What the State Department's Font Reversal Says About Accessibility Maturity

In January 2025, the U.S. State Department reversed its font policy, abandoning accessibility-focused fonts in favor of Times New Roman. The decision sparked immediate backlash from disability advocates and accessibility professionals, highlighting a fundamental truth about organizational accessibility maturity: implementing accessible design is meaningless if your organization isn't ready to sustain it.

This wasn't just a font choice. It was a case study in accessibility program failure.

Key Takeaways

• Font reversals signal low organizational accessibility maturity and inadequate change management
• Accessible fonts improve readability by 10-20% for people with dyslexia, visual processing differences, and aging-related vision changes
• Sustainable accessibility programs require executive sponsorship, stakeholder education, and clear business case development
• Organizations must build accessibility into culture and standard operating procedures, not rely on individual champions
• High-maturity organizations integrate accessibility metrics into business performance measurement

The State Department Font Controversy Background

The State Department's January 2025 decision to reverse back to Times New Roman represented more than a typography preference. It represented a failure in organizational accessibility commitment.

The agency had previously moved toward more accessible font choices that better served employees and citizens with reading disabilities, visual impairments, and aging-related vision changes. These modern fonts—designed with accessibility principles in mind—offered improved character distinction, better spacing, and enhanced readability for diverse users.

When the reversal happened, the internal accessibility community and disability advocacy groups responded swiftly. Public statements questioned the decision's rationale, particularly given the documented accessibility benefits of modern font design. The broader accessibility community discussion emphasized that this wasn't an isolated incident but rather a symptom of deeper organizational maturity issues.

Media coverage highlighted the controversy's implications beyond a single agency. If a government entity responsible for modeling accessibility leadership couldn't maintain basic accessibility improvements, what did that signal to private sector organizations working toward digital inclusion?

Understanding the Accessibility Implications

Font Choice and Disability Access Impact

Font selection directly affects how people with disabilities access and process written information. This isn't subjective design preference—it's measurable accessibility impact.

For people with dyslexia, font choice affects reading speed and comprehension. Research shows that certain fonts with distinct character shapes and appropriate spacing can improve reading performance by 10-20% for dyslexic readers. Times New Roman, while familiar, lacks many accessibility features found in modern fonts designed for readability.

Visual clarity improvements from accessible font choices benefit far more than people with diagnosed disabilities. As the population ages, age-related vision changes affect letter recognition and reading stamina. Modern fonts designed with accessibility principles often feature:

• Greater distinction between similar characters (like "I", "l", and "1")
• Optimized spacing that reduces crowding and improves character recognition
• Appropriate weight distribution that maintains readability at different sizes
• Design features that reduce visual stress during extended reading

Screen reader and assistive technology compatibility also factors into font decisions. While screen readers primarily rely on underlying HTML structure rather than visual font rendering, font choice affects users who combine screen reader technology with visual reading—a common practice among people with low vision.

Low vision users particularly benefit from fonts that maintain clarity when enlarged. Not all fonts scale well, and some lose readability at larger sizes or higher zoom levels. Accessible font design considers how typefaces perform across different viewing conditions and assistive technologies.

Organizational Change Management and Accessibility

The State Department font reversal reveals classic change management failures that plague accessibility initiatives across industries.

Resistance to accessibility improvements often stems from lack of education about the business case and user impact. When stakeholders don't understand why accessibility matters beyond compliance checkboxes, any change faces vulnerable implementation. Building the business case for accessibility requires more than citing legal requirements—it demands demonstrating tangible benefits to operations, user experience, and organizational reputation.

Cost concerns and resource allocation present persistent barriers to accessibility initiatives. Organizations fixate on implementation expenses without calculating the cost of inaccessibility: lost customers, legal risk, and damaged reputation. The irony in the State Department case is that font changes represent minimal cost—the real expense was the failed change management that led to reversal.

