1. Introduction

Accessibility has become an international priority. For example, the European Accessibility Act (EAA), adopted in 2019, will require a wide range of products and services – from consumer electronics (TVs, smartphones, computers) to ticketing machines and websites – to meet common accessibility standards by 28 June 2025 (AccessibleEU, 2025). In the United States, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has been updated to cover digital content: in April 2024 the Department of Justice issued a final rule mandating that state and local government websites and mobile apps conform to WCAG 2.1 AA standards (Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, [2024, April 24]). The DOJ has also begun addressing new technologies; for instance, it issued guidance explaining how algorithms and artificial intelligence in hiring can unintentionally discriminate against people with disabilities (Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 2022). These developments underscore a broad consensus that accessible design is essential online, aligned with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) – a single international standard for web accessibility – and with legal mandates around the world. This study supports SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by addressing barriers that exclude visually impaired individuals from equal access to education and digital participation in STEM and finance.

Focus on STEM and Finance

STEM and finance are critical to the modern economy but pose special accessibility challenges that have often been overlooked. Both domains rely heavily on graphical and data-driven interfaces (spreadsheets, charts, dashboards, scientific diagrams, etc.), which are inherently visual. For example, many advanced science and computing curricula rely on programming tools and graphics environments that are not accessible to blind learners (University of Washington, AccessComputing, n.d.). These challenges are compounded by cultural attitudes: as one expert cautioned, focusing only on “hero” success stories of exceptional individuals can mislead others into thinking “just do it like that,” whereas such anecdotes may mask the systemic hurdles that most blind students face. In sum, the visual intensity of STEM/finance fields and ingrained biases make these sectors particularly critical – yet relatively neglected – arenas for accessibility policy.

North America

North America offers mature accessibility frameworks and practical models worth studying. In the U.S. and Canada, laws like the ADA (U.S.) and similar statutes mandate broad accessibility, and government and industry often cooperate on implementation. Major corporations and institutions exemplify best practices: for instance, Microsoft explicitly states that “accessibility is woven into the fabric of what we design and build from Day 1” (Microsoft, n.d.), and Pearson (a leading educational publisher) commits to making all its learning materials accessible so that “all students can learn from our products” (Pearson, n.d.-a) .Finance firms also invest in accessibility infrastructure; one visually impaired interviewee working in finance in New York, described Bloomberg’s dedicated accessibility team that supports screen-reader users in investment analytics. These established efforts – backed by both legal requirements and cross-sector partnerships – provide a rich set of lessons and proven solutions that can inform policy in other countries.

Empirical Research

This paper integrates new qualitative research to ground the policy discussion in both empirical and legal context. The research began with an in-depth literature review on the experiences of visually impaired individuals in STEM and finance, followed by legal analysis of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related accessibility frameworks. To contextualize the regulatory landscape, the study also examined landmark court cases involving digital accessibility and workplace discrimination, offering insight into how legal standards are interpreted in practice.

Building on this foundation, we conducted seven in-depth interviews with blind or low-vision South Koreans who have studied or worked in STEM and finance—many of them based in North America. These interviews reveal concrete experiences with inaccessible tools and environments, as well as adaptive strategies and institutional support. These personal narratives—presented here alongside legal and policy analysis—highlight real-world barriers and reform opportunities. By incorporating these lived experiences, the study ensures that policy recommendations are informed by both structural frameworks and the day-to-day realities of visually impaired students and professionals.

2. Accessibility Regulations Reshaping the Global Landscape

European Accessibility Act (EAA)

The European Accessibility Act (EAA) is an EU directive adopted in 2019 that establishes a set of common accessibility requirements for certain products and services across the European Union. Formally titled Directive (EU) 2019/882, this act aims to remove barriers in the internal market by harmonizing minimum accessibility standards and strengthening the rights of persons with disabilities to access goods and services in the EU. As a directive, the EAA sets binding goals (i.e. the accessibility outcomes to be achieved) but leaves it to each Member State to decide the exact national measures or regulations to implement those goals. In effect, the EAA introduces EU-wide baseline rules for accessibility while giving countries flexibility in how to execute them in detail.

1) Scope and Application

The EAA’s requirements apply broadly to digital and ICT-related goods and services offered in the EU, covering both public and private sector providers. Unlike earlier EU accessibility laws that only addressed public sector websites, the EAA extends to private companies’ products and services as well – any covered product placed on the market or service provided to consumers must comply, regardless of whether the provider is a government entity or a business (Directive (EU) 2019/882, 2019). The Act specifically targets a wide range of technologies used in daily life (including in education and employment contexts). Notable examples of covered areas include:

● Consumer ICT Products: general-purpose computer hardware and operating systems, self-service terminals (such as ATMs, ticketing and check-in machines, and information kiosks), consumer telecommunication and audiovisual equipment (like smartphones or smart TVs), and e-readers (Directive 2019/882, 2019).

● Digital Services: electronic communications services (telephony and internet access services), services providing access to audiovisual media (digital TV content platforms), certain aspects of passenger transport services (ticketing, real-time travel information on apps/websites, etc.), consumer banking services, e-books (digital books and dedicated reading software), and e-commerce services (online shopping platforms) (Directive 2019/882, 2019).

These categories cover many of the digital tools used by people in educational and workplace settings – for instance, accessible computers, e-book readers, and communication applications benefit students and employees with disabilities. However, it should be noted that the EAA’s list of covered goods and services is specific; it does not explicitly include certain niche domains like specialized educational software or scientific laboratory tools, which are discussed further below

2) Implementation

The EAA came into force on June 27, 2019, and EU Member States were given a three-year window (until June 28, 2022) to transpose the directive into their national laws. This transposition period allowed each country to adopt or update its legislation to meet the EAA’s requirements. The accessibility requirements become mandatory starting June 28, 2025, after which all products and services within the EAA’s scope must conform to the specified accessibility criteria before being offered on the market (Directive 2019/882, 2019). In practical terms, any covered product placed on the EU market after mid-2025 must be accessible by design, and likewise any new or updated services (such as websites or apps for banking, e-commerce, etc.) provided to consumers must meet the accessibility standards from that date forward. The EAA includes mechanisms to enforce these obligations: for example, manufacturers of covered products are required to undergo a conformity assessment and affix the CE marking to declare that their product meets the EAA’s accessibility criteria. Member States must carry out market surveillance to ensure that products comply with the requirements, and they are empowered to take corrective actions if a product is found non-compliant. For services, providers must supply information about the accessibility of their services (for instance, in general terms and conditions or an equivalent document), and national authorities are tasked with monitoring compliance of services and handling complaints or reports of inaccessibility (Directive 2019/882, 2019).

