Is Your NDIS Website Designed for Participants or Just for Appearance?

A website built only to look good isn’t built for participants. Accessibility can be tested, and appearance can’t.

That’s the position here, and it comes with a test you can run in ten minutes. NDIS website accessibility is a practical question before it’s a design one: can a participant read your page, tap your buttons and understand what you offer?

Why this is more than a design preference

The Australian Human Rights Commission published its Guidelines on equal access to digital goods and services in April 2025. They say that meeting the standards and guidelines they discuss will help organisations meet their obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act, and that those standards are the minimum organisations should aim for.

“Help meet” is the Commission’s wording, and it’s worth keeping. Following the checks below won’t certify anything, and nothing here is legal advice. But the Commission calls those standards the minimum, which makes them the sensible place to start.

The five checks

Two of these carry exact numbers from WCAG 2.2, the web accessibility standard published by the W3C. The other three are named without criterion numbers, because only the first two were verified against the standard for this article.

1. Text contrast. WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.4.3 requires a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 between normal text and its background. For large text the minimum is 3:1. Pale grey text on a white background is a good place to look first.
2. Tap targets. Success criterion 2.5.8 requires pointer targets to be at least 24 by 24 CSS pixels, with exceptions for spacing. Tiny links packed into a menu are the usual suspects.
3. Alt text. Every image that carries meaning has a text description, and decorative images don’t need one.
4. Keyboard access. You can reach every menu item and button using the keyboard alone, in an order that makes sense.
5. Plain language and an Easy Read page. Write the key page in plain language. The NDIS itself offers an Easy Read download of its Guide to working with providers, which shows the idea in practice.

How to run it in ten minutes

You don’t need a specialist to start.

• Open your home page on a phone.
• Run a free contrast checker on your body text and your button text, and compare the results to 4.5:1 and 3:1.
• Tab through the page with a keyboard and see whether you can reach everything and where the focus goes.
• Hand the phone to someone who has never seen the site and ask what you do and where.

If they need more than a few seconds to answer the last question, the page has a problem that no colour change will fix.

What a pass and a fail look like

Treat each check as pass or fail, not as a mood. For contrast, the ratio either reaches 4.5:1 for normal text or it doesn’t, and a checker will give you the number. For tap targets, a button is either at least 24 by 24 CSS pixels or it falls under an exception for spacing, which the criterion describes. For keyboard access, you either got to the last button without a mouse or you didn’t.

You end up with a short written list of things to fix, not a general feeling that the site could be better. Whoever manages the website can work through a list and tick it off.

The case for the other side

There’s a fair argument for polish. A confident visual identity helps people trust a service, and a small provider shouldn’t wait for a full audit before it publishes anything. A clear, fast, plain page that meets the basics beats a perfect audit that never ships.

Agreed. But that argument is a reason to start small, not a reason to skip the checks. Put the plain answer and the five checks first, and let the design work around them.

What would change this

If your audience were only referrers and not participants, the weight might shift. Even then the same checks still apply, and a page that is hard to read is hard to read for anyone.

Test it with someone else

Pick one person who isn’t on your team, and have them go through the five checks on a phone. A fresh pair of eyes will find what you’ve stopped noticing on your own page.

Sources: W3C, “Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.3: Contrast (Minimum)”, WCAG 2.2 (https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/contrast-minimum.html); W3C, “Understanding Success Criterion 2.5.8: Target Size (Minimum)”, WCAG 2.2 (https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/target-size-minimum.html); Australian Human Rights Commission, “Guidelines on equal access to digital goods and services”, April 2025 (https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/publications/guidelines-equal-access-digital-goods-and-services); NDIS, “Guide to working with providers”, Easy Read download (https://www.ndis.gov.au/participants/working-providers/get-know-your-providers/guide-working-providers)