# Inclusive Design 24 2026 MOC > Event map. Topic homes: [[3. Resources/MOCs/Accessibility & Disability Inclusion MOC]], [[3. Resources/MOCs/Documentation & Technical Writing MOC]] · Index: [[3. Resources/MOCs/MOCs|Maps of Content → Events & Conferences]] A map of the Inclusive Design 24 (#id24) 2026 talk recordings captured to Reader and Obsidian: 22 sessions from the free, 24-hour online accessibility conference, published to YouTube on 2026-09-24 and 25 and deep-read on 2026-09-24 (9) and 2026-09-25 (13). This is a **session index + thematic map**: where each talk sits, what it argued, what it measured, and which durable claims it feeds. ## Core Question Where does accessibility work now sit relative to its standards? Four talks push at the edges of the standards (WCAG 3, a European process standard, HTML mechanics the criteria don't name, speech input nothing covers), seven work on cognition, language, perception, and place, five are about research method and the profession itself, two are about agents and complex experiences, and four ask who the field is for and on whose history. Which of these arguments arrive with evidence, and which with conviction? > [!note] Each linked note carries the video embed, the 20-section deep-read notes, and the auto-caption transcript. The captions garble almost every proper noun and, in the speech talk, the speaker's own disfluencies; each note lists its corrections. Timestamps below are transcript positions. No talk in the set names its statistics' sources on the record; each note flags the unsourced figures. --- ## 📏 Standards and the mechanics beneath them - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Hidde De Vries How We Want to Make WCAG Better Id24 2026]] — the WCAG 2 to WCAG 3 transition from inside the working group: one conformance level replaces A/AA/AAA (00:34:21), outcome-stated requirements that don't care which layer delivers them (00:23:13), assertions as attributable human-verified claims scanners can't make (00:29:10), granular provisions splitting catch-alls like 1.3.1 (00:28:26), and "standards bodies make rulers, regulators make rules" (00:32:54). No Recommendation timeline is given; the captions render "conformance" as "performance" throughout - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Manuel Matuzović 19½ Things You Didn’t Know About Accessibility in HTML and CSS Id24 2026]] — the Popover API's focus and light-dismiss behavior (00:17:56), `aria-haspopup` adding a promise and no functionality (00:11:24), inner versus outer viewport under zoom (00:07:48), `<geolocation>` deactivating with no feedback (00:30:11), `heading-offset` for CMS block nesting (00:50:38). All DOM and DevTools behavior is demonstrated live; none of the four screen-reader behaviors is played, and six items are Chromium-only or behind flags - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Wilco Fiers Process Matters Europe's New Design for All Standard Id24 2026]] — Wilco Fiers: EN 17161 Design for All as a process standard alongside WCAG's product standard; "accessibility today is built around conformance but not around control" (00:08:03); a conforming audit is "a dated snapshot and it's based on a sample" (00:24:52); his 20% / 80%-in-six-months / one-month targets and the security-tier analogy are proposals, marked as such; the captions' "2009" is 2019 ## 🧠 Cognition, language, perception, and place - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Karimot Isiaka Designing for Cognitive Difference Reducing Friction in Digital Interfaces Id24]] — structure, clarity, and control as the three levers (00:13:48); text-to-speech as a cognitive aid, not only a vision aid (00:08:30); progressive disclosure so the reader sets how much they see; "compliance is not the finish line" (00:39:06). The speaker names no WCAG criteria; the note's mapping to 2.2 is the analyst's. The 15–20% neurodivergence figure is a secondary-source citation - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Jamila Savoy and Jess Mathew You Can’t Be Accessible if People Can’t Understand You Id24 2026]] — "content is accessibility" (00:07:05); clear is not the same as simple (00:14:28); a screen reader can read but not explain (00:18:07); the sentence-length comprehension figures at 00:26:55 arrive without a source; WCAG 3.1.3 to 3.1.5 are AAA, so an AA audit is silent on comprehension - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Samantha Merrett Accessible by Design Documents That Work for Everyone Id24 2026]] — "if it's made in Word, it can stay in Word" (00:14:46); don't skip heading levels (00:18:24); the editor owns alt text, not the AI (00:24:53); printing to PDF produces an untagged file (00:35:41). No WCAG or PDF/UA clause is named in 50 minutes; the note's 26-row practice table supplies them and says so - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Julia Undeutsch Decoding Kanji Complexity for Digital Inclusion Id24 2026]] — ruby annotation makes screen readers speak everything twice (00:14:15); user-controlled reading aids beat hard-coded furigana (00:29:10); `lang` plus font decides whether glyphs render Japanese or Chinese (00:30:40); target the roughly 300 N5/N4 kanji for widest reach (00:38:02, round number, jōyō list is 2,136). The one talk in the set that treats accessibility outside alphabetic scripts - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Rebecca Adda Sensory Mapping Co-Creating Towards a Neuro-Inclusive Environment Id24 2026]] — Rebecca Adda (Buro Happold): sensory maps give advance information on noise, lighting, crowds, seating, temperature (00:10:51); 84% of survey respondents reported sensory overload or