TL;DR — Making a video campaign accessible is mostly a handful of concrete choices: caption the finished video, keep contrast and text size readable on the recording screen, write prompts that don't assume a particular voice or ability, and give people more than one way to say yes. None of this requires special tooling.
- Captions benefit far more people than those who are deaf or hard of hearing — many viewers watch with sound off.
- Contrast and text size on the recording screen itself matter as much as the finished video.
- A prompt that assumes everyone can speak fluently or see a screen clearly will exclude some contributors by accident.
- WCAG 2.2, at a general level, is a reasonable reference point for both the recording interface and the finished video.
On this page
Why this is worth doing beyond "being nice"
Accessible video collection isn't only about accommodating someone with a disclosed disability. Captions help a viewer watching on a train with the sound off, a non-native speaker following along more easily, and someone in a noisy open-plan office. Good contrast helps everyone recording on a phone screen in bright sunlight, not just someone with low vision. Treating accessibility as a baseline design choice, rather than a special accommodation requested after the fact, tends to produce a better campaign for everyone involved.
Captions on the finished video
Caption every compiled reel, not just the ones you expect a deaf or hard-of-hearing viewer to watch. Auto-generated captions are a reasonable starting point, but review them for names and workplace-specific terms, which automatic captioning tools often get wrong. If the video includes multiple speakers, consider labelling who is speaking, especially in a longer compiled reel where it isn't always obvious from the picture alone.
Contrast, text size and the recording screen itself
The experience of recording matters as much as the finished product. A recording screen with low-contrast instructions, tiny text, or a prompt that disappears too quickly to read creates a barrier before anyone has even started talking. General guidance under WCAG 2.2 on contrast and text sizing is a reasonable reference point here, even if you're not building a fully WCAG-conformant product — the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative's guidance is a good starting reference.
Writing prompts that don't accidentally exclude people
- Avoid prompts that only work if someone can see a screen clearly ("look at the chart behind you") — favour prompts answerable through speech or gesture alone.
- Don't assume fluent, rapid speech is the only acceptable response — a slower, shorter answer is still a complete one.
- Offer an alternative to speaking on camera where the format allows it, such as text-based responses or a written message read aloud by someone else, for anyone who prefers not to or can't speak on camera.
- Keep the prompt itself short and in plain language, which helps non-native speakers and anyone processing spoken or written instructions more slowly.
A short accessibility checklist
- Are captions turned on, reviewed and accurate for every finished video?
- Is the recording screen's text large enough and high-contrast enough to read on a small phone screen?
- Does the prompt work for someone who can't see well, hear well, or speak fluently?
- Is there an alternative way to contribute for someone who can't or doesn't want to be on camera?
- Have you checked the finished video actually plays correctly with captions on, not just that captions were generated?
How Whoosh supports this
Keep prompt text short and plain, caption any compiled reel before sharing it widely, and check the recording screen on an actual phone in bright light before sending a campaign link out broadly — a quick real-device check catches more contrast and sizing problems than reviewing on a desktop monitor.
Start freeFrequently asked questions
Do auto-generated captions count as accessible?
They're a reasonable starting point but generally need a quick review — automatic captioning tools often mishear names, acronyms and workplace-specific terms.
Is there a simple standard to reference for accessibility requirements?
WCAG 2.2, maintained by the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative, is the general reference point most organisations use, at the level of overall principles like readable contrast and clear navigation rather than specific numbered criteria.
What if someone doesn't want to appear on camera at all for accessibility reasons?
Offer an alternative contribution format where you can — a written message, or a message read aloud by someone else — rather than treating on-camera video as the only valid way to take part.
Does accessibility add much time to running a campaign?
Not much — captioning and a quick contrast check on a real phone are the two biggest-impact steps, and both are quick to do once they're part of your normal process.