”, after the Mattel dolls. For the longest time, these dolls represented a beauty standard that was unattainable. According to my coworker, Ken and Barbie could run a marathon without breaking a sweat.

Ken and Barbie displayed in the Textile Museum and Documentation Centre in Terrassa, Catalonia, Spain. Photo by Enric, via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0.

In Ken and Barbie’s world, would alt text still exist? 

Alt text would still exist, but it wouldn’t be called that—maybe it would be known as SEO text. Search engines can’t read images. While current AI models can, it’s a lot faster and less resource-intensive to read text. Alt text would exist for SEO optimisation, and someone with a screen reader in that world will also benefit.

Alt text might also be there for people with slow internet connections—yes, slow internet exists in Ken and Barbie’s world. For the data-conscious, they would load the alt text rather than the image.

Just like that, we de-linked alt text from disability. It’s an argument that works when accessibility has wider benefits than just breaking down barriers for people with disability.

The Cynical Case for Accessibility

Suppose you have to convince a busy senior leader who hasn’t thought a lot about disability. Their understanding of disability is often narrow, and they may carry assumptions about accessibility and its costs.

If they’re the difference between accessibility upgrades to your website, then you need to make it benefit them. You convince them that sufficient colour contrast means they’ll always recognise your brand even when using their phone under a bright light. You tell them that we should adopt Plain English because it’s faster and easier for the senior leaders to read. It saves them time—and it is also less of a load for people with cognitive disabilities. 

We need to remember where universal design comes from: the physical world of infrastructure. When you argue for why a ramp should be installed, you need to talk about everyone it will benefit: the parent with a pram, the person with physical disability with the walker, and the tradie dragging a heavy cart. That way, the self-interested senior leader will dedicate the funds needed to make something more accessible.

I call this the “cynical case” because it assumes the key decision-maker is not swayed by “it helps people with disability”. They don’t view disability as part of their work, and that’s an attitude that can be very hard to change.

We assume that people are selfish and can only be convinced to act in the interests of others when it benefits themselves.

It’s a very cynical perspective that many people with disability and accessibility specialists in the Reddit threads have adopted—such is life in an inaccessible world.

Who does accessibility benefit?

Accessibility always benefits people with disability—the people at the heart of accessibility. However, there are different ways you can convince the key decision-maker.

If they care mainly about profits and markets, then accessibility means improved SEO and an untapped market. We should be accessible so that people with disability can access our products and services—and so that organisations do not miss out on their spending power.

If they are new to disability, then accessibility benefits everyone. We should be accessible because if a webpage is accessible for a screen reader user, then it’s likely accessible for everyone else as well.

Both of these arguments de-link disability from accessibility when it comes to justification. We bury the lede, but the barriers still come down.

If they are well-versed in the world of accessibility, disability, and inclusion, then speak plainly: accessibility benefits people with disability. People with disability have the same right to access websites, services, and workplaces as everyone else.

You might have noticed I’ve neglected one argument: the legal one. We should be accessible because we have obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). If something is inaccessible, then we might be discriminating against people with disability. There are plenty of people who follow the law because the cost of non-compliance is too high. Yet legal obligations alone are rarely good enough to persuade people to invest in accessibility. For many, the risk of non-compliance is distant while the cost of making something accessible is immediate.

Accessibility is deeply rooted in disability, but when you need to justify it, you can touch on universality or self-interest. Tailor the message to the audience.

Looking back, my colleague and I were both right. Accessibility benefits everyone, but it has only one origin: disability.

It hurts to cloud disability behind phrases like “benefits everyone”, “spending power”, and “SEO”. However, if we want to remove barriers, then we’ll have to adapt how we persuade others to make things accessible.

It’s a cynical approach, but perhaps it’s what we can expect from an inaccessible world.

My Colour Palette

Fri, 19 Jun 2026 18:21:47 +1000

You don’t get far if you don’t give yourself a good colour palette.

That’s why one of the first things I did was set up one of my own.

Black
#000000

Dark Blue
#0F3653

Dark Purple
#332F41

White
#FFFFFF

Light Blue
#80CDF3

Pale Yellow
#EBC06F

The main colours used would be Dark Blue and Light Blue (as you can see on my logo). While it would have been fine to stick to a blue gradient, I added Dark Purple and Pale Yellow in case if I ever needed more colours.

I checked all of the colour contrast of each colour using WebAIM Contrast Checker. While I’m aiming for WCAG AA compliance across this website, I’ll take the extra step and go with AAA compliance for colour contrast.

The light colours should all have sufficient contrast against Black, and all the dark colours should have sufficient contrast against White.

Can a Medieval Fayre be accessible?

Thu, 11 Jun 2026 18:39:54 +1000

William explores whether the Blacktown City Medieval Fayre was accessible for people with disability.

