Executive Summary & Key Takeaways

Accessible packaging is often discussed in terms of individual features: larger text, Braille, tactile markers, easier opening, or digital codes that provide spoken information. The more useful business decision is which accessibility needs must be built into the physical pack, which can be supported through a digital layer, and which require redesign rather than another feature added at the end.

This distinction matters because accessibility interacts directly with packaging performance. An easy-open feature can reduce opening force but also affect tamper evidence or closure strength. A tactile symbol needs enough emboss definition to be recognised, but excessive deformation can affect the board or nearby graphics. Larger type improves readability but competes with mandatory information and limited panel space. A digital accessibility code can expand access to information, but it does not replace the physical tasks of finding, identifying, holding, opening, dispensing, and closing the product.

The right approach is therefore not to maximise accessibility features. It is to identify the barriers created by the pack and remove them without creating a new engineering problem elsewhere.

Accessible packaging begins with the task the user needs to complete, not with the feature the designer wants to add.

1. Accessibility Is More Than Readability

Packaging creates several different access problems, and they should not be treated as one issue.

A consumer first needs to identify the product. They may then need to distinguish one variant from another, read or access essential information, open the pack, remove or dispense the product, and in some cases close it again safely.

Each task points to a different engineering response.

High-contrast typography can improve visual information access, but it does not help someone who cannot locate the correct product on shelf. A tactile marker may help identify a pack by touch, but it does not provide ingredients or dosing instructions. An accessible digital code can provide detailed spoken information, but it does not make a difficult cap easier to open.

This is why accessibility needs to be considered at the beginning of structural and graphic development.

If it enters only after the dieline is approved, teams often discover that there is no suitable location for tactile information, no room to increase text size, or no way to reduce opening force without changing the closure.

At that point, accessibility becomes an accommodation exercise rather than part of the packaging architecture.

2. Easy-Open Packaging Is a Force-Control Problem

“Easy to open” sounds subjective, but the design variables behind it are physical.

Opening performance can depend on tear initiation, tab size, grip area, friction, peel strength, torque, material stiffness, perforation geometry, seal strength, and the sequence in which the pack is intended to move.

A small structural change can make a meaningful difference. A larger thumb area may reduce the precision needed to start an opening. A better tear-initiation point can reduce peak force. Changing the geometry of a flap can give the user more leverage without changing the material.

But easier opening always has a competing requirement.

A closure may also need to remain tamper-evident, leak-resistant, child-resistant, moisture-resistant, or secure during distribution. Reducing opening force without understanding these functions can improve one user interaction while weakening the packaging system.

This is particularly important for household chemicals, pharmaceuticals, food, and other products where closure performance has safety or product-protection consequences.

Engineering insight: accessibility should reduce unnecessary user effort, not necessary package performance.

The correct target is therefore not “minimum opening force”. It is an opening range that the intended users can operate while the pack continues to meet its other functional requirements.

3. Tactile Information Has to Survive Production

Tactile features can help users identify products or locate important parts of a package without relying entirely on sight. These may include embossed symbols, raised markers, distinctive surface areas, or Braille where appropriate.

But tactile information is only useful if it remains recognisable across normal production variation.

Emboss depth can change with board caliper, substrate stiffness, coating, tooling condition, pressure, and machine setup. Placing a tactile feature too close to a fold, cut, foil area, or other finishing process can introduce additional tolerance conflicts.

Braille also needs to be treated as a specification, not decoration. ISO 17351:2013, which remains current following review in 2024, provides requirements and guidance for Braille on packaging specifically for medicinal products. That standard should not be assumed to create a universal Braille requirement for every consumer category, but it illustrates an important principle: tactile information needs defined technical requirements if it is expected to work reliably. (iso.org)

This creates a production question that should be asked early:

Can the converter hold the tactile feature consistently while also maintaining the surrounding print, fold, cut, and surface requirements?

If not, changing position or simplifying the surrounding artwork may be more effective than demanding tighter tolerances from every process.

A tactile feature that exists on the artwork but disappears in normal production variation is not an accessibility feature.

4. Digital Accessibility Can Extend the Pack, but It Cannot Replace It

Digital tools can solve a different problem: limited physical information space.

NaviLens is one example already being used on consumer packaging. Its packaging implementation allows users to identify products and access information through a smartphone, including audio-supported content. Current NaviLens material shows applications across food, personal care, household products, and pharmaceutical packaging.

This can be useful where the physical pack contains dense information, multiple languages, detailed instructions, allergens, or other content that is difficult to make equally accessible within the available print area.

But the digital layer has limits.

It depends on a compatible device and a functioning digital information system. It also cannot replace every physical interaction. A consumer may still need to locate the opening point, distinguish the pack by touch, dispense the correct amount, or reclose the product.

Digital accessibility should therefore extend physical packaging, not become an excuse to leave the physical pack difficult to use.