underload (00:21:42, sample not stated); the co-creation walk produced more than the map (00:36:55); the 15–20% and 70% prevalence figures arrive unsourced - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Leonie Theißen Beyond Ticking Boxes - How to Build an Inclusive Image Language Id24 2026]] — Leonie Theißen: a 10-portrait audit, a casting brief with no physical type (00:29:53), disability as one aspect of a role rather than the story (00:32:10); "disabled people appear only where disability is the story" (00:13:37); the 62% and 72%/38% figures are unsourced in the talk - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Verónica Morales Beltrán Designing for the Wanderer Accessibility Lessons From a Life Abroad Id24]] — Verónica Morales Beltrán: interface patterns from several countries (Tokyo transit, payment systems, emergency alerts); maps fail when color is the only cue (00:22:08); a workaround puts the cost on the user (00:39:04); her own caveat that every sighting is isolated (00:36:53) ## 🎙️ Speech and play - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Ross Mullen Designing for Real Speech, Not Perfect Speech Id24 2026]] — "fluency is an unstated interface requirement" (00:35:08); adaptive pause tolerance (00:12:08); measure by the person's effort, not recognition accuracy (00:33:39); disfluency isn't noise by default (00:20:14). The talk gives no numeric endpointing values and the captions transcribe the speaker's own repetitions literally, a live instance of the talk's point. No WCAG 2.2 criterion covers speech-input tolerance; flagged as a standards gap - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Patrícia Mendes Games for Blind Gamers Jam It's (Almost) All Fun & Games Id24 2026]] — design to the eyes-closed case (00:14:24); everything visible must be audible (00:19:36); a blind judges committee as the jury for the served community (00:12:10); the screen reader keeps the player's settings (00:24:01). Entry counts are oral and don't reconcile (141 summed versus 157 stated versus 140 in the description); the note shows the arithmetic ## 🤖 Agents and complex experiences - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Neha Pandit Building for People in the Age of AI Agents Id24 2026]] — Neha Pandit: agents depend on the same semantic HTML, structure, and keyboard paths people do, but "accessibility isn't about agents, it's about people" (00:02:11); ARIA fed to agents can make things worse for disabled users (00:20:25); one demonstration (a fixed page completing with no screenshot, 00:13:07) against many assertions; the natural pair to Klepper's Write the Docs talk - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Michel Joanisse Easier and Better Accessibility for Complex Experiences Id24 2026]] — Michel Joanisse: virtual experiences, gamification, interactive 360 video defined, then an audit-report method: cheat sheet over checklist (00:28:21), one plain-language issue per ticket (00:31:18), time-boxed rounds with issue caps (00:32:46); "52 level A criteria" at 00:24:35 is wrong (WCAG 2.2 has 31) ## 🔬 Research method and the profession - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Hitomi Yokota Trauma-Informed Design Research for Inclusive Practice Id24 2026]] — Hitomi Yokota: small adjustments that reduce harm and preserve agency (00:14:46); consent as a process, "just because someone signed the consent form doesn't mean the consent is always there" (00:40:40); window of tolerance and SAMHSA principles cited; the CDC ACE figures are misattributed to Felitti 1998, flagged - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Jacinta Gregory Understanding Assistive Technology Usage in Australia and New Zealand Id24 2026]] — Jacinta Gregory (Intopia): n=218 AT users, Dec 2025 to Mar 2026; the most satisfied users report the most barriers (00:13:05); top barriers name the site, never the tool (00:14:32); distribution channel as sampling frame (00:06:33); digital-only recruitment under-samples physical disability, stated - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Sherry Shannon, Catherine Collins Who Gets to Decide ... Id24 2026]] — Sherry Shannon and Catherine Collins: a paid, peer-recruited cohort of people with lived experience of homelessness redesigned a Minnesota housing grant process; being asked to participate is not deciding (00:24:10); pay in direct, benefit-safe cash (00:06:39); the $68M figure appears only in the title and intro, cohort size and pay never stated - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Belén Barros Pena the Groanings, Travails and Weepings of Teaching Accessibility in HE Id24 2026]] — Belén Barros Pena (City St George's): a 10-week, 30-hour masters course with no agreed curriculum to check against (00:13:51); accreditation as the stick that works (00:21:08); zero industry accessibility projects in four years (00:24:07); no assessment design described and no outcome data, stated at 00:33:40 - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Cynthia Shelly, Delphinium Barta Building the Next Generation of Accessibility Professionals Id24]] — Cynthia Shelly and Delphinium Barta: apprenticeship assumes no prior formal training (00:05:03); show, try, review together as the transfer loop (00:05:47); separate the mentor from the manager (00:40:26); the career-path percentages are recollection, flagged ## 🌍 Who the field is for - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Christoph Hassler Decolonize Tech - How to Design for All Id24 2026]] — positionality before problem definition (00:05:27); power defines the standard and the one right way (00:32:09, via Okun); trained vision needs