Relevant links

Other Versions

This video is also available in multiple formats.

Audio-described video – also hosted on YouTube.
HTML transcript – video transcript as a web page.
PDF transcript (PDF, 85 KB) – video transcript as a PDF.
Word transcript (DOCX, 25 KB) – video transcript as a Word document.

Bonus facts

The “cool weapon” is the Tsar Cannon, which is a gigantic cannon that was built in 1586. The cannon was likely fired once in its history, but because of its ornate and intricate design, it’s best to not fire it—especially on its current carriage.
The ship featured in the video is HMS Victory, the oldest ship that is still currently commissioned in a navy.
The image used to depict the “Sarumen” and “Saurons” is just Merlin the Wizard.
I wore a blazer and my two high school HSIE medals as an outfit. I wanted to look like a well-read gentlemen. However, I ended looking more like someone stealing valour.

Transcript – Can a Medieval Fayre be accessible?

Thu, 11 Jun 2026 18:39:54 +1000

You can:

download this transcript as a PDF document (PDF, 85.0 KB).
download this transcript as a Word document (DOCX, 25.4 KB).
watch the full video on YouTube.

Introduction

William Luu: Ever since starting my current role at an unnamed government agency, I’ve taken quite an interest to accessibility. I also consider myself someone interested in nerdy stuff.

I like my cool weapons. I like my history. I know the difference between the Saurons and Sarumen. So, when I saw that there was a Medieval Fayre near where I lived, I thought, why not?

Then I thought maybe I could combine my two interests. (Sarcastically) Ain’t I clever?

Can a Medieval Fayre be accessible?

Or better put: Can an experience that is intentionally loud, rustic, and crowded be accessible?

[Can That Be Accessible? intro video]

What is accessibility?

William Luu: Before we dive deeper, I think it’s best to talk about what it means to be accessible.

Accessibility is as broad as disability, and disability is very broad. Some people with disability have no access needs. Others have a few. Even some people with the same disability can have different access needs.

Accessibility means removing barriers in society, and trust me, there are a lot of barriers.

Accessibility is more than wheelchair ramps or accessible parking—not that those aren’t important, but accessibility is thinking broadly for a wide range of needs that real people have.

Accessibility means proper planning, and when you plan something right, it will be accessible. So, in theory, a Medieval Fayre can be accessible.

I went to a Medieval Fayre

William Luu: I went to the Blacktown City Medieval Fayre in Nurragingy Park on 16 May. It was a good time. I had fun. It cost $10 to enter and I certainly think I got my value. I think I’ll go back again next year.

Blacktown City Council ran the event, and this is important because the council has a disability inclusion action plan. It’s a bit out of date, but action 2.15 reads:

Develop and implement and events and festivals disability Inclusion checklist for Council-run events.

So, what considerations did they make?

Well, the good news is the accessibility info was on their website. However, you can write anything on a website. What really matters were what accessibility features were present on the day.

A long queue

William Luu: So, the day started with a long queue.

I wanted to be clever, so I took the Rooty Hill entrance rather than the Doonside entrance, which I thought would be more packed. As it turns out, the Rooty Hill entrance was also jam packed. On the other hand, I got to see a miniature train, which I rode on earlier this year.

If you had a disability that makes lining up for 20 minutes untenable, then there should be an alternative. Maybe a ticketing system.

There were some Blacktown City Council staff walking along the queue, but they were there to let you know that the queue was for pre-paid ticket holders.

If you wanted to buy the ticket on the day, you had to:

walk all the way to the front,
Purchase your ticket, and then
Walk all the way to the back to join the line.

It would have been good to have a few more signage around. This would reduce confusion and unnecessary movement.

Yes, accessibility starts before you enter the Fayre.

In the Fayre

William Luu: Now I’m in the Fayre. It’s crowded. There’s not a lot of places to sit, and I think this can be a genuine issue for people with mobility needs.

I’m Autistic. What a surprise. I don’t really like being in large crowds, so it was a bit stressful to look for my friend who went via the Doonside entrance. Try spotting someone you know in such a large crowd.

However, we survived and we went on with our day.

I want to talk about three things that caught my attention:

1. Pathing

Nurragingy Park has quite a few well-marked and well-maintained pathing. I genuinely think these are usable by wheelchair users, noting that I’m not a wheelchair user. However, there weren’t any mats or clear pathing to the market stalls which were on grass. I can see a wheelchair user definitely having a harder time accessing the market stalls.

This is something that was warned ahead of time on the website. However, I can’t help but think this looks a bit more like mitigation rather than active accessibility planning.

