I debuted these principles in my axe-con 2025 talk, It is designed to break your heart: Cultivating a harm reduction mindset as an accessibility practitioner. They are adapted from The National Harm Reduction Coalition’s original eight principles. My adapted principles reflect philosophical and behavioral changes I’ve been cultivating. This is done to try and offset, and defend against systemic trauma and its resultant depression, burnout, and other negative experiences you can incur when doing digital accessibility work. If you have the time, I’d advise reading the original eight principles. I also recommend watching or reading the talk. I say this not in a self-promotional way, but instead that there is a lot of context that will be helpful in understanding: How these adapted principles came to be, and also The larger mindset shifts and practices that led to their creation. The principles There are eight principles in total. They are delivered in the context of how to approach evaluating a team’s efforts, and are: Accepting ableism and minimizing it Accepting, for better or worse, that ableism is a part of our world and choosing to work to minimize its harmful effects, rather than simply ignoring or condemning it. The original principle this is derived from is: “Accepts, for better or worse, that licit and illicit drug use is part of our world and chooses to work to minimize its harmful effects rather than simply ignore or condemn them.” Provisioning of resources is non-judgemental Calling for the non-judgemental provision of services and resources for people who create access barriers within the disciplines in which they work, in order to assist them in reducing harm. The original principle this is derived from is: “Calls for the non-judgmental, non-coercive provision of services and resources to people who use drugs and the communities in which they live in order to assist them in reducing attendant harm.” Do not minimize or ignore real harm Does not attempt to minimize or ignore the real and tragic harm and danger that can be created by inaccessible experiences. The original principle this is derived from is: “Does not attempt to minimize or ignore the real and tragic harm and danger that can be associated with illicit drug use.” Some barriers are worse than others Understands that how access barriers are created is a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon that encompasses a range of severities from life-endangering to annoying, and acknowledges that some barriers are clearly worse than others. The original principle this is derived from is: “Understands drug use as a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon that encompasses a continuum of behaviors from severe use to total abstinence, and acknowledges that some ways of using drugs are clearly safer than others.” Social inequalities affect vulnerability Recognizes that the realities of poverty, class, racism, social isolation, past trauma, sex-based discrimination, and other social inequalities affect both people’s vulnerability to, and capacity for effectively dealing with creating inaccessible experiences. The original principle this is derived from is: “Recognizes that the realities of poverty, class, racism, social isolation, past trauma, sex-based discrimination, and other social inequalities affect both people’s vulnerability to and capacity for effectively dealing with drug-related harm.” Improvement of quality is success Establishes quality of individual and team life and well-being—not necessarily cessation of all current workflows—as the criteria for successful interventions and policies. The original principle this is derived from is: “Establishes quality of individual and community life and well-being—not necessarily cessation of all drug use—as the criteria for successful interventions and policies.” Empowering people also helps their peers Affirms people who create access barriers themselves as the primary agents of reducing the harms of their efforts, and seeks to empower them to share information and support each other in creating and using remediation strategies that are effective for their daily workflows. The original principle this is derived from is: “Affirms people who use drugs themselves as the primary agents of reducing the harms of their drug use and seeks to empower people who use drugs to share information and support each other in strategies which meet their actual conditions of use.” Ensure that disabled people have a voice in change Ensures that people who are affected by access barriers, and those who have been affected by your organization’s access barriers, have a real voice in the creation of features and services designed to serve them. The original principle this is derived from is: “Ensures that people who use drugs and those with a history of drug use routinely have a real voice in the creation of programs and policies designed to serve them.” Reframe My talk digs deeper into into the parallels between the adapted and original principles, as well as the similarities between digital accessibility and harm reduction work. This is in the service of attempting to reframe our efforts. By this, I mean that we are miscategorized participants in imperfect, trauma-generating systems. The change in perspective I am advocating for also compels changes in behavior in order to not only survive, but also flourish as digital accessibility practitioners. The adapted principles are integral to making this effort successful.

