Sarah Haas

Meta · Browser / Accessibility testing and remediation

Building an accessibility operating model for EAA readiness

Meta’s in-app browser had unresolved accessibility findings, hundreds of conditional experience variations, and no durable process for reassessment or remediation. With Browser in scope for the European Accessibility Act (EAA), the team needed to establish its first cross-platform accessibility baseline across Facebook and Instagram IAB on iOS and Android.

I built the foundations for the baseline accessibility audit and co-drove the cross-functional program. I identified and prioritized experience variations, created reproducible test conditions and vendor instructions, validated the team’s submissions, and helped turn Browser’s approach into a broader organizational model for accessibility remediation.

Role, scope and partners

Senior Content Designer and accessibility subject-matter expert. I applied my accessibility expertise to Browser, leading the flow inventory, audit strategy and scope, test preparation, vendor requirements, validation, and issue triage across Facebook and Instagram IAB on iOS and Android. I partnered with Product Design, Engineering, Central Accessibility, and organizational accessibility leads.

Goal

The first phase was to prepare Browser to meet EAA requirements by establishing a cross-platform accessibility baseline and addressing identified barriers.

The longer-term goal was to create a sustained accessibility model that could prevent common issues, clarify ownership, and embed accessibility into standard product development.

Outcome

The team completed its first baseline accessibility audit across Facebook and Instagram IAB on iOS and Android, gaining a shared baseline and prioritized remediation path. The work secured leadership sponsorship and resources, then contributed to the broader organizational model for managing accessibility remediation in waves.

Results

~360Flow, product, and platform variations identified across Facebook and Instagram IAB on iOS and Android.
157%Of the team’s accessibility-triage goal reached. This was a cross-functional program result.
First accessibility baselineA repeatable testing system and validated audit scope established across four app and platform combinations.

The work also helped secure leadership attention, roadmap priority, and resources for accessibility. Browser’s approach informed the broader organizational response to EAA readiness and strengthened how teams identified, triaged, and prioritized accessibility risk.

The challenge

Browser’s accessibility work needed a business case, shared operating knowledge, and a repeatable system before the team could meaningfully address individual findings.

  • Accessibility struggled to compete for roadmap priority because its financial value was indirect. We had to connect it to audience reach, product completion, trust, regulatory readiness, and the long-term cost of inaccessible products.
  • Teams lacked a shared understanding of accessibility requirements. Content Design, Product Design, and Engineering did not have clearly established responsibilities or a consistent way to apply accessibility throughout product development.
  • The same experience could follow identical paths across platforms or differ by one step, product state, or entry point. Those variations had to be identified and made reproducible before they could be assessed reliably.
  • External accessibility audits were expensive, while the scoring model required full viability. The target was 5, and any lower score indicated that accessibility barriers remained. We needed to select representative, product-critical flows and make the resulting baseline useful beyond a single assessment.
  • Leadership buy-in unlocked the work, but it did not arrive with an operating team or predefined resources. We still had to identify the right partners, establish ownership, and create a structure that could be reused across products.

Design thinking

A forcing function for attention. The EAA deadline and substantial financial and regulatory exposure created a forcing function for leadership attention. I used that opening to make the case that accessibility also supported audience reach, product completion, trust, and lower long-term remediation costs.

A shared definition, first. The team also needed a shared definition of accessible product development. I worked across Content Design, Product Design, and Engineering to clarify what each discipline needed to consider, create, validate, and ultimately own.

Seeing the whole system. A meaningful baseline required a view of the entire product ecosystem. I mapped the broader set of variations first, then used product relevance, severity, implementation effort, and ownership to prioritize representative flows for the external audit.

Built to be reused. Because external audits were expensive, every part of the setup needed to remain useful after testing ended. The accounts, content, reproduction paths, requirements, and ownership model became reusable infrastructure for remediation and future assessment.

Embedding it for the long term. The longer-term direction was to embed accessibility into standard design and development practices. Repeatable guidance, clearer ownership, accessible components, and launch guardrails would help teams prevent common issues instead of continually rediscovering them through retrospective audits.

What I did

  1. 01

    Built the case for prioritization

    I shaped the Browser accessibility strategy, connecting the EAA deadline and regulatory exposure to product quality, audience reach, trust, and long-term remediation costs. The resulting case secured leadership sponsorship for the Browser work.

  2. 02

    Re-established the remediation baseline

    I aggregated findings from the earlier assessment, revisited prior triage decisions, and organized unresolved issues by relevance, severity, implementation effort, and ownership. This surfaced foundational problems that could affect multiple experiences.

  3. 03

    Mapped and prioritized the ecosystem

    I identified roughly 360 flow, product, and platform variations across Facebook and Instagram IAB on iOS and Android. I used the inventory to distinguish shared experiences from meaningful differences and define a representative audit scope.

  4. 04

    Created reproducible test conditions

    I created test accounts, ingested the predetermined content needed to access each experience, established the necessary product states, and wrote the setup, testing, and reproduction instructions. I also validated the materials submitted by teammates.

  5. 05

    Defined and supported the external audit

    I wrote the scope, requirements, and paths for the selected Facebook and Instagram flows. I worked with Central Accessibility to package the materials for its vendor, then served as the Browser subject-matter expert when testers encountered questions or blockers.

  6. 06

    Operationalized and expanded the approach

    I helped assign findings across Content Design, Product Design, and Engineering and tracked targeted fixes. I also co-created the EAA Design Response Team proposal for organizational leadership and shared Browser’s approach with the broader accessibility group. The model was adopted more widely and later incorporated into the organization’s waves approach to accessibility remediation.

The solution

The solution was a repeatable accessibility testing and remediation operating model. It connected a cross-platform flow inventory, representative audit scope, reproducible test conditions, external assessment, cross-functional ownership, and remediation tracking into one continuous process.

The model gave teams a practical way to establish a baseline, prioritize the most consequential barriers, assign responsibility, and carry accessibility work forward across products and future development.

Primary artifact: Accessibility operating model

Supporting outputs

Reusable accessibility baseline

Shared functional responsibilities

Guidance for future product development

Input into the broader organizational waves model

Public-safe reconstruction: I connected unresolved findings, cross-platform flow mapping, reproducible testing, external assessment, and remediation ownership into one operating model. Browser’s approach later informed the broader organizational waves model.

Representative reconstruction: I identified roughly 360 experience variations across Facebook and Instagram IAB on iOS and Android, then created and validated the accounts, content, product states, and instructions needed to reproduce the selected flows.
Case-study illustration: Accessibility content extended beyond visible strings to screen-reader labels, descriptions, content identifiers, and localization context. The annotations show how Content Design requirements helped make interface elements understandable across assistive technologies and languages.

Interactive recreation: Hear the difference between generic controls and meaningful screen-reader labels in the same interface.

Use the controls inside the demo to compare the experiences.

Open interactive demo full screen ↗

Reflection

  • Accessibility mattered to me before it became a roadmap priority. I kept bringing it into my work and built a reputation for accessibility expertise. When the EAA created an opening for investment, leaders already knew I could lead the work.
  • Underprioritized work often needs a catalyst before its story resonates. The EAA supplied a deadline and tangible consequences that connected accessibility to a decision leaders needed to make.
  • The unfunded follow-up audit showed how quickly attention can shift once the immediate risk is reduced. We tried to make the work last by building accessibility requirements into design templates, content standards, and the content style guide.
  • Accessibility is part of good product design even when no audit is scheduled and no one is checking. Products should work for the people who need to use them.