3) Minimum Harmonisation and Limitations

The EAA is characterized as a minimum harmonisation directive, meaning it sets a baseline of accessibility requirements that all EU countries must at least meet, but it does not prevent Member States from going further. Countries are free to adopt stricter or broader accessibility rules at the national level (for example, extending accessibility obligations to additional products or services beyond those mandated by the EAA), as long as the minimum standards of the EAA are satisfied (Directive 2019/882, 2019).

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

The ADA is a cornerstone civil rights law ensuring accessibility and nondiscrimination for people with disabilities in the United States. It is organized into several titles, with Title II covering public entities (state and local governments, including public educational institutions) and Title III covering private businesses deemed “places of public accommodation.” Under Title II, no qualified individual with a disability can be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, services, programs, or activities of a public entity (extending the mandate of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to all state and local government services) (Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 2010) (Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 2024). This obligation means public institutions – from city governments to state universities – must proactively ensure that their facilities and services (including digital content) are accessible to persons with disabilities.

Title II entities are required to make reasonable modifications and provide effective communication through auxiliary aids when necessary, so that people with disabilities have equal access, unless doing so would fundamentally alter the program or impose undue burdens (Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Disability Rights Section, 2016).

Title III, on the other hand, prohibits disability-based discrimination by private businesses open to the public (the ADA lists 12 categories of “public accommodations,” which include places like banks, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, private schools, and museums) (Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 2010). Title III entities must ensure equal access to their goods, services, and facilities – for example, they must remove barriers in buildings, provide auxiliary aids such as assistive listening devices or Braille materials, and make reasonable policy modifications to serve people with disabilities.

1) 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design

Both Title II and Title III entities are subject to the ADA’s technical standards for accessibility in the built environment and certain technologies. The 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design – adopted as part of DOJ’s revised regulations in 2010 – are an updated set of accessibility requirements that replaced the original 1991 standards (Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 2010). These standards incorporate the 2004 ADA Accessibility Guidelines developed by the U.S. Access Board, giving them legal effect for ADA enforcement.

The 2010 Standards cover a wide range of architectural and communication elements, from building features (e.g. entrances, restrooms, signage, seating layouts) to fixtures and equipment. Notably, the 2010 update introduced specific criteria to address modern technology and spaces. For example, automated teller machines (ATMs) and fare machines must now have tactilely discernible input controls, audible speech output, Braille instructions, and other accessible features so that blind or low-vision users can independently use them (Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 2010). (The earlier 1991 rules had required ATMs to be “accessible” but lacked such technical specifics.)

The updated standards also improved requirements for assistive listening systems in assembly areas like classrooms or auditoriums (e.g. requiring standard audio jacks and hearing-aid compatible interfaces), refined reach range and spatial requirements to better accommodate people of short stature or wheelchair users, and set clearer rules for accessible routes and seating in public facilities (Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 2010).

The 2010 ADA Standards thus provide the baseline that architects, product designers, and organizations must follow to ensure any new or renovated physical space (or fixed equipment) is accessible. In practice, compliance with these standards is mandatory for Title II entities and for Title III businesses when building or updating facilities – a crucial consideration for STEM classrooms, laboratories, bank lobbies, or any physical infrastructure in education and finance sectors.

2) Digital Accessibility and the 2024 DOJ Updates

In recent years, the DOJ has underscored that the ADA’s accessibility obligations extend into the digital realm. For public entities under Title II, this culminated in a major regulatory update in 2024. The DOJ issued a final rule (effective June 2024) that explicitly requires state and local governments to make their websites and mobile applications accessible to people with disabilities (Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 2024). This rule adopts the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA as the authoritative standard for web and mobile content accessibility in Title II contexts.

In practical terms, any web content a public entity offers – whether it’s an official state website, a public university’s online learning portal, or a city’s mobile app for services – must conform to WCAG 2.1 AA criteria (which cover things like text alternatives for images, keyboard navigation, captioning for multimedia, sufficient color contrast, etc.). The rule applies not only to content that the government creates, but also to content provided through third parties or contractors on the government’s behalf (Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 2024). The overarching point of the 2024 update is that digital content is now clearly recognized as a public service that must be accessible. Just as wheelchair ramps and Braille signs are required at a city hall, captions on videos and screen-reader-friendly websites are required on a city’s web portals. This new rule provides public entities with clear technical benchmarks and deadlines (large entities must comply by 2026, smaller by 2027) for bringing websites and apps up to standard (Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 2024).

Although this particular rule is for Title II entities, it reflects a broader trend: the ADA is being actively interpreted to keep pace with technology. The DOJ’s guidance in 2022 had already affirmed that both public agencies and private businesses should make their websites accessible under the ADA, identifying common barriers like poor screen-reader compatibility and videos without captions (Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Disability Rights Section, 2016).

3) AI-Driven Systems in Employment

Another contemporary development is the ADA’s application to artificial intelligence tools and automated systems, particularly in employment (hiring and recruiting) which is critical in STEM and finance fields. In 2022, the Department of Justice and the EEOC jointly released guidance on Algorithms, AI, and Disability Discrimination in Hiring, recognizing the rapid adoption of software-driven hiring assessments (Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice. [2022, May 12]). They cautioned that employers must ensure these technologies do not unlawfully screen out or disadvantage applicants with disabilities.

