Inclusive identity design: accessibility for people with visual impairments
Google Chrome and Russian cases: what works and what doesn’t
A classic example of an error is the Google Chrome logo. The yellow, green, red, and blue segments are easily distinguishable by people with normal color vision, but with protanopia, red is perceived as dark green, and the wheel loses clear sector differentiation. This is not a hypothetical problem, but a documented flaw in a globally recognizable symbol — and a clear proof that identity testing for accessibility should be done before approval, not after user complaints.
In Russia, there are opposite examples. The inclusive center «Points of View» embedded symbolism of eyes, glasses, and Braille font elements into its logo — accessibility here is not an add-on, but part of the visual idea. The «Let's Get Acquainted» project took a different path: a black-and-white logo with a warm heart accent works without color at all, meaning it remains readable in grayscale and with any type of color blindness. The portal «Special View» did not even create a separate «version for visually impaired» — accessibility is built into the main layout from the start, and this is, perhaps, the most indicative case for the rest of the article's sections.
What color palettes are safe for color-blind people
The most common advice from general WCAG articles — «avoid red-green combinations» — is correct, but insufficient for branding, where color serves the function of brand recognition. A practical benchmark — the Wong palette, specifically developed for people with color vision deficiency and universally recognized as safe:
| Color | HEX | Role in the palette |
|---|---|---|
| Black | #000000 | basic, for text and outlines |
| Orange | #E69F00 | accent, warm |
| Blue | #56B4E9 | secondary, cold |
| Blue-green | #009E73 | replaces 'clean green' |
| Yellow | #F0E442 | for highlights |
| Blue | #0072B2 | main corporate |
| Crimson | #D55E00 | replaces 'clean red' |
| Red-violet | #CC79A7 | additional accent |
Key rule: even from this palette, it is not recommended to combine pairs like 'green + red' or 'blue + violet' without brightness difference — in deuteranopia and protanopia such pairs can still merge. You should check not the color name, but its brightness contrast.
Font for visually impaired: what GOST R 59587-2021 says
Russian GOST R 59587-2021 — a rare document that provides specific figures instead of general recommendations like 'make the text larger'. For corporate typography that must work in a brandbook, on packaging, and in navigation, the standard sets the following parameters:
- font size 14–20 points for main text without serifs;
- typefaces like Arial, Open Sans, Montserrat — with open letterforms;
- line spacing no less than 4 points;
- line length 81–171 mm;
- matte, non-glossy surface of the carrier;
- contrast of text and background no less than 4.5:1.
Designers often choose a font for a logo based on the 'character of the brand' and forget that the same font is later scaled down to a small line on the label. If the typeface is decorative, with narrowed or merged elements, it fails accessibility on the most mass-market carrier — packaging.
Is a separate 'inclusive' version of the logo needed
The question sounds logical: to make one universal sign or two versions — regular and adapted? Practice shows that parallel versions are a trap. As soon as a 'version for people with visual impairments' appears, the brand effectively admits that the main version is not intended for them, and the support of two logos complicates the brandbook and quickly accumulates inconsistencies in presentations, on the website, in advertising. The portal 'Special View' and the project 'Let's Get Acquainted' confirm another approach: accessibility is embedded into the single version of the sign through form, contrast, and textual accompaniment, rather than being moved into parallel design. The exception is tactile and Braille elements for offline carriers, but this is an addition to the main identity, not an alternative logo.
How to test identity for accessibility
Testing should not be done after handing the project over to the client, but at every stage — from sketch to final brand book.
- At the sketch stage — check the sign in black-and-white mode: if the form is not readable without color, the color won't save it.
- At the palette selection stage — run through Color Oracle, a free simulator of the three main types of color blindness.
- In working files in Figma or Sketch — the Stark plugin for instant contrast checking according to WCAG directly in the mockup.
- When approving the final palette — cross-check with the Wong color palette or manual calculation of the contrast ratio for each 'background-object' pair.
- Before launch — testing with real people with vision impairments, not only simulation on screen: software filters do not convey all nuances of perception with amblyopia.
Why accessibility cannot be glued onto a finished brand book
The main mistake that even experienced studios make is post-factum adaptation of existing identity: they take a finished logo and try to 'tweak' the contrast or add a pattern instead of a color code. This results in half-baked solutions such as a separate black-and-white version of the mark, which lives in the brandbook on one page and is never used in practice. The working approach is to include accessibility requirements in the brief for identity development from the very beginning: embed in the guideline the rule 'color is not the only information carrier', require duplication of color labels with icons or captions in interactive elements, and fix in the brandbook not only HEX codes but also contrast coefficients for each combination. This applies not only to the logo but to all elements of the system — typography, iconography, photographic style, and layout: if at least one of these layers ignores vision with limitations, the entire system remains partially inaccessible, no matter how hard one tries to perfect one mark.
