The blind spot of returns in retail

Inaccessible returns affect customers with disabilities

Returns and accessibility in ecommerce
– In 2024, U.S. retailers processed $890 billion in returns, equivalent to 16.9% of annual sales (NRF).
– The accessibility gap is structural: 94% of the world’s largest ecommerce sites do not meet basic accessibility requirements (Baymard Institute).
– For the 1.3 billion adults worldwide living with a disability, an inaccessible return is not a “detail”: it can force phone calls, store visits, or abandonment of the process.

• Returns are a massive phenomenon: in 2024, U.S. retailers processed $890 billion in returns, equivalent to 16.9% of annual sales (NRF).
• While checkout is often audited, post-purchase flows—return portals, forms, labels, tracking—fall off the radar.
• The gap is wide: 94% of the world’s largest ecommerce sites do not meet basic accessibility requirements (Baymard Institute).
• For customers with disabilities, a “simple” return may require phone calls, store visits, or abandonment, with a direct impact on revenue and reputation.

Figures and findings cited in this article come from the National Retail Federation (NRF) and research by the Baymard Institute, as indicated in each section.

The scale of returns in retail

Operational impact of returns
– What “16.9%” means in practice: it’s not an anomaly; it implies that a meaningful portion of annual volume “returns” to the system (logistics, refunds, inventory, support) and competes for resources with sales.
– Why the holiday peak matters: after high-volume campaigns, January concentrates returns and exchanges, increasing the load on portals, label generation, tracking, and customer service.
– Operational takeaway: if checkout is the first critical moment, the return is the second; when it fails, the cost is paid in contacts, time, and trust.

Returns are no longer an operational detail: they are a structural part of the retail business. The National Retail Federation (NRF) estimates that in 2024 U.S. retailers handled $890 billion in returned merchandise. During the holiday season, the percentage is usually even higher,

raising the pressure on systems, customer service, and logistics.

In that context, the returns process becomes a second “moment of truth” for the customer experience.

Accessibility challenges in the returns process

Frictionless returns accessibility
Quick checklist to spot typical blockers in returns (if you check 2+ boxes, there’s a real risk of abandonment):
– [ ] Do the form fields have labels (not just placeholders) and are they announced properly by a screen reader?
– [ ] Can the entire flow be completed using only the keyboard (tab/shift+tab/enter/space) without “trapping” focus?
– [ ] Do dropdowns, calendars, and selectors work with the keyboard and expose state/errors accessibly?
– [ ] Do the return label and instructions not depend on an image without a text alternative?
– [ ] Is the support chat/widget usable with a screen reader and does it not interrupt navigation?
– [ ] Are the PDFs (labels, receipts, instructions) readable with assistive technologies and do they not break when zoomed?
– [ ] Do error messages explain what happened and how to fix it, and are they associated with the correct field?

Accessibility is usually focused where it’s measured most: the purchase funnel. Product pages, cart, and checkout are reviewed. But when January arrives—and with it the peak in returns—many customers discover that the way back is full of obstacles.

Common barriers in returns portals

Failures repeat with familiar patterns in post-purchase experiences:

• Form fields without labels or unclear instructions, which make use with screen readers difficult.
• Dropdown menus and controls that don’t work properly with the keyboard, blocking those who don’t use a mouse.
• Image-based return labels without text alternatives, or flows that depend on visual elements.
• Chat widgets embedded in returns pages that are not compatible with screen readers.
• Label PDFs or documents generated by tools that produce inaccessible files, turning “print the label” into a barrier.

The result is that tasks others solve in minutes—starting a return, choosing a method, downloading a label, tracking the status—become a labyrinth.

Impact on customers with disabilities

For the 1.3 billion ofadults living with some disability worldwide, these frictions are not marginal: they turn routine management into an experience of frustration and wasted time.

When the digital channel fails, the alternative is usually worse: calling overloaded customer service lines or traveling to a store to solve what should be self-service. In practice, an unequal experience is created: ecommerce is accessible for buying, but not for undoing the purchase.

