Accessibility Debt
Why fixing accessibility later costs more than doing it right the first time
Many municipalities and public-facing organizations in Manitoba are redesigning their websites to improve services and meet accessibility obligations under The Accessibility for Manitobans Act. Most teams understand accessibility at a basic level. Fewer recognize a growing and costly risk behind delayed decisions: accessibility debt.
Accessibility debt builds quietly when accessibility is postponed, scoped too narrowly, or treated as a final checklist instead of a design principle. Like financial debt, it compounds. And when it comes due, it is usually under pressure, with limited budgets, tight timelines, and public scrutiny.
This article explains what accessibility debt is, why it is becoming more common, and how municipal leaders can reduce long-term risk by addressing it early.
What is accessibility debt?
Accessibility debt is the accumulated cost of accessibility decisions that are deferred or overlooked across a website’s design, content, tools, and workflows.
It typically appears when:
- Accessibility is planned for after launch
- Website redesigns focus on visuals rather than structure
- Content teams publish without accessibility guardrails
- Third-party tools are added without validation
- Older documents are left inaccessible “for now”
Each of these choices creates future remediation work that is more expensive and disruptive to fix later.
Accessibility specialists increasingly describe this pattern as accessibility debt because it behaves exactly like technical debt. The longer it sits, the more costly it becomes to resolve.
Why accessibility debt is increasing
Accessibility expectations are rising
Under The Accessibility for Manitobans Act, organizations are required to identify, prevent, and remove barriers, including digital barriers. The Accessible Information and Communication Standard applies to websites, digital documents, and online services.
As of May 1, 2025, compliance obligations extend to private sector organizations, non-profits, and smaller municipalities. This shift moves accessibility from an aspirational goal to an operational expectation.
When accessibility has been deferred, organizations often face remediation at exactly the moment expectations become more visible.
Websites are no longer brochures
Municipal websites now function as service platforms. Residents use them to:
- Submit forms and applications
- Request services
- Access emergency information
- Download documents
- Understand eligibility and next steps
When these tasks are not accessible, the impact is real and immediate. It affects residents directly and increases staff workload through calls, emails, and in-person support.
The World Wide Web Consortium emphasizes that accessibility must support real user tasks, not just individual pages
Accessibility debt grows fastest when accessibility is evaluated page by page instead of across full service journeys.
Content grows faster than governance
Modern content systems allow many contributors to publish quickly. Without accessibility checks built into publishing workflows, new barriers are introduced continuously.
Common examples include:
- Inaccessible PDFs
- Missing or unclear headings
- Poorly described links
- Images without meaningful alternative text
Over time, the volume of content makes remediation feel overwhelming, which leads to further delay and deeper debt.
The real cost of “we will fix it later”
Financial cost
Research and industry experience consistently show that retrofitting accessibility after launch costs significantly more than building it in from the start.
Accessibility audits in Canada can range from a few thousand dollars to well over ten thousand dollars depending on site size. Remediation adds further cost once issues are identified
When accessibility is addressed early through templates and design systems, costs are incremental. When addressed late, costs multiply across every page, document, and tool.
Operational cost
Accessibility debt also affects staff time and service delivery:
- More support requests for alternative formats
- Manual workarounds created by staff
- Delays in launching new services due to remediation backlogs
What begins as a technical issue becomes an operational one.
Reputational and compliance risk
When accessibility problems surface through complaints or investigations, organizations are forced into reactive fixes. This increases scrutiny and erodes public trust, especially among seniors and people with disabilities.
Proactive accessibility reduces this risk and demonstrates leadership rather than compliance under pressure.
Why accessibility debt is becoming a leadership and budget issue in 2025/2026
For many municipalities, accessibility debt is no longer just a digital concern. It is increasingly surfacing during budget reviews, capital planning discussions, and service modernization initiatives.
Website redesigns, CMS upgrades, and digital service expansions are often funded as one-time projects. Accessibility debt complicates this model. When accessibility is not embedded into systems and workflows, organizations inherit ongoing remediation costs that were never planned for.
In 2025, this tension is becoming more visible. Accessibility requirements under The Accessibility for Manitobans Act are intersecting with:
- Aging digital infrastructure
- Increased reliance on online services
- Limited internal capacity
- Heightened public expectations for inclusive service delivery
When accessibility work is deferred, it does not disappear. It reappears later as unplanned line items, delayed launches, emergency fixes, or staff time diverted from core services.
Municipal leaders who recognize accessibility debt early are better positioned to:
- Make realistic budget assumptions
- Scope digital projects more accurately
- Reduce long-term operational strain
- Demonstrate proactive stewardship rather than reactive compliance
In this sense, accessibility debt is not only a design issue. It is a governance and sustainability issue.
Where accessibility debt usually forms
Across municipalities and non-profits, accessibility debt tends to follow predictable patterns.
Passing an audit once, then slipping
A website meets accessibility requirements at launch, but ongoing updates introduce new barriers because accessibility was not built into content workflows.
Third-party tools creating hidden risk
Forms, booking systems, or mapping tools may not meet accessibility standards, even if the main website does. Responsibility still rests with the organization.
Legacy content left untouched
Older documents remain inaccessible because the scope feels too large. Over time, the problem grows rather than shrinks.
Accessibility is a leadership issue, not a technical one
The organizations that manage accessibility best do not rely solely on audits or technical fixes. They treat accessibility as part of governance and risk management.
Effective leadership decisions include:
- Requiring accessibility in RFPs and vendor contracts
- Using accessible templates and components by default
- Embedding accessibility checks into publishing workflows
- Prioritizing high-impact services first
Accessibility debt is reduced when good decisions are built into systems rather than enforced after the fact.
Practical takeaways for municipal leaders
- Build accessibility into templates and systems, not individual pages
- Shift from one-time audits to ongoing governance
- Treat accessibility as a service quality issue, not just compliance
- Prioritize high-traffic and high-impact services first
- Measure success through usability and reduced support burden, not only technical scores
Final thought
The most expensive accessibility work is the work that was postponed.
Accessibility debt is avoidable. When accessibility is addressed early and systematically, organizations reduce long-term costs, improve service delivery, and build trust with the communities they serve.
For municipalities and public organizations in Manitoba, accessibility done well is not a constraint. It is durable digital infrastructure.
