Accessible Typography: Why Rolling Back Accessibility Changes Hurts Everyone
- The Sage Mages
- Dec 15, 2025
- 4 min read
Updated: Jan 25
What the State Department Font Change Signals About Accessibility
A font change shouldn’t be front-page news. Yet, here we are. This change has the potential to impact millions of lives.
In early December, the U.S. State Department directed staff to return to Times New Roman and stop using Calibri. This decision reverses a 2023 shift aimed at improving readability and accessibility for people with disabilities. The directive framed the previous change as part of a “wasteful” diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) effort. It emphasized “decorum” and “professionalism.”
Whether any single font is “good” or “bad” is subjective. However, rolling back an accessibility-motivated decision has larger societal implications. It signals that accommodations are optional. They can be added or removed based on politics, aesthetics, or convenience.
Who is Affected When Accessible Typography is Rolled Back
When accessibility is treated as a preference, the burden shifts to those who already face the most friction:
People with low vision benefit from clearer letterforms and spacing.
Individuals with dyslexia and other reading/processing differences rely on predictable hierarchy and legibility.
Users of assistive technology or alternative formats depend on consistent, readable source documents.
Importantly, the consequences of these changes are rarely dramatic or visible. The harm is quieter. It manifests as more fatigue, more time spent, more mistakes, and more opting out.
That’s why accessibility isn’t “extra.” It’s essential for participation.
The Pattern We Can’t Ignore
When accessible typography and visuals are implemented from the start, we see a recurring cycle across society and organizations:
A barrier is identified, often by disabled advocates.
An accommodation is added.
Over time, it gets reframed as unnecessary, “too expensive,” or “not professional.”
It’s rolled back, often without transparent evidence about who is affected and how.
This cycle doesn’t just change formatting. It alters expectations: who must adapt, who gets to be comfortable, and whose needs are treated as negotiable.
How “Professionalism” Can Become a Barrier to Readability
One of the most concerning aspects of this change is the language surrounding the restoration of “professionalism” and “decorum.”
We’ve seen this before in various contexts—where “professional” subtly becomes code for:
Familiar norms over measurable comprehension.
Aesthetic tradition over functional clarity.
The comfort of insiders over the access of everyone.
This is how barriers become normalized, even when they are entirely preventable.
Accountability Questions Leaders Should Answer Before Changing Standards
If leaders can remove accommodations, they should be required to answer basic accountability questions:
What problem are you solving—and for whom?
What evidence supports the change?
Who is most impacted, and were they consulted?
What replaces what’s being removed?
What metrics will you use to ensure access didn’t get worse?
Without answers to these questions, rollbacks are not neutral decisions. They are choices made without responsibility for their impact.
How to Choose Accessible Fonts for Readability and Inclusion
Fonts are one of the most invisible choices we make. That’s exactly why they matter. They shape comprehension, confidence, and belonging long before anyone reacts to the content.
So, the next time you choose a typeface—on a website, in a presentation, in a PDF, or in an email—pause and ask:
Who will be able to read this quickly?
Who will need extra effort?
What does “professional” mean here: tradition or clarity?
If someone is already carrying more cognitive load, does this choice add to it?
Because accessibility isn’t just a standard we reference. It’s a responsibility we practice, one decision at a time.
The Importance of Accessible Design
Accessible design goes beyond just typography. It encompasses all aspects of user experience. This includes color contrast, layout, and navigational elements. Each choice can either enhance or hinder access for individuals with disabilities.
Color Contrast Matters
Color contrast is crucial for readability. High contrast between text and background helps individuals with low vision. It also aids those with color blindness. When designing materials, always check color combinations. Tools are available to assess contrast ratios. Aim for a ratio of at least 4.5:1 for normal text.
Layout and Structure
A clear layout helps users navigate content easily. Use headings and subheadings to break up text. This creates a visual hierarchy that guides readers. Bulleted lists can also enhance clarity. They make information digestible and easier to scan.
Navigational Elements
Ensure that navigational elements are intuitive. Users should find it easy to move through content. This includes links, buttons, and menus. Consistency in design helps users understand how to interact with your content.
Conclusion: The Ongoing Commitment to Accessibility
Accessibility is not a one-time effort. It requires ongoing commitment and evaluation. As society evolves, so do the needs of individuals. Regularly assess your materials and practices. Seek feedback from users to improve accessibility.
By prioritizing accessible design, we create a more inclusive environment. Everyone deserves the opportunity to engage fully. Let’s ensure that our choices reflect that commitment.
In summary, the recent font change at the U.S. State Department serves as a reminder. It highlights the importance of accessibility in all aspects of design. We must advocate for inclusive practices that benefit everyone.
Remember, accessibility is not just a checkbox. It’s a fundamental part of creating a society where everyone can thrive.
Comments