I get asked about my opinion on overlay-adjacent accessibility products with enough frequency that I thought it could be helpful to write about it. There’s a category of third party products out there that are almost, but not quite an accessibility overlay. By this I mean that they seem a little less predatory, and a little more grounded in terms of the promises they make. Some of these products are widgets. Some are browser extensions. Some are apps. Some are an odd fourth thing. Sometimes it’s a case of a solutioneering disability dongle grift, sometimes its a case of good intentions executed in a less-than-optimal way, and sometimes it’s something legitimately helpful. Oftentimes it’s something that lies in the middle area of all of this. Many of them also have some sort of “AI” integration, which is the unfortunate upsell du jour we have to collectively endure for the time being. The rubric I use to evaluate these products remains very similar to how I scrutinize overlays. Hopefully it’s something that can be helpful for your own efforts. Should the product’s functionality be patented? I’m not very happy with the idea that the mechanism to operate something in an accessible way is inhibited by way of legal restriction. This artificially limits who can use it, which is in opposition to the overall mission of digital accessibility. Ideally the technology is the free bit, and the service that facilitates it is what generates the profit. Do I need to subscribe to use it? A subscription-based model is a great way to run a business, but you don’t need to pay a recurring fee to use an accessible website. The nature of the web’s technology means it can be operated via keyboard, voice control, and other assistive technology if constructed properly. Workarounds and community support also exist for some things where it’s not built well. Here I’d also like you to consider the disability tax, and how that factors into a rental model. It’s not great. Does the browser or operating system already have this functionality? A lot of the time this boils down to an issue of discovery, digital literacy, or identity. As touched on in the previous section, browsers and operating systems offer a lot to help you self-serve. Notable examples are reading mode, on-screen narration, color filters, interface and text zoom, and forced color inversion. Can it be used across multiple experiences, or just one website? Stability and predictability of operation and output are vital for technology like this. It’s why I am so bullish on utilizing existing browser and operating system features. Products built to “enhance” the accessibility of a single website or app can’t contribute towards this. Ironically, their presence may actually contribute friction towards someone’s existing method of using things. A tricky little twist here is products that target a single website are often advertised towards the website owner, and not the people who will be using said website. Can I use the keyboard to operate it? I’ve gotten in the habit of pressing Tab a few times when I first check out the product’s website and see if anything happens. It’s a quick and easy test to see if the company walks the walk in addition to talking the talk. Here, I regrettably encounter missing focus indicators and non-semantic interactive controls more often than not. I might also sometimes run the homepage through axe DevTools, to see if there are other egregious errors. I then try to use the product itself with a keyboard if a demo is offered. I am usually found wanting here. How reliable is the AI? There are two broad considerations here: How reliable is the output? How can bias affect someone’s interpretation of things? While I am a skeptic, I can also acknowledge that there are some good use cases for LLMs and related technology when it comes to disability. I think about reliability in terms of the output in terms of the “assistive” part of assistive technology. By this, I mean it actually helps you do what you need to get done. Here, I’d point to Salma Alam-Naylor’s experience with newer startups in this space versus established, community supported solutions. Then consider LLM-based image description products. Here we want to make sure the content is accurate and relevant. Remember that image descriptions are the mechanism that some people rely on to help them understand the world. If that description is not accurate, it impacts how they form an understanding of their environment. A step past that thought is the biases inherent in, and perpetuated by LLM-based technology. I recall Ben Myers’ thoughts on implicit, hegemonic normalization, as well as the sobering truth that this technology can exert influence over its users worldview at scale. Can the company be trusted with your data? A lot of assistive technology is purposely designed to not announce the fact that it is being used. This is to stave off things like discrimination or ineffective, separate-yet-equal “accessibility only” sites. There’s also the murky world of data brokerage, and if the company is selling off this information or not. AccessiBe comes to mind here, and not in a good way. Also consider if the product has access to everything you visit and interact with, and who has access to that information. As a companion concern, it is also worth considering the product’s data security practices—or lack thereof. Here, I would like to point out that startups tend to deprioritize this boring kind of infrastructure work in favor of feature creation. Not having any personal information present in a system is the best way to guard against its theft. Also know that there is no way to undo a data breach once it occurs. Leaked information stays leaked. Will the company last? Speaking of startups, know that more fail than succeed. Are you prepared for an outcome where the product you rely on is is no longer updated or supported because the company that made it went out of business? It could also be a case where the company still exists, but ceases to support the product you use. Here, know that sometimes these companies will actively squash attempts for community-based resurrection and support of the service because it represents potential liability. This concern is another reason why I’m bullish on operating system and browser functionality. They have a lot more resiliency and focus on the long view in this particular area. But also I’m not the arbiter of who can use what. In the spirit of “the best camera is the one you have on you:” if something works for your specific access needs, by all means use it.