Google Chrome and Russian cases: what works and what doesn’t
A classic example of an error is the Google Chrome logo. The yellow, green, red, and blue segments are easily distinguishable by people with normal color vision, but with protanopia, red is perceived as dark green, and the wheel loses clear sector differentiation. This is not a hypothetical problem, but a documented flaw in a globally recognizable symbol — and a clear proof that identity testing for accessibility should be done before approval, not after user complaints.
In Russia, there are opposite examples. The inclusive center «Points of View» embedded symbolism of eyes, glasses, and Braille font elements into its logo — accessibility here is not an add-on, but part of the visual idea. The «Let's Get Acquainted» project took a different path: a black-and-white logo with a warm heart accent works without color at all, meaning it remains readable in grayscale and with any type of color blindness. The portal «Special View» did not even create a separate «version for visually impaired» — accessibility is built into the main layout from the start, and this is, perhaps, the most indicative case for the rest of the article's sections.
What color palettes are safe for color-blind people
The most common advice from general WCAG articles — «avoid red-green combinations» — is correct, but insufficient for branding, where color serves the function of brand recognition. A practical benchmark — the Wong palette, specifically developed for people with color vision deficiency and universally recognized as safe:
| Color | HEX | Role in the palette |
|---|---|---|
| Black | #000000 | basic, for text and outlines |
| Orange | #E69F00 | accent, warm |
| Blue | #56B4E9 | secondary, cold |
| Blue-green | #009E73 | replaces 'clean green' |
| Yellow | #F0E442 | for highlights |
| Blue | #0072B2 | main corporate |
| Crimson | #D55E00 | replaces 'clean red' |
| Red-violet | #CC79A7 | additional accent |
Key rule: even from this palette, it is not recommended to combine pairs like 'green + red' or 'blue + violet' without brightness difference — in deuteranopia and protanopia such pairs can still merge. You should check not the color name, but its brightness contrast.
Font for visually impaired: what GOST R 59587-2021 says
Russian GOST R 59587-2021 — a rare document that provides specific figures instead of general recommendations like 'make the text larger'. For corporate typography that must work in a brandbook, on packaging, and in navigation, the standard sets the following parameters:
- font size 14–20 points for main text without serifs;
- typefaces like Arial, Open Sans, Montserrat — with open letterforms;
- line spacing no less than 4 points;
- line length 81–171 mm;
- matte, non-glossy surface of the carrier;
- contrast of text and background no less than 4.5:1.
Designers often choose a font for a logo based on the 'character of the brand' and forget that the same font is later scaled down to a small line on the label. If the typeface is decorative, with narrowed or merged elements, it fails accessibility on the most mass-market carrier — packaging.
Is a separate 'inclusive' version of the logo needed
The question sounds logical: to make one universal sign or two versions — regular and adapted? Practice shows that parallel versions are a trap. As soon as a 'version for people with visual impairments' appears, the brand effectively admits that the main version is not intended for them, and the support of two logos complicates the brandbook and quickly accumulates inconsistencies in presentations, on the website, in advertising. The portal 'Special View' and the project 'Let's Get Acquainted' confirm another approach: accessibility is embedded into the single version of the sign through form, contrast, and textual accompaniment, rather than being moved into parallel design. The exception is tactile and Braille elements for offline carriers, but this is an addition to the main identity, not an alternative logo.
How to test identity for accessibility
Testing should not be done after handing the project over to the client, but at every stage — from sketch to final brand book.
- At the sketch stage — check the sign in black-and-white mode: if the form is not readable without color, the color won't save it.
- At the palette selection stage — run through Color Oracle, a free simulator of the three main types of color blindness.
- In working files in Figma or Sketch — the Stark plugin for instant contrast checking according to WCAG directly in the mockup.
- When approving the final palette — cross-check with the Wong color palette or manual calculation of the contrast ratio for each 'background-object' pair.
- Before launch — testing with real people with vision impairments, not only simulation on screen: software filters do not convey all nuances of perception with amblyopia.
Why accessibility cannot be glued onto a finished brand book
The main mistake that even experienced studios make is post-factum adaptation of existing identity: they take a finished logo and try to 'tweak' the contrast or add a pattern instead of a color code. This results in half-baked solutions such as a separate black-and-white version of the mark, which lives in the brandbook on one page and is never used in practice. The working approach is to include accessibility requirements in the brief for identity development from the very beginning: embed in the guideline the rule 'color is not the only information carrier', require duplication of color labels with icons or captions in interactive elements, and fix in the brandbook not only HEX codes but also contrast coefficients for each combination. This applies not only to the logo but to all elements of the system — typography, iconography, photographic style, and layout: if at least one of these layers ignores vision with limitations, the entire system remains partially inaccessible, no matter how hard one tries to perfect one mark.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
