UK companies scrambling to integrate artificial intelligence into their products risk leaving millions of disabled consumers behind if they do not include them in the design process from the start, according to new research from the Business Disability Forum (BDF).
A survey of 1,032 disabled adults in the UK conducted with Opinium found that two in five (40%) believe that designing, developing and testing AI products with disabled people is the most effective way to make the technology truly accessible. The same survey identified more user-friendly interfaces (38%), better information about how AI can support disabled users (37%) and stronger onboarding support (36%) as other priorities.
Particularly for SMEs, many of which are considering how and how quickly they can integrate AI into customer-facing tools, the results carry a clear commercial message. Approximately one in four people in the UK will experience a disability at some point in their life, representing a significant proportion of the consumer base and workforce. The development of products that do not meet this target group increasingly represents a competitive and ethical burden.
The research shows great optimism about what the technology can achieve. More than a third of disabled adults said AI tools could help by improving communication (38%) and online experiences (34%). Other expected benefits included better access to health information (33%), education (32%), digital content (32%), support for independent living (31%), improved customer experience (25%) and better access to employment (24%).
However, this optimism is tempered by considerable skepticism. One in five disabled adults in the UK (20%) didn’t believe AI products would help them at all, while a further 18% said they simply didn’t know – a significant trust gap that companies need to close if they want adoption to follow investment.
A parallel Opinium survey of 2,000 British adults found broadly similar attitudes among the wider population. 34% agreed that co-developing AI products with disabled users would improve accessibility. This is evidence that inclusive design is increasingly seen as a mainstream expectation rather than a niche concern.
Lara Davis, communications director at the Business Disability Forum, said the stakes are high. “AI products and tools have the potential to radically and positively change the lives of disabled people, but there is also a risk that disabled people will be left behind,” she said. “Given the rapid development of AI and the fact that one in four people will experience a disability at some point in their lives, we cannot afford to ignore this problem.”
Davis called on companies to “actively consult with their disabled consumers to ensure they are involved in the design, development and testing of AI products,” while ensuring greater access to information and advice about the technology in general.
Lucy Ruck, who leads the BDF’s Tech Taskforce, was equally blunt. “AI has the ability to transform lives, but only if we ensure inclusion from the start,” she said. “It is not only the right thing to do to ensure that people with disabilities are actively involved in shaping this technology, but also how we develop AI that truly serves everyone.”
The forum has formulated four recommendations for companies and developers. They are encouraged to include disabled people throughout the AI lifecycle on the basis that inclusive design removes barriers for everyone, not just disabled consumers. They should publish clear information about the accessibility features of their AI products in formats tailored to different communication needs. Compatibility with assistive technology, which many disabled users rely on daily, needs to be tested rather than assumed. And ethical judgment and meaningful human oversight should be built into both the tools themselves and the content they generate, using inclusive training data to reduce bias and stereotypes.
For SMB founders and product leaders, the message is one that has been heard in other waves of digital transformation: retrofitting accessibility is invariably more expensive and less effective than planning for it from the start.