Internal stakeholder education and buy-in challenges compound when accessibility programs lack executive sponsorship. Middle managers and frontline staff resist changes they don't understand or value. Without clear communication about why accessibility improvements matter and how they benefit both users and the organization, resistance becomes inevitable.

Leadership commitment determines whether accessibility becomes embedded in organizational culture or remains a fragile initiative dependent on individual champions. When leadership changes or priorities shift, poorly institutionalized accessibility programs face immediate risk. The State Department reversal suggests that accessibility lacked sufficient executive protection to weather internal resistance.

Lessons for Enterprise Accessibility Programs

Avoiding Accessibility Implementation Backlash

Smart organizations prevent the kind of backlash that led to the State Department's reversal by investing in stakeholder engagement before implementing changes.

Stakeholder engagement and education before accessibility changes means building understanding across departments about why changes matter. IT teams need to understand technical benefits. Legal teams need to understand risk mitigation. HR needs to understand employee experience improvements. Customer service needs to understand how accessibility supports all users. When stakeholders understand the "why" behind accessibility, they become advocates rather than resisters.

Gradual implementation and pilot testing for accessibility improvements allows organizations to demonstrate value before full deployment. Rather than announcing sweeping changes, high-maturity organizations run pilot programs, gather feedback, measure impact, and build internal case studies. This approach transforms abstract accessibility concepts into concrete organizational wins.

Clear business case development and ROI demonstration for accessibility initiatives addresses the inevitable question: "Why should we invest in this?" According to World Health Organization data, over 1.3 billion people—16% of the global population—experience significant disability. That's not a niche market. Organizations that frame accessibility as addressing 16% of their potential customer base build more compelling business cases than those framing it as legal obligation.

Communication strategy and change management for accessibility policy changes requires planning beyond the technical implementation. How will you announce changes? How will you explain benefits? How will you address concerns? How will you measure success? Organizations that treat accessibility changes as technical-only implementations consistently face the kind of resistance that led to the State Department reversal.

Building Sustainable Accessibility Commitment

Sustainable accessibility programs don't depend on individual champions—they embed accessibility into organizational DNA.

Executive sponsorship and leadership accountability for accessibility progress means more than executives saying accessibility matters. It means executives asking about accessibility in product reviews, including accessibility metrics in performance evaluations, and allocating budget without annual justification fights. When accessibility appears on executive dashboards alongside revenue and customer satisfaction, organizations signal its strategic importance.

Staff training and organizational accessibility competency development builds capacity across roles. Designers learn accessible design principles. Developers learn how to implement accessibility in code. Content creators learn how to write alt text and structure documents. Legal teams learn compliance requirements. Customer service learns how to support users with disabilities. When accessibility competency spreads across the organization, it becomes everyone's responsibility rather than a siloed function.

Performance metrics and success measurement for accessibility programs provide objective evidence of progress and impact. Track metrics like:

• Number of critical accessibility issues detected and remediated
• Time from issue detection to resolution
• User feedback from people with disabilities
• Legal demand letters and lawsuits avoided
• Conversion rate differences for accessible versus inaccessible experiences
• Cost savings from proactive accessibility versus reactive remediation

Long-term strategic planning and resource allocation for accessibility sustainability means treating accessibility as ongoing investment rather than one-time project. Organizations allocate annual budget for accessibility training, tools, monitoring, and continuous improvement. They plan for accessibility in product roadmaps and hiring strategies. They build accessibility requirements into vendor selection and partnership agreements.

Organizational Accessibility Maturity Assessment

Signs of Low Accessibility Maturity Organizations

Low-maturity organizations share predictable patterns that signal accessibility program vulnerability.

Reactive accessibility compliance without proactive improvement planning means organizations only address accessibility when forced by lawsuits, complaints, or regulatory requirements. They treat accessibility as firefighting rather than prevention. When the State Department reversed its font decision, it demonstrated reactive thinking: responding to internal pushback rather than maintaining proactive commitment to accessibility.

