Have you ever heard that a colorblind person cannot work on a ship’s bridge? It’s easy to dismiss this as a mere curiosity unless you start thinking about the root causes of the requirement for perfect color vision for the crew. In my opinion, the demand for flawless color vision in professions like pilot, maritime navigation, and electrician is backward and stems solely from poor design—more specifically, poor accessibility.
Real-life examples of poor accessibility
In maritime navigation, colors have always been used to convey meaning as they are, a good example being the channel markers familiar from Finland’s inland waterways, where the side of passage is indicated solely by color.
The buoy on the left is red with red flashing lights. The buoy on the right is green with green flashing lights, and the flashing sequence is identical to the red flashing light on the left buoy. Even the buoys themselves are identical in shape, yet the average boater can still distinguish between them. In maritime navigation, port is red, and starboard is green, so there shouldn’t be any problem, right? The lights indicating the direction of a ship are green on one side of the vessel and red on the other.
The same principles have been applied and mandated by standards for bridge indicators as well. A maritime professional simply needs perfect color vision to distinguish directions presented in the interface—one is green, and the other is red. Similarly, many other fields have traditionally used colors to convey meaning; for example, in the electrical industry, wires are color-coded.
How big of a problem is this?
Color blindness is surprisingly common; for example, red-green or green-red deficiency affects up to 8% of men. This means that nearly one in ten boys dreaming of a career as a maritime captain must abandon that dream—simply because the propeller angle is indicated by a color-coded display on the bridge, and the navigation lights of other vessels rely solely on red and green.
Why on earth should professional tools or software differ in accessibility from consumer-facing services? Is it so that individuals requiring accessibility can be excluded from the user group during approval processes? The entire premise is absurd. Why should the designers of navigation markers and the developers of bridge applications act as gatekeepers, excluding individuals from a career in maritime navigation?
How does accessibility impact work?
The same issue could arise in many other fields if accessibility is not considered during application design. There are countless companies that use custom-built applications tailored to their needs. If content and technical accessibility are not taken into account during development, poor practices may eventually become widely accepted industry conventions. As a result, during recruitment, employers might need to consider factors that don’t necessarily impact a candidate’s actual qualifications for the job.
- Can the candidate learn to use complex software?
- Can the candidate distinguish the colors used in our application?
- Does the candidate have, for instance, dyslexia, which caused difficulties for a previous employee due to the text alignment in the application?
- Does the candidate have presbyopia? If so, they might struggle to use the reporting tool because of its small text.
- Does the candidate have motor skills that allow them to press closely placed buttons on the screen in the correct order without errors?
None of these are directly related to qualifications for any profession.
Myths About Accessibility
Myth 1 – Ignoring Accessibility Saves Money
The truth is that savings come from functional applications that streamline everyday work. If various aspects of accessibility, from usability to technical accessibility, are not addressed during the design process, some of the best potential professionals may be excluded from recruitment. Alternatively, those who are hired might face issues such as tiny text, illogical navigation, or challenges due to colorblindness.
The often-heard cost-saving argument against making internal applications accessible is, upon closer examination, merely an easy excuse without any real guarantees of savings. In fact, the opposite might be true—arguments for accessibility in consumer-facing services have long highlighted the purchasing power of visually impaired individuals. Perhaps it’s time to start considering the potential value visually impaired individuals could bring as employees?
Myth 2 – Professional Users Don’t Need Accessibility
The truth is that accessibility benefits all users. At its core, accessibility is simply good usability and effective UX design. Depending on the nature of the work, applications may need to be used in non-optimal conditions, such as in bright daylight, on small screens, in minimized windows alongside other applications, or even in awkward physical positions.
The range of scenarios is vast, and accessibility invariably enhances the efficiency of all user groups. Usability factors, in particular, are critical in professional contexts where tools are used daily. Many companies cannot afford poorly designed applications, and investments in accessibility often pay off in the long run.
Myth 3 – Consumer Apps Require More Accessibility and Usability Than Professional Applications
This is perhaps the most inaccurate myth of all. Accessibility and usability take different forms in consumer and professional applications. In my research on expert users’ experiences with a new ship navigation system, I discovered that professionals often have more complex needs and greatly benefit from built-in shortcuts, instant feedback, and other features designed to optimize efficiency.
Consumer applications typically prioritize a quick learning curve and “use and forget” scenarios. In contrast, professional users spend a significant portion of their day using their tools—an estimated 7.5 hours per day, five days a week. You can imagine how a poor user experience compounds across a single workday, then a workweek, and eventually impacts the overall employee experience. Not to mention the collective experience of the entire workforce.
Investing in service design for professional applications is crucial—it’s not just about meeting basic requirements but ensuring tools enhance productivity and satisfaction over the long term.
What could we do to improve accessibility?
I present a challenge to application developers: even if you’re creating software for expert users, don’t give in when you hear that WCAG requirements don’t need to be considered because the application is for internal use only. Let’s firmly aim to ensure that other professions don’t face the same challenges as maritime navigation.
To the maritime, electrical, and aviation industries, I challenge you to revise your standards to meet modern accessibility requirements. It’s never too late to eliminate indirect forms of discrimination, whether in application development or in the standardization of traditional industries. A colorblind maritime captain should be just an intermediate goal—why not set a long-term goal where one day we see a fully blind captain who can command any ship in the world because the industry’s standards mandate accessibility for all tools?
Accessibility requirements
The Accessibility Directive came into force in the EU in 2016, and Finland implemented it in 2018 with the Digital Services Act. The Digital Services Act requires the public sector, as well as parts of the private and third sectors, to comply with accessibility standards in their digital services and mobile applications.
The set accessibility requirements are based on WCAG 2.1 levels A and AA, and compliance is monitored by the Accessibility Monitoring Unit of the Regional State Administrative Agency for Southern Finland.