The ADA’s protections in employment (Title I of the ADA, which applies to both public and private employers) cover “all parts of employment, including how an employer selects, tests, or promotes employees (Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice. [2022, May 12]). Thus, if a company or government agency uses an AI-powered résumé scanner, online skills test, or video interview algorithm, it remains responsible for ADA compliance in that process. For instance, an algorithm that scores applicants by analyzing video interviews could discriminate against a Deaf applicant (if it expects spoken answers or analyzes tone of voice), or a timed online test might unfairly penalize someone with a motor disability. Even if unintentional, such outcomes violate the ADA’s mandate that hiring technologies be accessible and not screen out people because of disability. The DOJ/EEOC guidance emphasizes that using a third-party vendor’s AI tool is not a safe harbor – the employer is still liable if the tool is discriminatory (Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice. [2022, May 12]).

Case Study of Law Enforcement in U.S.A

1) Case Study: Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District

Real-world cases help illuminate how ADA requirements are applied and enforced. Payan v. LACCD is a landmark Title II case involving digital accessibility in education. In this lawsuit, two blind students at Los Angeles City College (part of LACCD) challenged the accessibility of the college’s course materials and technology infrastructure. The evidence revealed a pattern of barriers that prevented blind students from equal participation. For example, one student (Payan) was unable to complete homework in an online platform (MyMathLab) because it was not designed to work with screen-reading software, and he was not provided timely alternate formats for his math textbook – causing him to fall behind in class (Payan v. Los Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist., 2021). Additionally, LACC’s public website and internal student portal (PeopleSoft) were not compatible with screen readers, making essential online resources unusable for blind students.

The college’s library databases were also problematic: many research databases had interfaces that a screen reader could not interpret, and the school had no effective practice of vetting or monitoring digital resources for accessibility. These issues meant that blind students had to wait for ad-hoc fixes or report problems themselves, rather than having equivalent access from the start (Payan v. Los Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist., 2021). The students sued under both Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, arguing that the college’s failure to address these accessibility issues was discriminatory.

The federal court agreed. Even after some procedural wrangling (including analysis of whether the claims should be treated as “disparate impact”), the court found that LACCD had violated the ADA by not providing equal access to its educational programs and materials. The violations cited in Payan were directly tied to well-known accessibility standards: the lack of screen reader compatibility and inaccessible PDFs or websites essentially meant the college’s digital content did not meet prevailing web accessibility guidelines (WCAG) or best practices for electronic documents (Payan v. Los Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist., 2021).

In the remedy phase, the court issued a sweeping injunction mandating LACCD to overhaul its accessibility efforts. The district was ordered to come into compliance with its own accessibility policies (the college had an “Alternative Media Production Policy” on paper that wasn’t being effectively implemented), to hire a dedicated Dean of Educational Technology to oversee digital access, and to ensure all new web content, software, and databases used in classes are accessible to blind students (Payan v. Los Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist., 2021).

The Payan case underscores that digital inaccessibility can amount to illegal discrimination under the ADA. It illustrates Title II’s application in a STEM educational context: from online homework platforms to digital libraries, institutions must adopt accessible technology (or timely accommodations) before students are excluded, not react only after a student complains. The case also implicitly referenced standards like WCAG and Section 508 guidelines as measures of accessibility, since the feasibility of “reasonable modifications” to the websites was proven by the plaintiffs.

2) Case Study: U.S. Department of Justice v. University of California, Berkeley

Another instructive case – involving the U.S. DOJ’s enforcement against UC Berkeley – demonstrates ADA compliance in online content used in higher education. In 2016, following a complaint by the National Association of the Deaf, the DOJ investigated UC Berkeley’s public online offerings (which included free course videos and lectures on platforms like YouTube, iTunes U, and the university’s MOOC portal BerkeleyX). The investigation found that “significant portions of UC Berkeley’s online content” were not accessible to individuals with disabilities, particularly those who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind, or have manual (motor) impairments. For example, many lecture videos had no captions, making them “totally inaccessible to people who are deaf or hard of hearing” (Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Disability Rights Section, 2016). Likewise, some content lacked text transcripts or other alternatives needed by blind users or those who couldn’t use a mouse. DOJ concluded that this inaccessible content denied people with disabilities the full and equal enjoyment of Berkeley’s services, in violation of Title II. It’s important to note that much of this content was not part of a for-credit program but rather free educational resources – however, because the university chose to extend these services to the general public, it had to do so in a nondiscriminatory way under the ADA (Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Disability Rights Section, 2016).

In a detailed Letter of Findings, DOJ cited Berkeley’s failure to comply with accessibility standards that the university itself had adopted. The University of California system had an IT accessibility policy requiring WCAG 2.0 Level AA compliance, but Berkeley was not enforcing it or monitoring content for compliance (Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Disability Rights Section, 2016). The letter pointed out that Berkeley had services available (e.g. a team to help caption videos or advise faculty on accessible course design) but did not mandate their use, resulting in widespread inaccessibility.

The enforcement outcome was a comprehensive settlement: in 2022, a consent decree was approved by a federal court requiring UC Berkeley to make its content accessible and adhere to specific measures. Under this decree, Berkeley must caption or provide text transcripts for the thousands of videos in its public platforms, ensure its websites and MOOCs meet accessibility standards, and update its policies to institutionalize accessibility going forward. The university also agreed to hire a web accessibility coordinator, conduct regular accessibility testing of its online content, train pertinent staff and faculty, and even bring in an independent auditor to evaluate compliance periodically (Civil Rights Division & Office for Civil Rights, 2023). The standards referenced in the decree align with WCAG 2.0 AA (the prevailing standard at the time of the investigation) – for instance, the remedial measures explicitly call for Berkeley’s online courses and videos to conform to WCAG 2.0 AA so that people with hearing, vision, or manual disabilities can “engage in the same interactions and enjoy the same services” with substantially equivalent ease of use as others (Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Disability Rights Section, 2016).

