Branding and accessibility for people with visual impairments
Where to start: adapting physical and digital touchpoints
The first practical step is to audit all brand identity carriers through the lens of different types of visual impairment: low vision, color blindness, total loss of vision, age-related vision deterioration. Each carrier has its own requirements.
- Logo. Must be readable not only in color, but also in a black-and-white version with sufficient contrast. Check whether the logo is distinguishable when simulating low vision — if it relies only on gradients or thin lines, it becomes a blur in poor vision.
- Packaging. Relief elements, Braille, tactile notches for distinguishing products by touch (important for product lines with similar packaging shapes). Nestlé, Kellogg's, and Coca-Cola already use relief images and Braille together with QR codes that announce the ingredients and usage instructions via smartphone.
- Website and app. Text contrast is no less than 4,5:1 per WCAG 2.1 AA level requirements, alternative text for images, absence of CAPTCHA without voice alternative. This is not trivial: 92,3% of screen reader users regularly encounter CAPTCHA they cannot pass, and 73,4% with non-functional buttons and links. This is a failure of basic user flow, not a checkbox detail.
- Navigation in physical space. Tactile paths, sound beacons, large-font labels at brand store and office entrances.
How to integrate accessibility into a design system without compromising brand style
The main fear of brand managers is that accessibility requirements will 'eat up' brand colors and turn the identity into a standardized template. This is solvable if contrast is built into the palette at the initial stage, not checked afterward.
| Approach | What happens | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Accessibility is added after launch | The designer sets the palette according to aesthetics, contrast is checked before the website release | The brand color fails the test 4,5:1, it is necessary either to violate the guidelines or redo the layouts |
| D | For each brand color, a contrasting pair and acceptable combinations of background/text are immediately selected | The guidelines initially contain working combinations, designers do not violate the identity and do not fail WCAG |
This is exactly how the portal «Special View» was designed — it received a certificate of compliance with GOST requirements not because accessibility was added on top of a ready-made website, but because it was part of the content architecture from the very beginning. In Russia, a similar principle is enshrined in GOST R 52872-2012, which establishes the minimum contrast 4,5:1 for web resources aimed at people who use a computer as a rehabilitation tool.
The approach that resolves the conflict between color and contrast
Maintain two levels of the palette: a 'expressive' brand color for large elements (header background, illustrations, packaging) and a 'functional' set for text and interactive elements, where contrast is strictly verified. The brand does not lose recognizability, and the user gets readable text.
Superficial inclusion versus systemic: what is the difference
The «Point of View» Center in St. Petersburg demonstrated how a genuine approach looks like: the visual brand symbol simultaneously reminds of eyes, glasses, and Braille font elements — and this is not just a metaphor, but a working tool for tactile navigation. The symbol is functional, not decorative.
| Indicator | Superficial inclusion | Systemic inclusion |
|---|---|---|
| Point of implementation | Individual packaging or one-time campaign | Brand guide, communication strategy, all touchpoints |
| Motivation | PR effect, trend compliance | Audience expansion and long-term loyalty |
| Testing | Not conducted or conducted formally | Testing with real users with visual impairments |
| Example of failure | Braille on one SKU from the product line, others without adaptation | — |
Companies that do inclusion "for show" usually miss three things: testing with real users, not with an abstract checklist; consistency — they adapt one product, not the whole line; and communication — they remain silent about accessibility instead of making it part of the brand story.
What this gives to the business: examples of benefit, not charity
Strongbow was the first alcoholic brand in the world to implement NaviLens codes — they are read from a distance and without precise alignment, unlike a regular QR code, which is critical for people with vision loss. The solution emerged from direct consumer research, not an abstract initiative 'for image purposes'.
Altai company 'Rosa' was the first in Russia to print Braille font on packaging of grain products — this did not increase the product price, but expanded the consumer audience by including people who previously could not independently choose a product in a store. Magnit and NIVEA went further: as part of the cooperation program between NIVEA and 'Magnit' with the foundation supporting deafblind people 'Co-union', 1 rubles from each purchase of NIVEA product are directed towards building sensory playgrounds with tactile paths and musical instruments for children with hearing and vision impairments — this is a long-term program, not a one-time campaign, and it forms an emotional connection with the brand among a wide audience, not only the target group.
Why this is a strategy, not compliance with standards
WHO estimates the number of people with vision impairments worldwide in the hundreds of millions, and this audience is growing along with population aging. Ignoring it means losing real sales, not abstract 'social capital'. Compliance with WCAG or GOST R 52872-2012 is the minimum threshold, the legal basis. Strategy begins where the brand uses accessibility as a way to tell its story: through design, through the product's history, through the choice of partners for inclusive projects. The difference is simple — the standard protects the company from complaints, the strategy creates loyalty and expands the market.
How to check that inclusion in your brand is systemic
- Check the brand palette for contrast 4,5:1 not after launch, but at the stage of developing the guideline.
- Test the logo and packaging with people with different types of vision impairments, not just designers.
- Ensure that the adaptation applies to the entire product line, not just one 'display' item.
- Check digital touchpoints for real bugs — captcha without alternatives, non-functional buttons for screen readers.
- Make inclusivity part of the brand story, not a quiet technical fix without communication.
A brand that takes these steps gains not a one-time PR effect, but an expanded audience and the reputation of a company that thinks about the product systematically — not just buys Braille on one package.
