Understanding How Accessibility Practices Impact Teamwork in Mixed-Ability Teams that Collaborate Virtually

Virtual collaboration has transformed how people in mixed-ability teams, composed of disabled and non-disabled people, work together by offering greater flexibility. In these settings, accessibility practices, such as accommodations and inclusive norms, are essential for providing access to disabled people. However, we do not yet know how these practices shape broader facets of teamwork, such as productivity, participation, and camaraderie. To address this gap, we interviewed 18 participants (12 disabled, 6 non-disabled) who are part of mixed-ability teams. We found that beyond providing access, accessibility practices shaped how all participants coordinated tasks, sustained rapport, and negotiated responsibilities. Accessibility practices also introduced camaraderie challenges, such as balancing empathy and accountability. Non-disabled participants described allyship as a learning process and skill shaped by their disabled team members and team culture. Based on our findings, we present recommendations for team practices and design opportunities for virtual collaboration tools that reframe accessibility practices as a foundation for strong teamwork.

💡 Research Summary

This paper investigates how accessibility practices shape teamwork in mixed‑ability virtual teams—teams that include both disabled and non‑disabled members. While remote work has expanded flexibility and introduced built‑in accessibility features (e.g., captions, screen‑reader support), little is known about how these practices affect broader teamwork dimensions such as productivity, participation, and camaraderie. To fill this gap, the authors conducted semi‑structured interviews with 18 participants (12 disabled, 6 non‑disabled) who regularly collaborate in virtual settings. The interview protocol probed team background, tool usage, specific accommodations, and perceptions of teamwork.

Analysis revealed three interrelated ways accessibility practices influence team dynamics. First, they act as coordination enhancers: standardized captioning, shared note‑taking, and clear screen‑sharing conventions reduce information asymmetry, speed up meetings, and improve overall productivity for the whole team, not just disabled members. Second, accessibility practices foster relational processes. When team members openly share accessibility needs and co‑perform “access labor” (e.g., describing visual content, configuring assistive settings), trust and rapport increase. However, the same practices can generate camaraderie tensions when expectations about empathy clash with accountability, or when accommodations conflict, leading to feelings of burden or perceived “over‑accommodation.” Third, non‑disabled participants describe allyship as a learning trajectory rather than a fixed checklist. Their ability to support teammates evolves through everyday interactions and is heavily shaped by the team’s inclusive culture.

The authors position these findings within existing teamwork literature (productivity, participation, camaraderie) and accessibility research (access labor, interdependence, stigma, allyship). They argue that accessibility should be reframed from a “nice‑to‑have” add‑on to a foundational mechanism that actively structures teamwork. Consequently, they propose concrete recommendations: (1) develop team‑level guidelines that make accessibility needs visible and map responsibilities; (2) embed collaborative accessibility features (auto‑caption editing, real‑time description tools, shared settings dashboards) into virtual collaboration platforms; (3) institute regular accessibility retrospectives to surface and negotiate empathy‑accountability trade‑offs; and (4) shift allyship training toward mentorship‑style, experience‑based learning rather than one‑off workshops.

Overall, the paper contributes (i) empirical evidence that accessibility practices shape coordination, participation, and relational quality in mixed‑ability teams; (ii) insight into the emotional and interpersonal challenges that arise when balancing empathy with performance expectations; and (iii) a set of actionable design and practice guidelines for researchers, tool designers, and organizational leaders aiming to build stronger, more inclusive virtual teams.