Cost-focused objections without consideration of accessibility business benefits reveal organizations that haven't internalized the business case. They calculate remediation expenses without calculating inaccessibility costs. They see accessibility as pure expense rather than investment with returns in market reach, customer satisfaction, legal risk reduction, and SEO performance.

Limited accessibility expertise and training across organizational roles concentrates accessibility knowledge with a few specialists while leaving the broader organization accessibility-ignorant. Designers don't learn accessible design. Developers don't learn accessible coding. Content creators don't learn accessible content structure. When accessibility knowledge concentrates narrowly, the organization can't sustain accessibility as business-as-usual.

Accessibility viewed as compliance burden rather than user experience improvement indicates fundamental misunderstanding about accessibility's purpose. Compliance requirements exist because accessibility improves user experience for people with disabilities. Organizations that separate "compliance" from "user experience" treat accessibility as checkbox exercise rather than quality commitment.

Characteristics of High Accessibility Maturity Organizations

High-maturity organizations approach accessibility fundamentally differently than their low-maturity counterparts.

Accessibility integrated into organizational culture and standard operating procedures means accessibility considerations appear in every relevant process: product development, content creation, vendor selection, marketing campaigns, and customer service. Nobody asks "Do we need to think about accessibility for this?" because accessibility is assumed in all digital work.

Proactive accessibility improvement and innovation beyond minimum compliance drives high-maturity organizations to exceed legal requirements. They don't ask "What's the minimum we must do?" They ask "How can we create the most inclusive experience possible?" This mindset leads to accessibility innovation that benefits all users, not just people with disabilities.

Cross-functional accessibility expertise and collaborative implementation distributes accessibility knowledge across departments and roles. Everyone has baseline accessibility competency for their role, and accessibility specialists collaborate with teams rather than inspect their work after completion. This collaborative model builds accessibility into creation rather than retrofitting it afterward.

Accessibility metrics integrated into business performance measurement and reporting means accessibility data appears in the same dashboards and reports as other business metrics. Executives review accessibility progress in the same meetings where they review revenue, customer satisfaction, and operational efficiency. This integration signals that accessibility matters at the same strategic level as other business priorities.

Industry and Government Accessibility Leadership

Government Accessibility Standards and Leadership Expectations

Government entities face unique responsibility as accessibility role models for the private sector.

The federal government's role modeling accessibility best practices influences how private organizations approach digital inclusion. When government agencies demonstrate accessibility commitment, they legitimize accessibility investment for businesses. When they reverse accessibility improvements—as in the State Department case—they undermine that legitimacy and signal that accessibility commitment is optional or temporary.

Section 508 compliance and advanced accessibility implementation in government agencies establishes minimum standards for federal digital properties. But minimum compliance differs substantially from accessibility excellence. Government agencies that pursue excellence rather than minimum compliance set stronger examples for private sector organizations seeking guidance on accessibility maturity.

Public sector accessibility innovation and technology adoption leadership can position government as accessibility pioneer rather than compliance-only follower. Government agencies serve diverse populations including aging citizens, veterans with disabilities, and people with varying technology access and digital literacy. This diversity demands robust accessibility that private sector organizations can learn from.

International accessibility standard development and government participation extends beyond domestic compliance to global leadership in digital inclusion policy and implementation. Government accessibility programs that contribute to W3C WCAG development and international accessibility standards help shape global digital accessibility policy.

Private Sector Response and Learning Opportunities

Private sector organizations can extract valuable lessons from government accessibility successes and failures.

Corporate accessibility program development and maturity progression follows similar patterns across government and business: initial compliance focus, gradual capability building, eventual integration into standard operations. Organizations at any maturity level can accelerate progression by learning from others' experiences—including cautionary tales like the State Department font reversal.

Industry association accessibility standard development and best practice sharing creates forums where organizations collaboratively develop accessibility approaches. Rather than each organization solving identical problems independently, industry groups can establish shared frameworks that elevate accessibility across sectors. Enterprise accessibility programs benefit from this collective knowledge.

