Quick summary
We ran a 20-week, three-phase study for a global smartphone OEM on the unmet needs of people with disabilities and older and aging adults across the US, UK, Germany, and Japan. The client used the findings to fund a permanent inclusive product-development team, update its accessibility principles, and set new firm-wide guidelines for accessibility research.
Read this study for
Designing and programming an accessible survey
Foundational accessibility research
Research that moves investment
Managing a complex client stakeholder group
The engagement
We were engaged by a global smartphone OEM to investigate the unmet needs of two populations, as it relates to their experience with digital technology: 1people with disabilities, spanning people who are hard of hearing or Deaf, people who are blind or have low vision, and people with speech disabilities; and 2older and aging adults, spanning older adults (55–74) and the aging population (75+).
The market context
We sized the opportunity through a market and competitor analysis before moving into primary research. What we found:
Many are aging in place with smart-home devices, and heavily engaged on social media. 87% use a smartphone daily.
They pay premium prices for devices that reliably serve them. 66% identify as early technology adopters.
We audited 39 competitor features across three rival brands and found a heavy focus on simplified interfaces and basic health tracking, highlighting white space in features to enable navigation, creative expression, and cross-device communication.
The market for accessible technology is projected to reach $31 billion by 2030. Proving that the general population values a brand’s commitment to inclusive design would establish the case for building specialized accessibility features.
Part one
The study
Our timeline
Qualitative fieldwork
Concept development
Quantitative validation
Reporting
Phases 2–3 of the program (Phase 1’s foundation survey ran earlier). A review-and-iterate gate sits mid-program; a late pause precedes final analysis. Weeks are relative to the start of Phase 2.
The three phases
Phase 01 — Foundation survey
A global survey scored twelve areas of daily life on difficulty, engagement, and dissatisfaction.
Phase 02 — Qualitative field
Ninety-minute triad focus groups and five-day digital diaries, focused strictly on the high-friction areas phase one surfaced, logging the exact workarounds people relied on every day.
Phase 03 — Concept validation
We ran a cross-functional sprint to translate user pain points into 20 feature concepts, then designed a final survey to rank them. To control for cognitive load and ensure the protocol remained fully accessible for vision-impaired users, we tested all concepts as plain text.
What we set out to answer
Whether there is a business case for investing in accessibility for these distinct consumer segments.
The daily workarounds and joys of these users, and where the smartphone ecosystem can improve their experience.
The highest-priority white spaces, ranked on user impact and (light) technical feasibility.
Which concepts had the greatest impact on improving daily life.
How designing for accessibility affects the general population’s brand perception and purchase intent.
Part two
The findings
What we learned from users
Across every segment, users want technology that stays reliable when it matters and never singles them out.
For everyone we spoke to, safety is a priority. Both at home (older adults) and in unfamiliar places, like when traveling (people with disabilities).
I was asleep in a hotel room during an evacuation. There was a fire in the building next door. Because I am deaf, I didn’t hear the fire alarm. When I woke up I walked down to the lobby and saw everyone standing outside. Realizing you can be entirely cut off from life-saving alerts when you are alone in an unfamiliar place is terrifying.
Hearing-impaired participant, US
Speech-impaired and hard-of-hearing users face systemic exclusion when critical services, banks, or doctors require a phone call as the only way to reach them.
“I often think it would be so convenient to make a call. For example, to get tickets or make reservations, we can only do it by phone. I can’t do that.”
Hearing-impaired participant, Japan
Older adults rejected simplified “retiree” phones that strip away modern capability. They wanted full performance, packaged in an accessible way.
“There’s an indirect patronization with the cell phones with the huge keys. The ‘retiree cell phones’ is what they are called. It is indirectly suggested to people that they are too old for a smartphone.”
Older-adult participant, 55–64, Germany
The validated concepts
A proactive memory assistant that tracks daily routines and prompts users to order items, complete chores, or leave for appointments.
#1 for usefulness among older adults; strong daily-engagement intent.
A tool that recognizes and suggests deleting duplicate contacts, photos, and videos to recover storage.
Highest purchase intent among older adults, strongest in the 65–74 and 75+ bands.
Detailed indoor directions that guide users to an exact location, such as a specific airport gate.
Top daily-engagement concept among vision users; #2 for purchase intent.
A tool that shows the direction of critical ambient sounds, such as an approaching siren, on the screen or smartwatch.
Top purchase driver among hearing users.
Detects a single-handed grip and shifts the keyboard to prevent accidental taps, supporting users managing mobility constraints alongside speech impairments.
Leading speech concept for purchase intent.
Live translation that converts text to speech and speech to text during a phone call, so users can handle businesses that mandate phone communication.
Among the most useful across all segments.
Descriptions and figures have been altered or omitted to remain illustrative.
What it produced
What the report contains
Part three
Our impact
Brand-value data used to fund a permanent inclusive product-development team in the mobile hardware division.
Accessibility features shipped in the client’s 2024 and 2025 releases.
A firm-wide ADA audit of the survey platform, triggered when we found its programming inaccessible.
New firm guidelines for accessibility research, now the standard for equity-centered projects.
We ran into a lot of problems that ultimately delayed us when it came to programming the survey. The survey wasn’t compatible with screen readers, and the radio buttons didn’t work on certain smartphone OEMs. To make sure it was accessible, especially given who we were testing with, we went through several rounds of testing, and we ultimately ended up having to switch platforms at the last minute.
On this project we were assigned three lead clients: a product manager, a UX research manager, and a product strategist. Each of them had a different idea of how the insights would be used and how the guides should be shaped. In order to manage some contentious conversations, we met with each of them one-on-one to make sure they felt heard, then brought them together in group sessions to reach a consensus. When you’re working inside a complex organization, that’s something you have to plan for from the start.