Here’s a bit of a tangent. Last year, the Medieval Fayre was cancelled because of mankind’s final boss: Bad weather. This year, it rained a little bit earlier that week. While this was immersive in that you get to feel like a knight trudging your way through fields of mud at the Battle of Hastings, it certainly was not enjoyable.

I was wearing sneakers on the day, so it wasn’t too much of an issue. I can definitely see someone in heavy armour, or someone with vision impairment, or even just someone navigating uneven ground, having some difficulties.

Some more consideration is required.

2. Accessible viewing area

Was there a dedicated, accessible viewing area for the jousting? Yes, and I could confirm it because I walked past it, and I could see plenty of people with disability in there. That’s a good thing, and that’s good event planning.

The only thing I’m curious about was if the accessible viewing area was in place during other events during the day, and not just the jousting.

This is one of the better examples of accessibility planning for the event.

People with disability didn’t have to navigate large crowds or steep incline to watch a show. And I’ll tell you what, it was a mighty good show.

3. Noise

I think the event planners did quite a good job with noise management. On the website, they noted that there would be explosives and loud cannons on the day.

Crowds can be loud, so there was a sensory space a bit away from the main events. Even better, this was by the Blacktown City Library van with its assortments of books.

During one part of the main show, re-enactors fired a cannon and I tell you what, it was bloody loud. Luckily, the MC warned people at the start of the segment that cannons would be used. This gave people ample warning to get away.

I can definitely see the loud noise startling the unprepared as well as the assistance animals. And speaking of assistance animals, some people brought their pets— i.e. non-assistance animals.

One of the segments was a live bird show which featured some birds of prey. Before the show started, the host did warn people with pets to keep them leashed and to keep them nearby, especially for pets that look a bit like prey.

I think it’s really good that they thought about the many facets of animal welfare.

Overall, I think this shows a sensible level of accessibility planning for people with sensory needs, especially in a high noise environment.

Limitations

Now, I’ll preface late into this video: I’m not an Auslan user. I’m not a wheelchair user. I don’t have an assistance animal.

I’m neurodivergent, but as the saying goes: “If you’ve met one Autistic person, you’ve met one Autistic person.” I can definitely see someone else who’s Autistic taking more issue with the loud noises.

This is not a formal accessibility audit done by someone in a suit—not that I didn’t wear blazer on the day. This is an exploration of whether an event was well planned.

Discussion

With all that in mind, I can say, again as someone without high accessibility needs, that the Medieval Fayre was broadly accessible from what I saw. People with disability could access the Fayre and enjoy it. Was it on the same level as someone without high access needs? I hope so. I think people certainly enjoyed the jousting.

It was a Medieval Fayre. It was loud. It was crowded. It was muddy, but it was reasonably accessible. Why? Because it was well planned.

However, there are still some barriers I did not mention.

I can definitely see a person with disability having a hard time navigating the large crowd. There’s no easy fix for this other than some better crowd planning before the event started.

While in the queue, I eavesdropped someone who suspected that people from outside the Blacktown local government area were coming to this event.

As a bit of a comparison, I have footage of Nurragingy Park on a normal Sunday and Nurragingy Park as a Medieval Fayre.

[Footage shows Nurragingy Park considerably less packed on a “normal Sunday”]

One notable gap was Auslan. There weren’t any Auslan interpreters at the Medieval Fayre. This was something that was noted on the website, and I can confirm I did not see any Auslan interpreters on the day. This is a shortcoming. While Deaf people could still enjoy the visual spectacle, they would not be able to hear the MC’s commentary, and I tell you what the commentary was worth hearing.

Jousting Announcer: Here we go!

[Crowd cheers]

[The knights on horseback charge at each other]

Jousting Announcer: Oh! So there will be no points. No points awarded there. So even though the lance snapped, it’s what we call a “barricade” when the lance actually went in front of the rider and broke. It doesn’t score any points, unfortunately.

William Luu: So in that respect, a Deaf person might not be able to enjoy the Medieval Fayre as much as others.

Conclusion

William Luu: Can a Medieval Fayre be accessible? Yes.

Was Blacktown City Medieval Fayre accessible? Yes, with caveats.

It was a good event. I enjoyed it. From what I saw, Blacktown City Council proactively took steps to remove barriers. And these are barriers that impact participation and enjoyment for people with disability.

Genuinely I’m impressed, that an event, while being a bit of anachronistic stew, can be immersive, can be loud, can be crowded, and still be accessible.

The Medieval Fayre happens every year, unless there’s bad weather. So, if it’s up your alley, I really think you should go. Blacktown City Council noted several accessibility features on the website, and those features were there on the day.

This really shows that when you plan something right, it can be accessible, even if it is a Medieval Fayre. And even for a warlock, drinking a can of Coke, while the mage assistant who is a wheelchair user waits patiently to see the jousting.

[Can That Be Accessible? Outro video]