deliberate correction (00:35:09, via Brinkmann); plurality over one design to bind them all (00:41:02). Sources named on record: Tuck and Yang, de Sousa Santos, Gramsci, Tunstall, Okun, Enote, Norman. The note credits six strong moves and names ten weaknesses, including the unargued colonialism = capitalism = white supremacy identity and the objectivity contradiction between 00:35:09 and 00:38:07 - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Nevin Bednarz Inklusion – Die Ersten 100 Jahre Id24 2026]] — Nevin Bednarz (in German; the transcript is YouTube's English auto-translation, so every quote is machine-translated): a hundred years from Otto Perl's 1926 book to the 2026 market-surveillance authority; protest, not policy, funds the accessibility industry (00:14:47); conformity seals don't buy legal certainty (00:44:50); a 32-row dated timeline in the note grades each milestone as sourced, established, narrated, or translation-damaged - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Panel Digital Accessibility Ethics A New Framework to Advance Accessibility Id24 2026]] — Panel (Lainey Feingold, Jutta Treviranus, Léonie Watson, Shilpi Kapoor, Sheri Byrne-Haber, Meena Das): the Digital Accessibility Ethics Framework of values, actions, and questions; disability's only common data trait is distance from the average (00:10:21); buyers are liable for vendors' inaccessibility (00:32:20); voice systems "are just not patient" (00:38:53); the panel names 9 of the framework's 10 values --- ## 🧠 Permanent notes this conference fed None written yet. Candidates sit in each note's Refactor Appendix; the strongest for the next synthesis pass: - de Vries: a single cited conformance level turns a measurement scale into law; outcome-stated requirements make the CMS an accountable accessibility layer - Matuzović: native attributes ship behavior, ARIA ships promises; zoom testing is viewport testing - Isiaka: automated checks can't see cognitive friction - Savoy and Mathew: comprehension is an accessibility requirement that AA audits never test - Merrett: automated checkers verify presence, people verify meaning - Mullen: every fixed timing constant in a voice interface is a fluency requirement; interaction burden, not recognition accuracy, measures speech accessibility - Mendes: set the hard constraint at the extreme case; give the served community its own jury - Hassler: standard-setting is the power; reviewers can't see the defaults they were trained into - Fiers: a product standard can only set a floor; ask suppliers for results over time, not audits - Pandit: agent benefit is a byproduct of accessibility, never its justification; agent task completion is not accessibility evidence - Yokota: consent is a process with a retraction deadline - Gregory: satisfaction plus barriers locates the defect in the content; the recruitment channel is the sampling frame - Shannon and Collins: decision rights, not attendance, prove participation; pay affected contributors in direct, benefit-safe cash - Barros Pena: requirement text decides what gets taught; mandatory-course enthusiasm cannot evidence demand - Shelly and Barta: a worked example precedes autonomy; mentors one stage ahead lower the cost of naive questions - Adda: advance sensory information is access information - Theißen: role-based briefs widen the cast before anyone looks - Morales Beltrán: redundant encoding makes an interface language-independent; a workaround externalizes the cost onto the user - Bednarz: a conformity claim is a presumption with a version number - Panel: statistical significance works as a population-size filter; every dependency is a procurement decision Several overlap existing Permanents in the Accessibility map (`WCAG Conformance Is Not a Usability Measure`, `A Passing Automated Accessibility Score Is a Floor Not a Verdict`, `Recruit Accessibility Testers by Input and Output Needs Not by Diagnosis`); connect before creating. ## 🔗 Related maps - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Accessibility & Disability Inclusion MOC]] — the topic map; its "Verification" and "Cognitive accessibility" sections are where these talks' claims belong - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Documentation & Technical Writing MOC]] — Merrett's document practices and Savoy and Mathew's plain-language argument are documentation claims - [[3. Resources/MOCs/WordPress Platform Design MOC]] — de Vries's outcome-stated requirements and Matuzović's `heading-offset` both land on the CMS as the layer that has to answer - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Commons & Community Governance MOC]] — Shannon and Collins on decision rights for people with lived experience is a participation-and-power claim - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Evidence & Claims Literacy MOC]] — the recurring pattern: comprehension figures, prevalence percentages, and entry counts stated without a source - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Events/Write the Docs Berlin 2026 MOC]] — the same week's other conference series; Klepper's "accessibility is for human beings" talk there is the natural pair to Hassler and Isiaka here ## Open threads - Speaker and sponsor names garbled beyond recovery in several captions (the guest host in two talks, bronze sponsors); verify against inclusivedesign24.org/2026 before citing. - WordPress Accessibility Day 2025 now has its own map: [[3. Resources/MOCs/Events/WordPress Accessibility Day 2025 MOC]] (added 2026-09-24). - Slide decks and the conference schedule were not captured; every claim marked "on a slide" in the notes is unverified from the transcript alone.