Competitive advantage and market differentiation through accessibility excellence offers business opportunity beyond compliance. Organizations that achieve superior accessibility attract disability market segments, demonstrate social responsibility, reduce legal risk, and often discover that accessibility improvements benefit all users. This business case resonates more powerfully than compliance-only arguments.

Customer and stakeholder expectation management for accessibility commitments requires honest communication about accessibility status and roadmap. Organizations that transparently communicate accessibility progress—including challenges and setbacks—build more trust than those claiming perfect accessibility. Authentic commitment matters more than perfect execution.

Strategic Planning for Accessibility Program Resilience

Change Management and Organizational Resilience

Accessibility programs must weather leadership transitions, budget pressures, and organizational changes.

Leadership transition planning and accessibility program continuity protects against the State Department scenario where leadership or priority changes threaten established accessibility improvements. Document accessibility policies at organizational rather than individual level. Establish accessibility governance structures that transcend individual champions. Build accessibility into strategic plans that survive leadership transitions.

Policy documentation and institutional knowledge preservation for accessibility programs prevents knowledge loss when accessibility experts leave organizations. Document not just what accessibility requirements exist but why specific decisions were made, what alternatives were considered, and what evidence supports current approaches. This documentation helps new staff understand accessibility context rather than simply inheriting rules.

Stakeholder coalition building and advocacy for accessibility program sustainability creates distributed support rather than dependence on single champions. Identify accessibility advocates across departments—IT, legal, customer service, product, marketing—and build internal network that supports accessibility across organizational changes. When multiple stakeholders value accessibility, programs gain resilience.

Crisis communication and response planning for accessibility program challenges prepares organizations for scenarios like accessibility backlash, high-profile accessibility failures, or legal challenges. Pre-planned response protocols prevent panic reactions that can undermine long-term accessibility commitment.

Measurement and Continuous Improvement

Mature accessibility programs measure progress and systematically improve over time.

Accessibility maturity assessment and organizational development planning provides baseline understanding of current capability and roadmap for improvement. Organizations can use frameworks like the W3C Accessibility Maturity Model to assess their current state and plan advancement. Regular maturity assessments track progress and identify areas needing attention.

User feedback integration and accessibility program effectiveness measurement ensures accessibility efforts actually improve user experience for people with disabilities. Collect feedback through user testing, surveys, customer support data, and direct engagement with disability communities. Accessibility that doesn't demonstrably improve user experience may meet technical compliance without achieving practical inclusion.

Industry benchmarking and comparative analysis for accessibility program improvement helps organizations understand their accessibility maturity relative to peers and leaders. While every organization's accessibility journey is unique, understanding how others approach similar challenges accelerates learning and prevents common pitfalls.

Innovation and technology adoption strategies for accessibility program advancement keep programs current as technology evolves. New frameworks, assistive technologies, and accessibility testing tools continuously emerge. Organizations that systematically evaluate and adopt appropriate innovations maintain accessibility effectiveness as digital landscape changes.

Building Effective Accessibility Advocacy

Internal Advocacy and Organizational Influence

Effective accessibility advocates build support through strategic communication and demonstrated impact.

Business case development and financial justification for accessibility investments translates accessibility benefits into language that resonates with financial decision-makers. Calculate market opportunity of disability community purchasing power. Quantify legal risk reduction. Measure conversion rate improvements from accessibility fixes. Document time and cost savings from building accessibility into development rather than retrofitting. When accessibility ROI becomes clear, budget allocation becomes easier.

Stakeholder mapping and influence strategy for accessibility program support identifies who holds decision-making power, who influences those decision-makers, and what motivates each stakeholder. Different stakeholders respond to different accessibility arguments: executives may respond to risk mitigation, product managers to user experience improvement, developers to technical elegance, legal teams to compliance certainty. Effective advocates tailor messages to stakeholder priorities.