A lieutenant colonel in the Soviet Air Defense Forces prevented the end of human civilization on September 26th, 1983. His name was Stanislav Petrov. Protocol dictated that the Soviet Union would retaliate against any nuclear strikes sent by the United States. This was a policy of mutually assured destruction, a doctrine that compels a horrifying logical conclusion. The second and third stage effects of this type of exchange would be even more catastrophic. Allies for each side would likely be pulled into the conflict. The resulting nuclear winter was projected to lead to 2 billion deaths due to starvation. This is to say nothing about those who would have been unfortunate enough to have survived. Petrov’s job was to monitor Oko, the computerized warning systems built to centralize Soviet satellite communications. Around midnight, he received a report that one of the satellites had detected the infrared signature of a single launch of a United States ICBM. While Petrov was deciding what to do about this report, the system detected four more incoming missile launches. He had minutes to make a choice about what to do. It is impossible to imagine the amount of pressure placed on him at this moment. Source: Stanislav Petrov, Soviet officer credited with averting nuclear war, dies at 77 by Schwartzreport. Petrov lived in a world of deterministic systems. The technologies that powered these warning systems have outputs that are guaranteed, provided the proper inputs are provided. However, deterministic does not mean infallible. The only reason you are alive and reading this is because Petrov understood that the systems he observed were capable of error. He was suspicious of what he was seeing reported, and chose not to escalate a retaliatory strike. There were two factors guiding his decision: A surprise attack would most likely have used hundreds of missiles, and not just five. The allegedly foolproof Oko system was new and prone to errors. An error in a deterministic system can still lead to expected outputs being generated. For the Oko system, infrared reflections of the sun shining off of the tops of clouds created a false positive that was interpreted as detection of a nuclear launch event. Source: US-K History by Kosmonavtika. The concept of erroneous truth is a deep thing to internalize, as computerized systems are presented as omniscient, indefective, and absolute. Petrov’s rewards for this action were reprimands, reassignment, and denial of promotion. This was likely for embarrassing his superiors by the politically inconvenient shedding of light on issues with the Oko system. A coerced early retirement caused a nervous breakdown, likely him having to grapple with the weight of his decision. It was only in the 1990s—after the fall of the Soviet Union—that his actions were discovered internationally and celebrated. Stanislav Petrov was given the recognition that he deserved, including being honored by the United Nations, awarded the Dresden Peace Prize, featured in a documentary, and being able to visit a Minuteman Missile silo in the United States. On January 31st, 2025, OpenAI struck a deal with the United States government to use its AI product for nuclear weapon security. It is unclear how this technology will be used, where, and to what extent. It is also unclear how OpenAI’s systems function, as they are black box technologies. What is known is that LLM-generated responses—the product OpenAI sells—are non-deterministic. Non-deterministic systems don’t have guaranteed outputs from their inputs. In addition, LLM-based technology hallucinates—it invents content with no self-knowledge that it is a falsehood. Non-deterministic systems that are computerized also have the perception as being authoritative, the same as their deterministic peers. It is not a question of how the output is generated, it is one of the output being perceived to come from a machine. These are terrifying things to know. Consider not only the systems this technology is being applied to, but also the thoughtless speed of their integration. Then consider how we’ve historically been conditioned and rewarded to interpret the output of these systems, and then how we perceive and treat skeptics. We don’t live in a purely deterministic world of technology anymore. Stanislav Petrov died on September 18th, 2017, before this change occurred. I would be incredibly curious to know his thoughts about our current reality, as well as the increasing abdication of human monitoring of automated systems in favor of notably biased, supposed “AI solutions.” In acknowledging Petrov’s skepticism in a time of mania and political instability, we acknowledge a quote from former U.S. Secretary of Defense William J. Perry’s memoir about the incident: [Oko’s false positives] illustrates the immense danger of placing our fate in the hands of automated systems that are susceptible to failure and human beings who are fallible.