3. Structural Barriers in STEM and Finance

Despite decades of disability rights legislation and awareness efforts, blind and visually impaired individuals in North America continue to face significant structural barriers in both STEM education and technical careers. Disability has historically been treated as peripheral in STEM diversity initiatives, hindering progress and innovation (Mattison et al., 2022). Deep-rooted cultural and physical structures in educational institutions and workplaces still impose substantial obstacles as spaces, tools, and practices were long designed around a narrow notion of “normal” that excludes those with disabilities (Mattison et al., 2022). Below, we examine these barriers in educational settings (Section 3.1) and in the workplace (Section 3.2), and why they persist despite policies like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Educational Challenges

Visually impaired students remain severely underrepresented in STEM fields. Research shows they complete advanced science and math coursework at much lower rates than their sighted peers (Koehler & Picard, 2024; Rosenblum et al., 2025). A major reason is the inaccessibility of core STEM content: important materials such as equations, diagrams, and graphs are often unavailable in braille or other accessible formats when needed. For example, Rosenblum et al., 2025 found that accessible science and mathematics materials were frequently not ready in time for blind students. raphs and charts, ubiquitous in STEM curricula, are “often not available to those with visual impairments” in any tactile or audio form (Koehler & Picard, 2024). This means that blind learners may go through classes without ever fully accessing the visual data or formulae that their sighted classmates take for granted. The result is an education experience missing key pieces, putting these students at an inherent disadvantage.

Beyond static content, many hands-on tools and activities in STEM pose additional barriers. Laboratory experiments, interactive simulations, and coding projects are typically designed with sighted assumptions, making them hard to navigate without adaptation. Visually impaired students “do not have the same opportunities for hands-on learning as sighted peers” in science classes (Rosenblum et al., 2025). Standard lab equipment often provides output only in visual forms (think of microscope readings or chemical color changes), and most programming environments are optimized for visual GUI use. As a consequence, blind students must rely on special accommodations or assistive tech to participate. Teachers often need to create or obtain accessible lab materials – for instance, using tactile models or talking instruments – so that a blind student can perform an experiment. Likewise, mainstream coding platforms may require screen-reader scripts or high-cost adaptive software to be usable (Koehler & Picard, 2024). If such adaptations are not provided, the student’s ability to engage with core STEM skills (like data analysis or coding) is limited from the start.

Another structural challenge is the lack of preparedness among many educators and institutions to support inclusive learning. Most general STEM instructors receive little to no training on how to teach students with visual impairments. Common accommodations (e.g. describing visuals aloud, providing materials in Braille or accessible digital formats) are not intuitive without training, and busy faculty often struggle to adapt highly visual curricula on the fly (Koehler & Picard, 2024). Schools often report that a lack of proper staff training and resources for accessibility are major hurdles in effectively supporting students with disabilities. This deficit in knowledge can result in teachers having low expectations for disabled students or even unintentionally neglecting their needs. For example, a teacher might incorrectly assume a blind student is incapable of certain tasks instead of adapting their teaching methods (Bellman et al., 2018). Such attitudes and unmet needs accumulate to leave visually impaired students “at a disadvantage and underprepared to consider careers in the STEM fields” (Koehler & Picard, 2024). In short, when educators are not equipped or willing to include them, blind learners receive a diluted education that falls short of true inclusion.

Finally, the paucity of mentors and role models in STEM further discourages blind students. It is hard to aspire to a career that one has never seen someone like oneself succeed in. Unfortunately, many visually impaired youth “often do not see themselves reflected in STEM careers and lack role models and mentors” to guide them. This structural lack of representation has long-term consequences: without mentors to inspire and advise them, fewer blind students persist in STEM, perpetuating the cycle of underrepresentation. Increasing mentorship opportunities (for example, pairing students with visually impaired STEM professionals) has been highlighted as a vital strategy to counteract this barrier (Koehler & Picard, 2024).

Workplace Challenges

For those blind individuals who do pursue STEM or finance careers, significant structural challenges await in the workplace. A first major hurdle is technological: many essential software tools and platforms in industry are not fully accessible. Professional environments rely on complex data visualization, coding interfaces, and proprietary software (e.g. Excel spreadsheets, CAD programs, or Bloomberg terminals) that often lack robust screen-reader compatibility or keyboard-only operation. As a result, visually impaired employees must jury-rig solutions – using screen readers to scrape information, or purchasing expensive specialized software – just to do the same work as others (Koehler & Picard, 2024). In an ideal setting, these tools would have universal design features built in; in practice, most were “designed to accommodate a segment of society” with fairly uniform (sighted) abilities (Mattison et al., 2022). Workplace technology and IT systems typically assume users can see dashboards, charts, or code editors, thereby excluding those who are blind by design. This lack of foresight in job tools forces employees with visual impairments to constantly request adaptations or perform additional steps to access information, slowing them down through no fault of their own. It also means that when new technologies roll out, accessibility is an afterthought if it is considered at all. In finance roles, for example, critical software like data visualization dashboards or trading interfaces may not output textual equivalents for charts, leaving blind analysts reliant on colleagues for information that sighted peers get at a glance. These technological barriers reflect a broader issue: employers and workplace cultures historically have not built environments with disability in mind (Mattison et al., 2022).

Compounding the technical barriers are pervasive biases and misconceptions about ability. There remains a stubborn stereotype that visually impaired people are “unfit” for highly technical or quantitative roles. This bias can surface in recruitment (hiring managers overlooking qualified blind candidates) and in the workplace through marginalization of those who are hired.

4. Proposed Innovations: Academic Research Awaiting Real-World Application

Academic and nonprofit research has introduced numerous innovative solutions to make STEM education and finance more accessible for people with visual impairments. These range from tactile learning aids to intelligent software, but many of these promising tools remain underutilized in classrooms and workplaces. Key examples of proposed innovations include:

Tactile and Multimodal Tools for Math & Data:

Researchers advocate using tactile or multimodal representations to convey mathematical and scientific concepts. For instance, 3D‐printed models and tactile graphics can help students grasp complex STEM concepts through touch, serving as effective accommodations that aid conceptual understanding and create accessible curricular content for blind or low-vision learners (Koehler & Picard, 2024). Real objects, raised-line diagrams, and audio/touch-integrated graphs allow visually impaired students to explore data and diagrams in non-visual ways, often with superior educational outcomes compared to solely verbal descriptions. Such tools have been shown to enrich STEM learning for all students while leveling the field for those with visual impairments.