Where to start: adapting physical and digital touchpoints
The first practical step is to audit all brand identity carriers through the lens of different types of visual impairment: low vision, color blindness, total loss of vision, age-related vision deterioration. Each carrier has its own requirements.
- Logo. Must be readable not only in color, but also in a black-and-white version with sufficient contrast. Check whether the logo is distinguishable when simulating low vision — if it relies only on gradients or thin lines, it becomes a blur in poor vision.
- Packaging. Relief elements, Braille, tactile notches for distinguishing products by touch (important for product lines with similar packaging shapes). Nestlé, Kellogg's, and Coca-Cola already use relief images and Braille together with QR codes that announce the ingredients and usage instructions via smartphone.
- Website and app. Text contrast is no less than 4,5:1 per WCAG 2.1 AA level requirements, alternative text for images, absence of CAPTCHA without voice alternative. This is not trivial: 92,3% of screen reader users regularly encounter CAPTCHA they cannot pass, and 73,4% with non-functional buttons and links. This is a failure of basic user flow, not a checkbox detail.
- Navigation in physical space. Tactile paths, sound beacons, large-font labels at brand store and office entrances.
How to integrate accessibility into a design system without compromising brand style
The main fear of brand managers is that accessibility requirements will 'eat up' brand colors and turn the identity into a standardized template. This is solvable if contrast is built into the palette at the initial stage, not checked afterward.
| Approach | What happens | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Accessibility is added after launch | The designer sets the palette according to aesthetics, contrast is checked before the website release | The brand color fails the test 4,5:1, it is necessary either to violate the guidelines or redo the layouts |
| D | For each brand color, a contrasting pair and acceptable combinations of background/text are immediately selected | The guidelines initially contain working combinations, designers do not violate the identity and do not fail WCAG |
This is exactly how the portal «Special View» was designed — it received a certificate of compliance with GOST requirements not because accessibility was added on top of a ready-made website, but because it was part of the content architecture from the very beginning. In Russia, a similar principle is enshrined in GOST R 52872-2012, which establishes the minimum contrast 4,5:1 for web resources aimed at people who use a computer as a rehabilitation tool.
The approach that resolves the conflict between color and contrast
Maintain two levels of the palette: a 'expressive' brand color for large elements (header background, illustrations, packaging) and a 'functional' set for text and interactive elements, where contrast is strictly verified. The brand does not lose recognizability, and the user gets readable text.
Superficial inclusion versus systemic: what is the difference
The «Point of View» Center in St. Petersburg demonstrated how a genuine approach looks like: the visual brand symbol simultaneously reminds of eyes, glasses, and Braille font elements — and this is not just a metaphor, but a working tool for tactile navigation. The symbol is functional, not decorative.
| Indicator | Superficial inclusion | Systemic inclusion |
|---|---|---|
| Point of implementation | Individual packaging or one-time campaign | Brand guide, communication strategy, all touchpoints |
| Motivation | PR effect, trend compliance | Audience expansion and long-term loyalty |
| Testing | Not conducted or conducted formally | Testing with real users with visual impairments |
| Example of failure | Braille on one SKU from the product line, others without adaptation | — |
Companies that do inclusion "for show" usually miss three things: testing with real users, not with an abstract checklist; consistency — they adapt one product, not the whole line; and communication — they remain silent about accessibility instead of making it part of the brand story.
What this gives to the business: examples of benefit, not charity
Strongbow was the first alcoholic brand in the world to implement NaviLens codes — they are read from a distance and without precise alignment, unlike a regular QR code, which is critical for people with vision loss. The solution emerged from direct consumer research, not an abstract initiative 'for image purposes'.
Altai company 'Rosa' was the first in Russia to print Braille font on packaging of grain products — this did not increase the product price, but expanded the consumer audience by including people who previously could not independently choose a product in a store. Magnit and NIVEA went further: as part of the cooperation program between NIVEA and 'Magnit' with the foundation supporting deafblind people 'Co-union', 1 rubles from each purchase of NIVEA product are directed towards building sensory playgrounds with tactile paths and musical instruments for children with hearing and vision impairments — this is a long-term program, not a one-time campaign, and it forms an emotional connection with the brand among a wide audience, not only the target group.
Why this is a strategy, not compliance with standards
WHO estimates the number of people with vision impairments worldwide in the hundreds of millions, and this audience is growing along with population aging. Ignoring it means losing real sales, not abstract 'social capital'. Compliance with WCAG or GOST R 52872-2012 is the minimum threshold, the legal basis. Strategy begins where the brand uses accessibility as a way to tell its story: through design, through the product's history, through the choice of partners for inclusive projects. The difference is simple — the standard protects the company from complaints, the strategy creates loyalty and expands the market.
How to check that inclusion in your brand is systemic
- Check the brand palette for contrast 4,5:1 not after launch, but at the stage of developing the guideline.
- Test the logo and packaging with people with different types of vision impairments, not just designers.
- Ensure that the adaptation applies to the entire product line, not just one 'display' item.
- Check digital touchpoints for real bugs — captcha without alternatives, non-functional buttons for screen readers.
- Make inclusivity part of the brand story, not a quiet technical fix without communication.
A brand that takes these steps gains not a one-time PR effect, but an expanded audience and the reputation of a company that thinks about the product systematically — not just buys Braille on one package.
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
