Rethinking Accessibility in the Age of Cognitive Pluralism#
June 2025
#accessibilityI’ve had the chance to talk with some sharp, thoughtful people in the accessibility space lately—designers, researchers, educators, advocates. When I ask about what’s not working, I hear similar themes: We need more awareness. We need accessibility taught in all curricula. We need stronger regulations to make accessibility an unshakable fundamental right. Everyone benefits from accessible design practices. I don’t disagree that these efforts matter. But I also don’t think they’re enough. Not for the world we’re already living in—and definitely not for the one that’s coming. As a neurodivergent software engineer with atypical sensory, perceptual, regulatory, and action modalities, here’s why I think we need foundational research in diverse intelligence to move toward true inclusion.
The Standard Accessibility Playbook#
The current consensus goes something like this:
Accessibility benefits everyone – The electric toothbrush was designed for motor impairments but became mainstream.
Regulation and standards – WCAG and similar frameworks enforce minimal inclusion.
Awareness and education – Promoting empathy and design literacy to reduce post-hoc fixes.
These have done tremendous good. But in an era of cognitive pluralism, they’re not enough.
A truly inclusive society isn’t just one where websites meet WCAG. It’s one where I can meaningfully engage with the world when I want to even if I can’t use my eyes, detect neurotypical social cues, communicate verbally, tolerate bright lights, or sit upright. That might sound like a high bar, but it’s the kind of facilitation good caregivers already enable every day.
In short, inclusion is about this question: Can you interact meaningfully with the world when you want to, no matter what form your mind or body takes?
Cognitive Pluralism and Universal Design#
Cognition isn’t static. And it’s not one thing. Between neurodivergence, aging, brain-computer interfaces, chimeras, synthetic minds, and engineered systems, the variety of ways to be a thinking, sensing, regulating being is only going to grow.
Even now, people within the same broad category have radically different needs. And some of those needs conflict.
Take stimulation: some minds need less of it, some need more. Some need long breaks, some thrive with deep long focus. And some need both in contextually appropriate instances. These so-called conflicts represent larger biological trade-offs that are tied to different strengths.
In that light, the idea of universal design—creating systems that work for “everyone”—starts to break down. “Everyone” is too diverse, too dynamic, and in some cases, too incommensurable. Its better than no consideration for differences, but it’s not enough. Improving contrast, voice control, or layout options? Absolutely important and necessary. But they’re the floor, not the future.
In practice, I think trying to design for everyone (or most people):
Flattens difference rather than supporting it
Assumes a hypothetical “neutral” user who still reflects dominant norms
Can’t plan for what hasn’t emerged yet
Empathy Isn’t Uniform#
Here’s another hard truth: not everyone has the same capacity or desire for empathy.
Sure, people can stretch–and I’m a huge proponent of doing so–but expecting every designer, engineer, or co-worker to allocate bandwidth so they can deeply understand and design for everyone else’s cognitive or sensory world? Not realistic. And honestly, not necessary.
Instead, we need systems that can mediate, translate, and support interactions across wildly different internal experiences no matter how much or how little bandwidth any given individual has for empathy in that moment of their life.
The Real Problem: Interfacing Between Difference#
So here’s the crux: We need to reduce the overhead of interacting across sensory, perceptual, regulatory and action differences.
That means building a system(s) that can:
Deeply understand the being’s sensory-perception-regulation-action modalities through time relative to others
Translate between them
Construct tailored interfaces for communication, contribution, and belonging
The goal is not to flatten difference—it’s to facilitate divergence without making it more overhead for everyone involved.
And Yes, Let’s Talk About Overlays#
I know what some of you are thinking:
“Isn’t this just an accessibility overlay all over again?”
Let’s be clear: generally overlays suck. They’re often band-aids that let companies pretend they’ve done the work when they haven’t. They break stuff. They confuse users. They give the whole space a bad name.
But that doesn’t mean the underlying problem—reducing interface friction—isn’t real or worth solving.
Bad AI happens. Anyone who’s ever yelled at a customer service bot knows that. But sometimes, progress means wading through early, clunky versions on the way to something that actually works. Overlays failed because they were oversold and underbuilt—not because the idea was bad.
Again, I think there’s a lot of room for working on systems that can understand what an individual cares about, and what their goals are.
As a neurodivergent engineer, I don’t believe the future lies in awareness campaigns or bare-minimum compliance. Too often, I hear talk about valuing “unique thinkers,” while the systems in place quietly exclude the very minds they claim to want.
If we mean it when we say we want difference, then we have to build systems where genuinely different ways of thinking can contribute, collaborate, and thrive—without having to become, or feign, sameness.
🖖