It is also important to separate optional digital information from mandatory on-pack content. NaviLens itself describes its packaging application as an additional accessible layer rather than a replacement for information that must legally remain on the pack.

For packaging teams, this creates a useful division:

Physical design handles physical tasks. Digital access expands information access.

The strongest inclusive packs often use both.

5. Readability Is an Information-Hierarchy Decision

Improving readability is not simply a matter of choosing an “accessible font”.

Typeface matters, but so do size, contrast, line spacing, print quality, background interference, information grouping, and the amount of content competing for attention.

This becomes difficult on small packs or products sold across many markets. Brand communication, legal copy, ingredients, instructions, recycling information, barcodes, claims, and multilingual content may all compete for the same panel.

Increasing every text element equally usually does not solve the problem.

A better approach is to define an information hierarchy: what must be recognised immediately, what must be read during use, what is regulatory, and what can reasonably move to a secondary panel or connected digital layer where permitted.

The trade-off is real: readability versus information density versus brand minimalism.

For premium brands in particular, very restrained graphic systems can unintentionally push essential information into small, low-contrast areas. A visually quiet pack may look sophisticated but become difficult to navigate.

Accessibility does not require abandoning visual discipline. It requires deciding which information deserves priority.

6. A Practical Accessibility Decision Framework

Before approving an accessibility feature, review four questions.

Gate 1 — What User Task Is Difficult?

Identify the task first: product identification, variant differentiation, reading information, opening, dispensing, closing, or safe handling.

Decision rule: If the team cannot name the specific user task being improved, do not add a feature yet. DEFINE THE BARRIER first.

Gate 2 — Does the Solution Need to Be Physical?

If the difficulty involves grip, force, touch, opening sequence, product removal, or closure, the solution normally needs to be part of the physical package.

If the problem is access to large amounts of information, a digital layer may be able to supplement the printed pack.

Decision rule: Physical interaction problem → BUILD IN.
Information-access problem → consider PHYSICAL + DIGITAL.

Gate 3 — Does Accessibility Conflict with Another Critical Requirement?

Check tamper evidence, child resistance, barrier performance, structural strength, required labelling, line speed, and product protection.

Decision rule: If improving accessibility weakens a critical safety or performance requirement, REDESIGN rather than accepting the trade-off.

Gate 4 — Can Production Repeat the Result?

Validate opening force, tactile definition, print contrast, feature location, assembly variation, and code readability using production-intent samples rather than ideal prototypes.

Decision rule: If the accessibility benefit disappears within normal production tolerance, remain in PILOT.

The resulting actions are straightforward:

Decision	Appropriate Situation
BUILD IN	The user barrier is physical and must be solved through structure, closure, grip, tactile design, or layout
PHYSICAL + DIGITAL	Physical usability is acceptable but information access needs to be expanded
PILOT	The concept is promising, but opening force, tactile performance, scanning, or manufacturing repeatability still needs validation
REDESIGN	The accessibility improvement conflicts with safety, protection, mandatory information, or reliable production

This framework prevents two common mistakes: assuming every accessibility problem needs a digital solution, or assuming every accessibility improvement needs another physical feature.

Sometimes the best solution is simply a better opening geometry, clearer information hierarchy, or a more obvious tactile distinction between two existing surfaces.

Executive Insight: Accessibility Added Late Usually Costs More

For management teams, the commercial argument for considering accessibility early is not only social responsibility.

It is development efficiency.

If an easy-open requirement appears before the closure is finalised, it can be handled as part of the geometry. If it appears after tooling is complete, it may require new tooling.

If tactile identification is planned before the artwork and dieline are locked, the team can reserve a suitable production area. If it appears after foil, embossing, mandatory copy, and structural folds already occupy the panel, something else has to move.

If readability is considered when the information hierarchy is created, the layout can accommodate it. If it is added during final artwork approval, teams often end up shrinking another block of information to make room.

Accessibility is cheapest when it is a design input. It becomes expensive when it is a correction.

That principle is familiar elsewhere in packaging engineering. The same is true of recyclability, production tolerance, and transit performance.

Problems cost less when they are discovered while the structure can still change.

Consultant’s Note

When reviewing an accessible packaging concept, we would not start by asking whether the pack contains an accessibility feature.

We would put the pack in the user’s hand and watch the sequence.

Can the opening point be found without carefully inspecting the pack? Is the first action obvious? Does opening require fingertip precision? Does the pack move away when force is applied? Can the product be removed without holding the package in an awkward position? If it is reclosable, is there clear physical confirmation that it has closed?

Then repeat the review using normal production samples, not only the best prototype.

A feature can pass a design review and still fail the actual task.

The most useful accessibility test is therefore simple:

Can more people use the package independently, without making the package less safe or less reliable?

If the answer is yes, the design is moving in the right direction.