GitHub has updated the page template used to list Commits on a repository. Central to this experience is an interactive list component that I was responsible for architecting. This work was done alongside input from James Scholes, whose guidance was instrumental to the effort’s success. An interactive list is a construct that’s more commonplace on desktop applications than the web. That does not mean its approach is forbidden from being used for web experiences, however. What concerns does an interactive list address? The main concern an interactive list addresses is when each discrete item in a series contains multiple interactive child elements. Navigating through every child interactive element placed with each parent list item can be a tedious enough chore that it makes the effort a non-starter. For example, if the list has ten items and each item has seven interactive child elements, that means it takes up to seventy Tab keypresses someone needs to perform to get what they need. That’s an exhausting experience to endure. It could also be agonizing. Think motor control disabilities, where individual movements in aggregate can exceed someone’s pain tolerance threshold. Making each list item’s container itself focusable and traversable addresses this problem, as it lowers the number of keypresses someone needs to use. It also supports allowing you to quickly jump to the start or end of the list for even more navigation options. On GitHub, navigating an interactive list via your keyboard can be accomplished by pressing: Tab: Places focus on the interactive list item that last received focus. Defaults to the first item in the list if the list was previously not interacted with. Down: Moves focus to the next list item, if present. Up: Moves focus to the previous list item, if present. End: Moves focus to the last list item in the interactive list. Home: Moves focus to the first list item in the interactive list. There’s a trick here: We want to make sure each list item’s announcement contains enough information that someone can make an informed choice when navigating via a screen reader. We also do not want to make the announcement so verbose that it slows down the navigation process. For example, we only include the commit title when navigating via list item on the Commits page. For an Issue, we use: The Issue title, Its status, and Its author (there is currently a bug here, we’re working on fixing it). There is an intentionality behind the order of content in this announcement, as we want to include the most pertinent information first. This, in turn, helps people navigating by list item announcement make more informed choices faster. This lets us know: What the problem is, Has it been dealt with yet, and Who found the problem? We also use the term “More information available below” to signal that someone can explore the list item’s child content in more detail. This is accomplished via pressing: Tab: Navigates forwards through each child interactive element in sequence. Shift + Tab: Navigates backwards through each child interactive element in sequence. Esc: Moves focus out of the child interactive elements and places it back on the parent list item itself. Examples of child content that someone could encounter are an Issues’ author, its labels, linked Pull Requests, comment tally, and assignees. Problems The use of the phrase “More information available below” does not sit well with me, despite being the person who oversaw its inclusion. There’s a couple of reasons here: First, I’m normally loathe to hardcode interaction hints for screen readers. The interactive list component is a bit of an exception to that rule. It is an uncommon interaction pattern on the web, so the hint needs to be included until efforts to formalize it both: Manifest, and Get widespread support from assistive technology vendors. Without these two things, I fear that blind and low vision individuals will not be able to fully utilize the experience the same way their peers can. Second, the hint phrasing itself isn’t that great. The location-based term “below” is shorthand to try and communicate that there’s subsequent child content that is related to the list item’s main content. While “subsequent child content that is related to the list item’s main content” is more descriptive, it’s an earful. I am very much open to suggestions for a replacement phrase. And this potential for change sets up other things that weigh on me. Bigger problems Using this interactive list component on the Commits page template means there are now two main areas on GitHub where the component is present. The second being the lists of repository Issues for logged-in accounts. Large, structural changes to a design’s underlying semantics disrupts the mental model and muscle memory of how many people who use screen readers operate an experience. It’s an act that I’m always nervous about undertaking. The calculated bet here is that the prominence of the components on these high-traffic areas means that understanding how to operate them becomes easier over time. I’ve also hedged that bet by including alternate ways of navigating the interactive list, including baking headings into each Commit and Issue title. HeadingsMap. I do think that this update to each page’s semantic structure is net better than what came before it. However, it is still going to manifest as a large and sudden change for people who use screen readers. And for the record, I view changing the “More information available below” phrasing as another large and disruptive change. Subsequent large and sudden changes is what I want to avoid at all costs. That said, we’re running out the clock on a situation where an interactive list will someday contain non-interactive content. The component’s current approach does not have a great way for people to be aware of, and subsequently read that kind of content. That’s not great. Because of this inevitability, I would like to replace the list’s interaction approach with the one we’re using for nested/sub-Issues. There are a few reasons for this, but the main ones are: Improving consistency and uniformity of interaction across all of GitHub for this kind of clustering of content. Leaning on more well-known interaction techniques for secondary content within an item by using dialogs instead of Tab keypresses. Providing a mechanism that can more easily handle exploring non-interactive content being placed within a list