Accessible Coding Platforms with Audio/Haptic Feedback:

Inclusive design principles are also being applied to computer science education. Specialized coding platforms and kits have been developed to make programming accessible via sound and touch. For example, the American Printing House’s Code Jumper is a physical coding kit that converts block-coding concepts into a tactile, audio-enhanced format – users connect uniquely shaped pods with cords and listen to audio cues, effectively “viewing” code through touch and sound. (PPG Foundation, 2022). Academic initiatives like the National Coding Symposium have highlighted accessible programming languages (e.g. Quorum) and tools that enable students with vision loss to write code using speech or braille outputs. These research-driven platforms show that with creative design, core STEM skills like coding can be taught in a non-visual, multimodal manner. However, most mainstream coding environments still lack such built-in accessibility, indicating a need for wider adoption of these innovations outside of pilot programs.

5. Best Practices Implemented in North America

Education Sector Reforms

1) AccessSTEM (University of Washington)

The AccessSTEM program at UW’s DO‑IT center exemplifies how higher education can embed accessibility into STEM curricula. AccessSTEM develops training modules and guides so that lectures, laboratories, and online materials are fully compatible with screen readers and Braille. For example, UW encourages faculty to provide tactile graphics (such as swell‐form kits or plastic molecule models) and electronic braille displays in science classes to convey diagrams and equations (DO-IT, University of Washington, n.d.). In practice, all equations are provided as MathML or LaTeX‐generated alt text, and PDF or web content is checked against accessibility standards. Faculty mentors and student assistants work one‑on‑one with blind students to adapt coursework, reflecting the program’s unique practice of personalized STEM mentoring. By combining technical guidelines with hands‑on support, AccessSTEM creates an inclusive campus environment for visually impaired learners.

2) VLC Math Accessibility Guide (University of Houston)

The University of Houston’s Visual Learning Center (VLC) has published a comprehensive Math Accessibility Guide for faculty and publishers (Burgess-Rodrigues et al., n.d.). This guide advises that all mathematical expressions be formatted in accessible markup (e.g. MathML or tagged LaTeX) with accompanying alt text, and encourages the use of assistive technologies such as Nemeth‐encoded Braille and DAISY audio for complex equations. In particular, VLC recommends providing multiple formats of math content – for instance, offering recorded audio of textbooks or tactile printouts of graphs – so that blind students can choose the format that works best. This approach parallels the practice where blind students use Nemeth code and recorded texts for math courses, as noted in expert interviews. By codifying these standards, the VLC guide ensures that instructors have clear steps (e.g. adding alt text to graphs, verifying screen‐reader compatibility) for making K–12 and college math accessible.

3) Northwestern University’s Math Accessibility Guidelines

Northwestern University has developed institutional guidelines to help faculty present math in accessible ways. These guidelines emphasize that all equations and formulas must include textual descriptions (alt text) or be provided through an accessible media (such as a Blackboard equation editor or MathML). Instructors are instructed to use accessible file formats and software whenever possible (Northwestern University School of Professional Studies, n.d.). For example, materials prepared in PowerPoint (with proper slide titles and alt‐text for images) are fully readable by screen readers. Northwestern also recommends offering tactile supports (Braille or embossed prints) for complex diagrams. Unique to Northwestern’s approach is formal review: course content is periodically audited by accessibility specialists, and instructors attend training on inclusive pedagogy. Together, these practices illustrate how formal university policies can reinforce the use of inclusive tools and ensure compliance with accessibility standards.

Industry and Workplace Innovations

1) IBM (International Business Machines): Pioneering Corporate Accessibility

IBM stands out as a long-time leader in workplace accessibility, with efforts dating back several decades. In fact, IBM researchers were instrumental in creating some of the first screen-reading technologies. Notably, IBM developed a software called Screen Reader in the 1980s, originally a proprietary program that gave blind users spoken access to text on IBM computer terminals (Cooke, n.d.). This innovation was so influential that “screen reader” became the generic term for such assistive software across the industry. Building on this legacy, IBM cultivated an internal culture of inclusive design and continued to release assistive solutions (for instance, early Braille printers and talking interfaces) as well as to contribute to accessibility standards. In the modern era, IBM systematically integrates accessibility features into its enterprise products and devotes specialized teams to ensure compliance with standards like WCAG and Section 508. A concrete example is IBM’s analytics software, which is designed to work seamlessly with popular screen readers (such as JAWS on Windows) and even provides customizable auditory cues for blind users. In the user settings of IBM SPSS tools, a visually impaired user can enable sound feedback for interface events, helping them navigate data analysis tasks through non-visual means. IBM also publishes extensive documentation for users with disabilities, describing how to optimize the software for accessibility (IBM, n.d.).

2) Bloomberg: Accessible Financial Data Visualization

Bloomberg incorporates accessibility in both its products and research collaborations. The Bloomberg Terminal’s Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) shows support for screen readers, keyboard navigation, and high‑contrast display modes (Bloomberg, n.d.). In addition to these compliance features, Bloomberg partnered with Carnegie Mellon University on auditory displays of financial data. In practice, complex charts (e.g., stock price graphs) can be “sonified” so that rising and falling data are conveyed by changes in pitch and tone. As one accessibility expert noted, a stock app can describe charts with voiceover or with a rising pitch for higher values. This work echoes Bloomberg’s innovation: blind analysts can interpret market trends through sound (for example, a rising tone as prices climb) (Bloomberg, 2018). By combining standard assistive features (VPAT‑verified UI) with pioneering techniques like data sonification, Bloomberg offers blind users both compliance and cutting‑edge tools.