Success story development and accessibility impact demonstration makes accessibility concrete through specific examples. Rather than abstract discussions about accessibility importance, share stories of users whose lives improved through accessibility, revenue gained from accessible experiences, lawsuits avoided through proactive accessibility, or customer satisfaction improvements from accessible design. Concrete stories resonate more powerfully than abstract principles.

Professional development and expertise building for accessibility program leadership increases advocate credibility and capability. Pursue accessibility certifications, attend accessibility conferences, participate in accessibility communities, and deepen technical accessibility knowledge. Well-informed advocates build more persuasive cases and implement more effective programs.

External Advocacy and Industry Leadership

External advocacy extends accessibility impact beyond single organizations.

Industry collaboration and accessibility standard development participation contributes to collective accessibility advancement. Organizations that participate in accessibility standard development—whether WCAG working groups, industry associations, or cross-company initiatives—shape accessibility future while learning from peers.

Public speaking and thought leadership development for accessibility professionals raises profile of accessibility issues and shares knowledge broadly. Conference presentations, blog posts, webinars, and social media engagement educate broader audience about accessibility while building individual and organizational reputation as accessibility leaders.

Policy advocacy and regulatory development engagement for accessibility advancement influences how accessibility requirements evolve. Organizations can contribute to regulatory comment periods, participate in policy working groups, and engage with legislators on accessibility legislation. This engagement shapes regulatory environment while demonstrating accessibility commitment.

Community building and networking for accessibility program support and resources creates relationships that provide ongoing learning, collaboration, and mutual support. Accessibility professionals benefit from peer networks where they can share challenges, solutions, and resources beyond competitive boundaries.

Practical Implementation and Risk Mitigation

Avoiding Common Accessibility Program Pitfalls

Learning from others' mistakes prevents costly accessibility program failures.

Pilot project selection and success demonstration for accessibility program credibility builds momentum through visible wins. Choose pilot projects with reasonable scope, supportive stakeholders, and clear success metrics. Document results thoroughly to build evidence for broader accessibility investment. Successful pilots overcome skepticism more effectively than abstract business cases.

Resource planning and budget allocation for sustainable accessibility program development requires realistic assessment of accessibility work required and appropriate resource allocation. Underresourced accessibility programs fail from inability to deliver results, creating perception that accessibility is too hard or too expensive. Adequate resources allow programs to demonstrate value that justifies continued investment.

Legal risk management and compliance strategy integration with accessibility programs aligns accessibility work with organizational risk mitigation priorities. Work with legal teams to understand accessibility litigation trends, document compliance efforts, and establish defensible accessibility policies. This collaboration ensures accessibility programs address real legal risks rather than theoretical compliance concerns.

Vendor selection and partnership development for accessibility program support recognizes that most organizations need external expertise to supplement internal capability. Evaluate vendors on accessibility expertise, remediation approach, and ability to transfer knowledge to internal teams. Done-for-you services like TestParty's Shopify accessibility solution can accelerate compliance while building internal understanding.

Long-Term Accessibility Program Success

Sustainable accessibility programs plan for long-term success rather than short-term compliance.

Strategic planning and roadmap development for accessibility program maturation establishes multi-year vision for accessibility advancement. Break down long-term accessibility vision into achievable phases with clear milestones, success criteria, and resource requirements. This planning prevents accessibility from being perpetually deprioritized due to competing short-term demands.

Performance monitoring and success measurement for accessibility program effectiveness provides ongoing visibility into program impact and areas needing attention. Establish accessibility dashboards that track key metrics, share progress with stakeholders regularly, and use data to continuously improve program effectiveness.

Stakeholder communication and progress reporting for accessibility program transparency builds ongoing support by keeping accessibility visible and demonstrating progress. Regular communication prevents accessibility from becoming invisible until problems emerge, maintaining stakeholder awareness and engagement.