item. Making these changes would mean a drastic update on top of another drastic update. While I do think it would be a better overall experience, rolling it out would require a lot of careful effort and planning. Even bigger problems In many ways, GitHub is a battleship. It is slow to turn just by virtue of the sheer size and scale of concerns it needs to cover. Enacting my goal of replacing and unifying these kinds of interactions would take time: It would mean petitioning for heavy investment in something that may be perceived as an already “solved” problem. It also would require collaboration across multiple siloed product areas, each with their own pre-existing and planned objectives and priorities. I have the gift of hindsight in writing this. The interactive list was originally intended to address just the list of repository Issues. Its usage has since has grown to cover more use cases—not all of them actually applicable. This is one of the existential problems of a design system. You can write all the documentation you want, but people are ultimately going to use what they’re going to use regardless of if its appropriate or not. Replacing or excising misapplied components is another effort that runs counter to organization priorities. That truth lives hand-in-hand with the need to maintain the overall state of usability for everyone who uses the service. You’re gonna carry that weight Making dramatic changes to core parts of GitHub’s assistive technology user experience, followed by more dramatic changes, then potentially followed by even more dramatic changes is an outcome we’re potentially facing. It is the nature of software—especially websites and web apps—to change. That said, I worry about the overall churn this all could represent. I feel the weight of that responsibility as the person who set this course. I also feel the consequent pressure it exerts. I’ll continue to write about and plead the case internally. However, I worry that I’ve blown my one chance to get things right. I know my colleagues who produce visual designs also may feel this way, but I also think it’s a more acute problem for digital accessibility. I also don’t think that this sort of situation is one that’s talked about that often in accessibility spaces, hence me writing about it. This is to say nothing about quantifying it, either. Centering I’m pretty proud of what we accomplished, but those feelings are moot if all this effort does not serve the people it was intended to. It’s also not about me. Our efforts to be more inclusive may ironically work against us here. How much churn is the point where it’s too much and people are pushed away? To that point, feedback helps. Constructive reports on access barriers and friction are something that can bypass the internal perception of the things I’ve outlined as being seen as non-problems. I am twice heartened when I see reports. First, it is a signal that means someone is still present and cares. Second, there has been renewed internal interest in investing in acting on these user-reported accessibility problems. The work never stops This post is about interactive lists on GitHub, and how to use them. It’s also about: The responsibilities, pressures, and politics of creating complex components like the interactive list and ensuring they are accessible, How these types of components affect the larger, holistic experience of GitHub as a whole, The need to ensure these components actually work for the people they serve, and The value of providing feedback if they don’t. These are powerful things to internalize if you also do this sort of work, but also valuable to keep in mind if you don’t. The have served me well in my journey at GitHub, and I hope they help to serve you too.

Former United States president and war criminal George W. Bush gave a speech in Australia, directing a v-for-victory hand gesture at the assembled crowd. It wasn’t received the way he intended. What he failed to realize is that this gesture means a lot of different things to a lot different people. In Australia, the v-for-victory gesture means the same as giving someone the middle finger in the United States. This is all to say that localization is difficult. Localizing your app, web app, or website is more than just running all your text through Google Translate and hoping for the best. Creating effective, trustworthy communication with language communities means doing the work to make sure your content meets them where they are. A big part of this is learning about, and incorporating cultural norms into your efforts. Doing so will help you avoid committing any number of unintentional faux pas. In this best case scenario these goofs will create an awkward and potentially funny outcome: In the worst case, it will eradicate any sense of trust you’re attempting to build. Trust There is no magic number for how many mistranslated pieces of content flips the switch from tolerant bemusement to mistrust and anger. Each person running into these mistakes has a different tolerance threshold. Additionally, that threshold is also variable depending on factors such as level of stress, seriousness of the task at hand, prior interactions, etc. If you’re operating a business, loss of trust may mean less sales. Loss of trust may have far more serious ramifications if it’s a government service. Let’s also not forget that it is language communities and not individuals. Word-of-mouth does a lot of heavy lifting here, especially for underserved and historically discriminated-against populations. To that point, reputational harm is also a thing you need to contend with. Because of this, we need to remember all the things that are frequently left out of translation and localization efforts. For this post, I’d like to focus on icons. Iconic We tend to think of icons as immutable glyphs whose metaphors convey platonic functionality and purpose. A little box with an abstract mountain and a rising sun? I bet that lets you insert a picture. And how about a right-facing triangle? Five dollars says it plays something. However, these metaphors start to fall apart when not handled with care and discretion. If your imagery is too abstract it might not read the way it is intended to, especially for more obscure or niche functionality. Transit. Similarly, objects or concepts that don’t exist in the demographics you are serving won’t directly translate well. It will take work, but the results can be amazing. An