3) Pearson

Pearson embeds accessibility into its educational products and publishing practices. Its digital textbooks and learning platforms include full-text descriptions, keyboard navigation, and compatibility with screen readers and text-to-speech engines (Pearson, n.d.). Importantly, Pearson produces alternative formats for learners with visual impairments: for mathematics content, they offer DAISY audio books and collaborate with specialists to transcribe equations into Nemeth Braille (NISO, n.d.). This mirrors the approach seen in higher education, where instructors rely on recorded or embossed texts for blind students. Unique to Pearson is an internal accessibility policy requiring that all new content meet WCAG standards before release, along with ongoing training for content creators on how to write descriptive alt text and format mathematical material in accessible ways (Pearson, n.d.-a). As a result, educators using Pearson materials report that most content “just works” with a screen reader when these guidelines are followed.

4) Google

Google's commitment to accessibility is evident across its web-based products and workplace tools, with a strong focus on empowering individuals with visual impairments. Google Workspace applications like Docs, Sheets, and Forms are engineered for compatibility with screen readers and keyboard navigation, enabling many blind professionals to perform daily tasks such as reporting and project collaboration (Google, n.d.-a). Beyond productivity suites, Google integrates artificial intelligence to enhance visual accessibility, offering features like automatic alt text generation for images in services like Google Photos and email (Google, 2017; Google, n.d.). Furthermore, Google provides dedicated screen readers: ChromeVox is built into Chromebooks (Google, n.d.-c), and TalkBack offers spoken feedback for the open-source Android platform (Google, n.d.-b), fostering an ecosystem where both Google employees and third-party developers contribute to accessible features. This comprehensive approach ensures that blind engineers and analysts at Google can utilize mainstream technologies with minimal added effort, promoting inclusive participation.

5) Microsoft

Microsoft actively champions accessibility across its product ecosystem, with a significant emphasis on supporting individuals with visual impairments. Its core operating system, Windows, integrates Narrator, a robust built-in screen reader that verbalizes text and describes on-screen elements, enabling navigation and interaction for blind users (Microsoft, n.d.-b). Furthermore, Microsoft 365 applications, including Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, are meticulously designed with comprehensive accessibility features such as strong screen reader support, efficient keyboard navigation, and integrated accessibility checkers to facilitate the creation and consumption of accessible content (Microsoft, n.d.-c). Microsoft also harnesses artificial intelligence to directly assist the visually impaired through innovations like the Seeing AI app, which describes surroundings, reads text, and identifies objects, offering real-time auditory insights into the visual world (Microsoft, n.d.-a). Browser experiences, such as Microsoft Edge, are enhanced with features like Immersive Reader and Read Aloud, catering to users with low vision (Microsoft, n.d.-d). These diverse and integrated efforts underscore Microsoft's dedication to fostering an inclusive digital environment, allowing individuals with visual impairments to engage seamlessly with technology.

6. Interview-Based Insights

Background and Methodology

We conducted seven semi-structured interviews with le­gally blind participants in South Korea’s STEM and finance sectors. Participants held roles such as software developer, financial analyst, university instructor, and teacher, and were all engaged in STEM or finance fields (see Table 1 for interviewee demographics). Interviews focused on accessibility in education and work, unmet needs, coping strategies, and institutional support. We transcribed and thematically analyzed these interviews, coding for recurrent patterns related to barriers, tools, support, and psychological factors.

Key Themes from Interviews

1) Accessibility Barriers (Education and Workplace)

Severe lack of accessible learning materials. One special education teacher remarked that instructional content for braille users is very limited, saying he has “never received a braille math guide in [his] 20-year career”. Students and educators must often invent solutions: for example, a math teacher described manually affixing braille labels or using 3D-printed tactile graphics to convey diagrams – tasks that “normal teachers” would not need to do, which he found burdensome. Even course content posed challenges: a visually impaired computer science student recalled that engineering math (“engineering math, like what engineers learn”) involved so much material that he “had a lot of trouble” mastering it without accommodation.

In the workplace, visual content and unadapted tools slowed participants. A software developer noted that interpreting charts and graphs by listening is much slower: “the biggest problem is speed… to understand the graph quickly…, it can take a long time” when reading data instead of looking. He also said simple coding tasks (like debugging syntax errors) are time-consuming because “there is a lot to read but reading speed is not as fast,” which delays project work and debugging. Similarly, code review was challenging; one developer explained that reviewing a colleague’s lengthy code changes requires him to “read every line one by one… so it does take a lot of time”.In finance, an analyst described how many corporate reports are issued as inaccessible PDFs, forcing him to use OCR tools on each page because the “document production companies… can apply an accessibility lock” on filings.In short, inaccessible formats and reliance on visual interfaces created significant hurdles for interviewees.

2) Assistive Tools and Technology

Interviewees relied heavily on assistive technologies, but also noted gaps. All used screen-reading software: a developer said he mostly uses JAWS and finds the free NVDA now “can do almost everything,” and he also employs Windows Narrator and Mac VoiceOver as needed. An analyst listed his tools: Bloomberg and Excel with a screen reader (JAWS), plus PDF-to-text OCR converters, iPhone and iPad, and a braille display (Focus) for reading data. A teacher described using braille note-takers and even 3D-printed models so students could feel graphs. Interviewees also stuck to familiar platforms: for example, one preferred older software versions instead of forced updates, since “he gets used to things” and updates can introduce new barriers. Overall, while core assistive tools (screen readers, braille displays) covered basic tasks, advanced STEM content often required creative adaptations beyond out-of-the-box solutions. Table 2 demonstrates the tools and services used by visually impaired individuals in the STEM field.

3) Coping Strategies and Self-Advocacy

Participants developed personal strategies to work around obstacles. A common approach was investing extra time and self-study. One developer said that when accessibility bugs arise, he simply “asks a friend to explain” the screen output, since automated narration is often insufficient. If an essential tool is inaccessible, he “spends a lot of time learning” or switches to an alternative tool as needed. Many described using multiple sensory channels in tandem: for example, code reviewers would listen and read braille in parallel, and an analyst noted that while tables have many columns, he can “navigate with keyboard shortcuts” because he is accustomed to their structure. When possible, participants leveraged social support: the math teacher relied on a trained aide (the School Work Support Person) to help prepare materials, mitigating some burdens. Importantly, none of these solutions was straightforward. One developer still found code review “not an easy thing,” saying that even with screen-reader support he had to laboriously inspect each change.

