Project 7

Making inclusion visible in a family experience

An ethics and accessibility audit of Leo’s Lekland, examining how representation, accessibility information, and WCAG compliance affect both user experience and business outcomes.

Accessibility • Ethics • Research • Strategy

The Challenge

Leo’s Lekland is one of the largest indoor playground operators in the Nordics. Its website serves as an information hub, booking platform, and marketing channel for families.

The project explored a simple question:

Who might be excluded from the experience, intentionally or unintentionally?

The goal was to evaluate the website from both an accessibility and inclusion perspective, identifying gaps that could affect users, trust, and compliance.

read report

Approach

Evaluating Accessibility and Inclusion

The review combined two perspectives:

  • DEI (Diversity, Equity & Inclusion) audit
  • WCAG accessibility review

The analysis focused on:

technical accessibility compliance

representation in imagery

inclusive language

accessibility information

feedback mechanisms

recruitment language

Key Findings

1

Accessibility information is difficult to find

Visitors with disabilities or accessibility needs receive very little information about physical access, support services, or facility limitations.

Without this information, families may be unable to determine whether a visit is suitable.

2

Disability representation is missing

The website presents families in a positive and diverse way, but children and adults with visible disabilities are absent from imagery and content.

Representation influences whether users feel acknowledged and included.

3

Accessibility issues create barriers

The audit identified 14 accessibility issues across areas such as:

  • colour contrast
  • heading hierarchy
  • landmarks
  • skip navigation
  • focus states

Several findings create risks for both usability and WCAG compliance.

4

Feedback is largely one-way

Support channels exist, but there is limited opportunity for structured customer feedback, reviews, or transparency around user experiences.

This reduces opportunities for learning and trust-building.

A side-by-side comparison of two UX flows displayed on matching, thin black tablets resting on a light ash wood surface. One tablet shows a cluttered, low-contrast interface, while the other presents a clean, accessible redesign with large touch targets, clear hierarchy, and inclusive language. Between them lies a narrow black strip of annotations, printed in precise sans-serif type, calling out ethical and usability improvements. Soft, overcast window light from the left creates even illumination and subtle, directional shadows, enhancing contrast without harshness. Shot from a slightly elevated angle with moderate depth of field, both screens are crisp while the wood texture softly recedes. The photographic realism and restrained palette underscore thoughtful, principled UX decision-making.

A dramatic, minimal UX dashboard interface displayed on a large, frameless ultra-wide monitor mounted on a dark, textured wall. The screen shows an accessible analytics dashboard with generously spaced charts, high-contrast labels, and clear, ethically framed metrics like “user well-being” and “task success.” The monitor rests above a narrow black shelf holding only a single monochrome notebook and a slender graphite pencil. Lit by a single, focused overhead light, the interface glows against the near-black surroundings, casting a faint halo on the wall. Captured in a straight-on composition with sharp focus throughout, the photographic image feels bold, cinematic, and intensely focused on the ethical, data-informed side of UX design.

A collection of UX case study artifacts spread with careful precision across a wide, pale concrete tabletop: high-fidelity mobile screens printed on thick matte paper, a bold black tablet displaying a crisp design system, and a stark white storyboard of user flows drawn with sharp black lines. Each artifact uses strong contrast and generous whitespace, with clear accessibility annotations. Overhead, soft studio lighting evenly illuminates every detail, creating gentle, defined shadows that add depth. Shot from a slightly elevated, top-down perspective, the composition forms a strong diagonal flow from lower left to upper right. The mood is bold and analytical, with a photographic realism that highlights structure, hierarchy, and methodical UX craftsmanship.

Recommendations

Inclusive Representation


Introduce imagery that reflects a wider range of families, including:

  • children with disabilities
  • caregivers using mobility aids
  • grandparents and extended family members

The objective is not token representation, but helping more visitors recognise themselves in the experience.

Accessibility Transparency

Create a dedicated accessibility section covering:

  • wheelchair access
  • sensory considerations
  • available support
  • facility limitations

Clear information reduces uncertainty before booking.

WCAG Improvements

Priority recommendations included:

  • improving colour contrast
  • fixing heading structure
  • implementing skip links
  • strengthening keyboard navigation
  • improving alternative text

These changes improve usability for all visitors while supporting compliance.

Feedback & Accountability

Introduce visible feedback mechanisms such as:

  • post-visit surveys
  • customer review sections
  • accessibility feedback channels

This creates a clearer loop between customer experience and service improvement.

Business Perspective

Why this matters

Accessibility and inclusion are often discussed as ethical responsibilities, but they are also business decisions.

The recommendations aimed to:

  • reduce legal risk
  • increase trust
  • improve customer confidence
  • support broader audience reach
  • strengthen brand reputation

Inclusion becomes more meaningful when it is built into everyday decision-making rather than treated as a separate initiative.

Reflection

This project changed how I think about accessibility.

Many accessibility discussions focus on technical compliance, but the work highlighted a broader question: what information, assumptions, or design decisions unintentionally exclude people?

The most valuable insight was that inclusion is not only about meeting standards. It is about reducing uncertainty and helping people understand whether a product, service, or experience is genuinely designed for them.

Latest Notes

View Archive [ -> ]

Browse all notes