Innovation and technology integration for accessibility program advancement and competitiveness keeps programs current and effective. Evaluate emerging accessibility testing tools, AI-powered accessibility solutions, and new assistive technologies. Organizations that leverage technology appropriately can achieve better accessibility results with more efficient resource utilization.

What to Do Next

The State Department's font reversal offers clear lessons for any organization pursuing digital accessibility: technical implementation is the easy part. Building organizational maturity to sustain accessibility commitment is where programs succeed or fail.

If you're concerned about your organization's accessibility maturity, start by honestly assessing where you fall on the maturity spectrum. Do you have executive sponsorship? Have you built broad stakeholder buy-in? Have you integrated accessibility into standard operations? Are you measuring and communicating accessibility impact?

For Shopify merchants concerned about accessibility compliance without organizational complexity, TestParty provides done-for-you accessibility that removes implementation barriers. We handle the technical work—duplicating your theme and fixing accessibility issues directly in code—while you focus on running your business. Daily AI scans and monthly expert audits keep your store accessible without ongoing internal resource allocation.

Book a demo to see how TestParty builds accessibility into your operations without the organizational challenges that led to the State Department's reversal.

Frequently Asked Questions

What specific accessibility benefits were lost with the State Department's font reversal?

The reversal from accessibility-focused fonts back to Times New Roman reduced readability for people with dyslexia, visual processing differences, and aging-related vision changes. Modern fonts designed with accessibility principles offer improved character distinction, better spacing, and enhanced readability that can improve reading speed and comprehension by 10-20% for users with reading disabilities. Times New Roman lacks many of these accessibility features, making documents harder to read for people with visual and cognitive disabilities.

How does this controversy reflect broader organizational accessibility maturity issues?

The font reversal demonstrates classic signs of low accessibility maturity: cost-focused objections without consideration of business benefits, lack of stakeholder education, and viewing accessibility as burden rather than improvement. High-maturity organizations build consensus before implementing accessibility changes, maintain commitment through leadership transitions, and integrate accessibility into organizational culture rather than treating it as optional initiative dependent on individual champions.

What can private sector organizations learn from this government accessibility failure?

Organizations should invest in comprehensive change management, stakeholder education, and clear business case development before implementing accessibility improvements. Build broad organizational support across departments rather than relying on individual accessibility champions. Document accessibility policies at organizational level, integrate accessibility into standard operating procedures, and establish governance structures that survive leadership transitions. Most importantly, frame accessibility as user experience improvement and business opportunity rather than compliance burden.

How do font choices actually impact accessibility and user experience?

Font selection affects reading speed, comprehension, and fatigue for users with dyslexia, low vision, and cognitive differences. Accessible fonts feature greater distinction between similar characters, optimized spacing that reduces crowding, appropriate weight distribution, and design features that reduce visual stress. Research shows modern accessible fonts can improve reading performance by 10-20% for users with reading disabilities while maintaining or improving readability for all users. Font choice also affects how well text scales at larger sizes for low vision users.

What strategies prevent accessibility program reversals during leadership changes?

Document clear business cases that justify accessibility investment beyond individual preferences. Establish accessibility policies at organizational level with executive approval. Create stakeholder coalitions across multiple departments so accessibility support doesn't depend on single champions. Measure and communicate accessibility success metrics regularly. Integrate accessibility into standard operating procedures rather than maintaining it as separate initiative. Build accessibility requirements into strategic plans that transcend individual leadership tenures.

How should organizations respond when accessibility initiatives face internal resistance?

Pause implementation to understand resistance sources. Conduct stakeholder education about accessibility benefits and business case. Gather user feedback and success data from pilot programs to demonstrate concrete value. Revise communication strategy to address specific stakeholder concerns. Rebuild consensus before proceeding with implementation. Forced implementation without stakeholder buy-in creates long-term accessibility program damage and increases likelihood of reversal like the State Department experienced. Sustainable accessibility requires genuine organizational commitment, not mandated compliance.