4) Institutional Support

Interviewees consistently reported inadequate formal support structures. In classrooms, the availability of designated aides helped only partially. For instance, the math teacher noted that a newly introduced support-assistant program has resolved some issues (like preparing diagrams) that were previously intractable. However, he cautioned that these assistants are not always highly trained, so many accessibility problems still ultimately fall on the teacher. In workplaces, support was often virtually non-existent. One developer bluntly observed that because he is “the only blind person on the team,” any accessibility problems “are generally left for me to solve”. In other words, he had no company advocate and had to address all tech issues himself. Similarly, the financial analyst found that even when procedures exist (e.g. requesting accessible reports), they depended on informal relationships; he often had to “call and tell them the document is inaccessible” to get files unlocked.

However, some exceptions—particularly in North America—highlight the potential for institutional responsiveness. A visually impaired analyst recounted his experience at JPMorgan, where he was provided with a dedicated intern to assist him in daily work. During an on-site interview at his workplace, the research team observed accessible features such as tactile and auditory elevator buttons—indicating that the building itself had implemented physical accessibility infrastructure. Notably, the analyst emphasized his close collaboration with Bloomberg’s accessibility team, with whom he “communicated frequently” to improve the usability of financial analysis tools. He described his colleagues as proactive and supportive, noting that they actively sought ways to accommodate his needs and integrate accessibility considerations into team workflows. This case illustrates how institutional culture and peer support, when prioritized, can significantly mitigate the structural gaps that visually impaired professionals often face.

5) Psychological and Emotional Burdens.

Beyond practical issues, the interviews suggested an emotional toll. While not always expressed explicitly, frustrations surfaced in comments about expectations and isolation. An academic interviewer (a professor) warned that focusing on “heroic” success stories can be counterproductive – such narratives may imply that only exceptional effort, rather than systemic change, leads to progress. This sentiment resonated with participants’ experiences of being singled out. For example, the sense of being the lone blind person who must fix everything implies a lonely burden; as one developer noted, without colleagues who share his needs, every new tool or update becomes a personal challenge. These accounts hint that interviewees often felt pressure to perform without complaint or outside help. The need to constantly “keep up” (investing extra time and resourcefulness) likely contributes to stress, even if respondents primarily described concrete solutions rather than affect. In sum, the interviews revealed not only logistical barriers but also an undercurrent of emotional strain from shouldering challenges largely alone.

Implications of Findings

These interview insights point to clear policy implications for South Korea. First, systemic support must replace reliance on individual effort. For education, the lack of accessible STEM materials signals a need for national standards and funding: for example, requiring that textbooks and resources (especially in math and science) be produced in braille or digital accessible formats. Teacher training should include accessible STEM pedagogy so instructors can implement best practices rather than scrambling with ad-hoc workarounds. In higher education and workplaces, institutions should adopt universal design in teaching and operations – for instance, mandating that new software and courseware be tested for screen-reader compatibility. Second, stronger institutional support structures are warranted.

The Korean government already provides classroom assistants , but interviews suggest these aides need specialized training for STEM contexts. Policies could establish certification or continuing education for support staff in STEM education. Similarly, companies should be held accountable for accessibility: regulations could require enterprises (especially in tech and finance) to ensure that internal tools and public documents (e.g. financial filings) meet accessibility guidelines.

The finance example of locked PDFs suggests a need for enforcement of standards (akin to North American rules) so that all reports are available in screen-readable formats. Third, technology and accommodations require investment. Participants’ reliance on older or specialized tech (braille displays, OCR tools) highlights a gap that policy can address by subsidizing assistive devices and encouraging innovation in accessible technology. Additionally, creating support networks (such as mentoring or peer groups) could alleviate the isolation felt by some interviewees. Finally, policy communication should avoid emphasizing only “heroic” outcomes; instead, it should spotlight ordinary users’ needs to foster realistic expectations and empathy. In summary, the interviews show that blind STEM students and workers face consistent hurdles—from classroom resources to workplace tools to emotional strain—that are not being resolved at a structural level.

7. Conclusion

SDG 4 emphasizes inclusive and equitable access to education for all, including persons with disabilities, and calls for the elimination of gender and disability disparities in education. SDG 10 focuses on empowering and promoting the social, economic, and political inclusion of all individuals, regardless of disability status. By examining structural barriers and proposing practical, policy-driven solutions to improve digital and educational accessibility in STEM and finance, this study contributes to both goals. It supports the global commitment to ensure that no one is left behind in the transition to a digital economy.

This study has highlighted the persistent accessibility challenges that blind and visually impaired individuals face in STEM and finance—fields that are increasingly vital to economic opportunity yet structurally exclusionary by design. While recent legal reforms in the U.S. and Europe, such as the ADA’s digital mandates and the EAA’s market-wide accessibility requirements, mark substantial global progress, critical implementation gaps remain—particularly in STEM-specific technologies and workplace systems. Despite promising innovations in accessible design and the existence of model institutions and companies in North America, adoption remains uneven, and cultural attitudes continue to reinforce the marginalization of people with disabilities in technical domains.

Through seven in-depth interviews with South Korean professionals and students, this research uncovered not only technical barriers but also the emotional and institutional toll of navigating inaccessible environments without systemic support. These findings underscore that structural reform—not individual resilience—must be at the center of future policy. Bridging this accessibility gap is not only a matter of compliance or inclusion—it is a strategic imperative for fostering innovation, talent, and equity in Korea’s digital future.