exellent example of accommodation is Firefox OS’ localization efforts with the Fula people. Culture impacts how icons are interpreted, understood, and used, just like all other content. Here, I’d specifically like to call attention to three commonly-found icons whose meanings can be vasty different depending on the person using them. I would also like to highlight something that all three of these icons have in common: they use hand gestures to represent functionality. This makes a lot of sense! Us humans have been using our hands to communicate things for about as long as humanity itself has existed. It’s natural to take this communication and apply it to a digital medium. That said, we also need to acknowledge that due to their widespread use that these gestures—and therefore the icons that use them—can be interpreted differently by cultures and language communities that are different than the one who added the icons to the experience. The three icons themselves are thumb’s up, thumb’s down, and the okay hand symbol. Let’s unpack them: Thumb’s up What it’s intended to be used for This icon usually means expressing favor for something. It is typically also a tally, used as a signal for how popular the content is with an audience. Facebook did a lot of heavy lifting here with its Like button. In the same breath I’d also like to say that Facebook is a great example of how ignoring culture when serving a global audience can lead to disastrous outcomes. Who could be insulted by it In addition to expressing favor or approval, a thumb’s up can also be insulting in cultures originating from the following regions (not a comprehensive list): Bangladesh, Some parts of West Africa, Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, Some parts of Russia, Some parts of Latin America, and Australia, if you also waggle it up and down. It was also not a great gesture to be on the receiving end of in Rome, specifically if you were a downed gladiator at the mercy of the crowd. What you could use instead If it’s a binary “I like this/I don’t like this” choice, consider symbols like stars and hearts. Sparkles are out, because AI has ruined them. I’m also quite partial to just naming the action—after all the best icon is a text label. Thumb’s down What it’s intended to be used for This icon is commonly paired with a thumb’s up as part of a tally-based rating system. People can express their dislike of the content, which in turn can signal if the content failed to find a welcome reception. Who could be insulted by it A thumb’s down has a near-universal negative connotation, even in cultures where its use is intentional. It is also straight-up insulting in Japan. It may also have gang-related connotations. I’m hesitant to comment on that given how prevalent misinformation is about that sort of thing, but it’s also a good reminder of how symbolism can be adapted in ways we may not initially consider outside of “traditional” channels. Like the thumb’s up gesture, this is also not a comprehensive list. I’m a designer, not an ethnographic researcher. What you could use instead Consider removing outrage-based metrics. They’re easy to abuse and subvert, exploitative, and not psychologically healthy. If you well and truly need that quant data consider going with a rating scale instead of a combination of thumb’s up and thumb’s down icons. You might also want to consider ditching rating all together if you want people to actually read your content, or if you want to encourage more diversity of expression. Okay What it’s intended to be used for This symbol is usually used to represent acceptance or approval. Who could be insulted by it People from Greece may take offense to an okay hand symbol. The gesture might have also offended people in France and Spain when performed by hand, but that may have passed. Who could be threatened by it The okay hand sign has also been subverted by 4chan and co-opted by the White supremacy movement. An okay hand sign’s presence could be read as a threat by a population who is targeted by White supremacist hate. Here, it could be someone using it without knowing. It could also be a dogwhistle put in place by either a bad actor within an organization, or the entire organization itself. Thanks to the problem of other minds, the person on the receiving end cannot be sure about the underlying intent. Because of this, the safest option is to just up and leave. What you could use instead Terms like “I understand”, “I accept”, and “acknowledged” all work well here. I’d also be wary of using checkmarks, in that their meaning also isn’t a guarantee. So, what symbols can I use? There is no one true answer here, only degrees of certainty. Knowing what ideas, terms, and images are understood, accepted by, or offend a culture requires doing research. There is also the fact that the interpretation of these symbols can change over time. For this fact, I’d like to point out that pejorative imagery can sometimes become accepted due to constant, unending mass exposure. We won’t go back to using a Swastika to indicate good luck any time soon. However, the homogenization effect of the web’s implicit Western bias means that things like thumb’s up icons everywhere is just something people begrudgingly get used to. This doesn’t mean that we have to capitulate, however! Adapting your iconography to meet a language culture where it’s at can go a long way to demonstrating deep care. Just be sure that the rest of your localization efforts match the care you put into your icons and images. Otherwise it will leave the experience feeling off. An example of this is using imagery that feels natural in the language culture you’re serving, but having awkward and stilted text content. This disharmonious mismatch in tone will be noticed and felt, even if it isn’t concretely tied to any one thing. Different things mean different things in different ways Effective, clear communication that is interpreted as intended is a complicated thing to do. This gets even more intricate when factors like language, culture, and community enter the mix. Taking the time to do research, and also perform outreach to the communities you wish to communicate with can take a lot of work. But doing so will lead to better experiences, and therefore outcomes for all involved. Take stock of the images and icons you use as you undertake, or revisit your localization efforts. There may be more to it than you initially thought.