Accessibility in Design Systems

Accessibility begins before a single component is built. Many issues that later block users come from early design decisions. These include weak color contrast, unclear labels, missing focus states, or layouts that do not support keyboard navigation. When these problems appear in the design phase, developers cannot fix them fully later, because the structure and visual patterns are already set.

Design systems help reduce these risks by making accessibility part of the foundation. They give teams shared guidance on color, language, interaction, and structure. This support helps designers spot mistakes early and make choices that include more people from the start. When teams work from a common base, accessibility becomes a natural part of every component and pattern rather than an extra step added later.^[1]

Accessibility in a design system starts with clear technical rules that help teams check contrast, structure, and interaction. These rules create a shared baseline so designers and engineers know what makes a component accessible at a minimum. They keep work consistent across products and make testing more predictable.

Standards alone are not enough to create experiences that feel usable. Even if each component meets individual criteria, the experience can still break when users move through an interface. A common example is focus order. A button might be fully compliant on its own, but if it appears in a confusing sequence, keyboard navigation becomes difficult. This shows why design systems must support both correct component behavior and smooth, understandable flows.

Design system documentation helps connect these two layers. It explains how components should be arranged, how labels should be written, and how interactions stay predictable for different audiences. Inclusive language guidance and clear usage examples make it easier for teams to design interfaces that feel supportive in real situations, not just technically correct.^[2]

Design tokens, named in Figma as styles, shape how accessible a product feels long before components are built. Color tokens are one of the strongest examples. When a palette is created with contrast-ready pairs, designers can choose colors confidently without checking contrast every time. This reduces avoidable issues like unreadable text or unclear states, which often appear when colors are chosen freely. Accessible contrast also supports users with low vision or light sensitivity and helps interfaces stay usable in different lighting conditions.

Spacing and typography tokens also play a part in accessibility. Clear spacing scales help layouts breathe and make interactive elements easier to target. Typography scales that include readable sizes and good line spacing support users who rely on visual clarity to process information. When these details are baked into tokens, they guide teams toward accessible patterns without extra effort or special checks. Tokens become a quiet but powerful way to build consistency and usability into every screen.^[3]

Language plays a key role in accessibility inside a design system. Clear and respectful wording helps more people understand actions and content without confusion or guesswork. Design systems often support this through inclusive language guidelines that help teams communicate with care and awareness of different life experiences.

Clear and respectful wording often follows simple patterns, for example:

• Using everyday words instead of technical terms when possible. For example, “Start” instead of “Initiate process.”
• Avoiding jargon, unclear shortcuts, or phrasing that may exclude or stereotype certain groups.
• Choosing neutral expressions that do not assume gender, culture, or ability. Instead of “he” or “she” when gender is unknown, use “they.”
• Avoiding tone that sounds overly formal or harsh.
• Writing labels that tell users exactly what will happen, such as “Save changes” instead of vague actions.

Localization adds another layer to accessible content. When products reach new regions, text needs to work in different languages, writing systems, and cultural contexts. If this is not considered early, translations can overflow components, lose meaning, or feel unnatural to people who read in another language. Design systems that include localization notes help teams prepare for these differences from the start.

Localization-friendly design often includes choices like:

• Avoiding idioms that do not translate well. For example, “Hit the ground running” does not make sense in many languages, so a clearer phrase like “Start quickly” works better.
• Planning for languages that expand when translated. German or Finnish text often becomes much longer, so components need flexible space to support this growth.
• Supporting right to left languages when needed. Arabic or Hebrew interfaces require mirrored layouts that affect alignment, navigation, and icons.
• Using neutral visuals that do not rely on local cultural symbols. For example, you may consider replacing hand gestures with simple icons that feel universal.

Planning for these differences helps the interface stay readable, natural, and respectful across cultures. It also reduces redesign later because the system already supports global use.

Every component in a design system needs to meet clear accessibility expectations before teams can rely on it across products. These expectations include readable contrast, clear labels, visible focus states, correct semantic structure, and smooth keyboard navigation. When any of these pieces are missing, users may struggle even if the component looks visually correct. A styled button, for instance, becomes unusable if focus is not visible or if the label cannot be announced by a screen reader.

Some design systems use accessibility scorecards to keep these checks consistent. A scorecard is a simple visual panel attached to a component’s documentation. It shows whether the component is visually accessible, compatible with screen readers, fully navigable, and predictable in behavior. Each category is evaluated by the design system team, usually designers and accessibility specialists. Their goal is to confirm that the component meets WCAG-based criteria and common usability needs. The scorecard works like a quick status indicator that tells teams if a component is ready to use or still needs updates. It also helps designers understand what to check when creating new components.

Annotations allow designers to bring accessibility decisions directly into their layouts instead of leaving them unclear or scattered across separate notes. These small markers can point out where alt text is needed, how elements should be grouped semantically, or which parts of a component should receive keyboard focus. When annotations sit inside the actual file, they show the designer’s intent in context. Engineers can see what needs attention at a glance rather than guessing or searching through comments.

To make this process smoother, teams often store annotation assets in shared Figma libraries. This lets designers drag and drop ready-made notes into their files using a consistent format. A shared library also helps new team members quickly understand how accessibility expectations are communicated. Many design systems include these assets in their handoff kits along with examples that show how to annotate components, screens, or specific interaction patterns. These examples teach designers how to apply semantic structure, identify alt text needs, and highlight expected behavior without overwhelming them with rules.

Documentation explains the principles behind the annotations, while the annotations show how to apply those principles in a real layout.

Automated accessibility tests run on the coded product or on live components. These tools scan interfaces for common problems like low contrast, missing labels, incorrect structure, or unclear focus behavior. They help teams monitor accessibility as new features ship and the product grows. This makes automation especially valuable in large systems where many updates happen quickly and need consistent checking.

Automation alone cannot capture how an experience feels when someone interacts with it. Many issues appear only through manual testing. Keyboard navigation, screen reader behavior, and the order in which elements are read all require human judgment. Designers and engineers need to move through the interface to understand how well it supports real users in real conditions. This is why design systems encourage both automated scans for fast detection and manual testing for deeper insight. Used together, they give teams a more complete understanding of the product’s accessibility.

Accessibility is an ongoing process. A component that meets expectations today may no longer be fully accessible as browsers, devices, and assistive technologies evolve. Regular audits help teams stay ahead of these changes. They review contrast, structure, focus behavior, and compatibility across platforms. Some systems keep audit results in structured tables to track what has been tested, what passed, and what needs updates. This creates a clear record that teams can return to as standards shift.

Audits also show how components behave when combined into real layouts. A component might work perfectly in isolation but become confusing when placed inside a more complex pattern. When this happens, teams update documentation, adjust the component, or refine the pattern so the system stays dependable. Continuous auditing keeps accessibility from fading as the system grows and helps ensure that accessibility remains part of everyday practice.^[4]

A design system becomes truly accessible only when accessibility is treated as a shared responsibility across teams. Designers, engineers, content specialists, and product managers all influence how accessible a product feels. When teams work with different expectations or uneven knowledge, accessibility often falls behind. Systems that build a strong culture start by offering training, shared practices, and clear guidance so everyone understands their role. Some organizations create accessibility training for designers and internal bootcamps for engineers to help teams gain confidence and build long-term habits.

A supportive culture also encourages teams to ask questions, share feedback, and collaborate early. When accessibility is discussed at the beginning of a project, it shapes tokens, components, and patterns instead of becoming a fix applied at the end. Regular conversations between teams help catch issues sooner and reduce the risk of inaccessible design choices slipping into production. Over time, this steady collaboration makes accessibility a natural part of the workflow and not something handled only by specialists.