References

• AccessibleEU. (2025, January 31). The EAA comes into effect in June 2025. Are you ready? https://accessible-eu-centre.ec.europa.eu/content-corner/news/eaa-comes-effect-june-2025-are-you-ready-2025-01-31_en
• Bellman, S., Burgstahler, S., & Chudler, E. H. (2018). Broadening participation by including more individuals with disabilities in STEM: Promising practices from an engineering research center. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(5), 645-656. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218768864Article
• Bloomberg. (2018, August 28). Visually impaired working in finance nearly impossible? Bloomberg's UX designers working to change that. https://www.bloomberg.com/ux/2018/08/28/visually-impaired-working-finance-nearly-impossible-bloombergs-ux-designers-working-change/
• Bloomberg. (n.d.). Accessibility. https://www.bloomberg.com/ux/accessibility/
• Burgess-Rodriguez, N., Polizzotto, J., & Patinelli, M. (n.d.). Accessible math guide [PDF]. Virtual Learning Community Professional Development Center. https://facnewsletter.nsm.uh.edu/issues/september-2023/articles/improving-canvas/VLC-Accessible-Math-Guide.pdf
• Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice. (2010, September 15). Guidance on the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/design-standards/standards-guidance/
• Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice. (2010, September 15). Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations and in commercial facilities [Final rule, 28 CFR Part 36; CRT Docket No. 106; AG Order No. 3181-2010; RIN 1190-AA44]. https://www.ada.gov/assets/pdfs/title-iii-2010-regulations.pdf
• Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice. (2016, August 30). The United States' findings and conclusions based on its investigation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of the University of California at Berkeley [Letter of findings] (DJ No. 204-11-309). U.S. Department of Justice. https://archive.ada.gov/briefs/uc_berkley_lof.pdf
• Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice. (2022, May 12). Algorithms, artificial intelligence, and disability discrimination in hiring. https://www.ada.gov/resources/ai-guidance/
• Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice. (2024, April 8). Fact sheet: New rule on the accessibility of web content and mobile apps provided by state and local governments. https://www.ada.gov/resources/2024-03-08-web-rule/
• Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice. (2024, April 24). Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability; accessibility of web information and services of state and local government entities (to be codified at 28 C.F.R. pt. 35). Federal Register, 89, 31320–31384.
• Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, & Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education. (2023, May 19). Dear colleague letter: Online accessibility for people with disabilities [Dear colleague letter]. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/postsec-online-access-051923.pdf
• Cooke, A. (n.d.). A history of accessibility at IBM. AccessWorld. American Foundation for the Blind. https://www.afb.org/aw/5/2/14760
• Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the accessibility requirements for products and services [Text with EEA relevance], 2019 O.J. (L 151) 70–115. https://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/882/oj
• DO-IT, University of Washington. (n.d.). AccessSTEM, the Northwest Alliance for Access to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. https://www.washington.edu/doit/programs/accessstem/overview
• Google. (2017, March 15). 10 years of accessibility innovation at Google. Official Google Blog. https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/accessibility/10-years-accessibility-innovation-google/
• Google. (n.d.). Accessibility. Retrieved June 11, 2025, from https://www.google.com/accessibility/
• Google. (n.d.-a). Accessibility for Google Docs. https://support.google.com/a/users/answer/1631886?hl=en
• Google. (n.d.-b). TalkBack on Android accessibility. https://support.google.com/accessibility/android/answer/6007100?hl=en
• Google. (n.d.-c). Use accessibility features on your Chromebook. https://support.google.com/chromebook/answer/177894?hl=en
• IBM. (n.d.). Accessibility for blind users (IBM SPSS Modeler SaaS). https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/spss-modeler/saas?topic=support-accessibility-blind-users
• Koehler, K. E., & Picard, K. M. (2024). Making STEM accessible for students with visual impairments. TEACHING Exceptional Children. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599241231211
• Mattison, S. M., Gin, L., Abraham, A. A., Moodie, M., Okanlami, F., & Wander, K. (2022). Community voices: Broadening participation in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine among persons with disabilities. Nature Communications, 13, Article 7208. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-34711-wArticlePubMedPMC
• Microsoft. (n.d.). Product inclusion & accessibility. https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/games/resources/productinclusion/accessibility/
• Microsoft. (n.d.-a). Seeing AI. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ai/seeing-ai
• Microsoft. (n.d.-b). Complete guide to Narrator. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/complete-guide-to-narrator-e4397a0d-ef4f-b386-d8ae-c172f109bdb1
• Microsoft. (n.d.-c). Accessibility support for Microsoft 365 apps. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/accessibility-support-for-microsoft-365-apps-03eb6c04-8e13-44ff-b042-955ad15b3975
• Microsoft. (n.d.-d). Accessibility features in Microsoft Edge. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/accessibility-features-in-microsoft-edge-4c696192-338e-9465-b2cd-bd9b698ad19a
• NISO. (n.d.). “DAISY” standards. https://www.niso.org/standards-committees/daisy-standards
• Northwestern University School of Professional Studies. (n.d.). How do I make my writing and math accessible? https://sps.northwestern.edu/distance-learning/how-do-i/course-accessible/writing-and-math-accessible.php
• OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT (version 4o) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com
• Payan v. Los Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist., 11 F.4th 729 (9th Cir. 2021). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/19-56111/19-56111-2021-08-24.html
• Pearson. (n.d.). Accessibility guidelines. https://www.pearson.com/accessibility-guidelines.html
• Pearson. (n.d.-a). Accessibility team for assessments. https://accessibility.pearson.com/accessibility-team/
• PPG Foundation. (2022, July 19). “Accessible STEM tools for everyone” – National Coding Symposium highlights. https://www.ppg.com/en-US/about-ppg/stem-tools-everyone
• Rosenblum, L. P., Herzberg, T. S., Larkin, S. K., Osterhaus, S. A., & Wild, T. (2025). Mission INSPIRE: A virtual STEM event for students aged 11–16 years who read braille. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 119(1), 61-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X251320109Article
• University of Washington, AccessComputing. (n.d.). AccessSTEM. https://www.washington.edu/accesscomputing/project/accessstem/

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by