The disconnect between purchase and return

Causes of the End-to-End Break
Framework to find the root cause of the “break” between checkout and returns (4 fronts that usually break continuity):
– People (teams): purchase and post-purchase have different owners; no one “owns” end-to-end accessibility.
– Process (QA and releases): the purchase funnel is thoroughly tested, but returns are left off the release checklist.
– Technology (stacks): the returns portal and PDF/label generation use different components than checkout.
– Vendors (third parties): chat, portals, PDFs, or logistics are integrated as external modules and don’t always get included in accessibility testing.
Practical signal: if the flow depends on 2+ systems/vendors, assume accessibility can degrade “at the seams”.

The “blind spot” appears for an organizational and technological reason: post-purchase flows are often built separately. Returns portals, order status pages, refund requests, or exchanges may be:

• developed by different teams,
• built on different technologies,
• integrated with external providers,
• and, crucially, out of scope of pre-launch accessibility testing.

This is how continuity breaks: a customer can complete an accessible checkout and, immediately afterward, run into a returns portal they can’t operate. It’s not just a bad experience; it’s a brand contradiction.

Importance of the post-purchase accessibility audit

Quick Post-Purchase Audit
Mini post-purchase audit process (fast, repeatable, and aimed at finding real blockers):
1) Define the scope: return, exchange, refund, order status, label/PDF download, and contacting support.
2) Go through the flow as a user: start a return from start to finish (include intentional errors to see validations).
3) Test with the keyboard: complete each step without a mouse; verify visible focus, logical order, and

absence of “traps”.
4) Test with a screen reader: review labels, instructions, states (success/error), and complex controls (dropdowns, calendars).
5) Review documents: open/print the label or PDF and confirm that the content is readable and navigable with assistive technologies.
6) Validate integrations: chat/widget, tracking, callbacks, and any external provider within the flow.
7) Close with prioritization: classify findings as “blocks the return” vs. “degrades the experience,” and assign an owner and date.

The evidence suggests that the problem is not a lack of standards, but a lack of focus. According to cited research from the Baymard Institute, many of the world’s largest ecommerce sites fail basic accessibility requirements. If that happens in the main “storefront,” the risk multiplies in less visible areas such as returns and refunds.

Auditing post-purchase accessibility means looking at the entire journey, not just the moment of payment:

• returns and exchanges portals,
• refund forms,
• label download and reading,
• status tracking,
• communication and support,
• and error handling and validations.

In other words: accessibility must accompany the customer even when something goes wrong or when they change their mind.

Bob Farrell, VP of Solutions Delivery and Accessibility at Applause, has pointed out (from his work in accessibility testing and quality assurance) that these post-purchase flows often get left out of pre-launch testing, despite being critical to the complete experience.

Consequences of the lack of accessibility in returns

Inaccessibility in returns is not an isolated “technical” problem. It’s a leak of revenue and trust that happens after checkout, when many companies let their guard down.

Effects on customer loyalty

When a customer can’t return autonomously, the emotional and time cost translates into future purchasing decisions. The article cites a key data point: 54% of consumers with disabilities are more likely to buy from companies that adopt inclusive values. The relationship is direct: perceived accessibility = trust = repeat purchases.

Conversely, an inaccessible return can turn a successful purchase into the last order.

Reputation in the disability community

Reputation travels fast, especially in connected communities. Negative experiences—and positive ones too—are shared. When a brand forces someone to “make a call” or “go to the store” to complete a return, the implicit message is clear: digital self-service isn’t designed for everyone.

That reputational impact isn’t limited to one segment: many accessibility improvements benefit mobile users, older people, multitasking customers, or anyone facing confusing forms and poorly explained errors.

Necessary improvements in return flows

Gradual improvement of the returns flow
Phased plan to improve returns without “redoing everything”:
– Phase 1 (quick wins, 1–3 sprints):
– Fix field labels, instructions, and reading order.
– Ensure keyboard navigation (including visible focus) at each step.
– Improve error messages (clear, actionable, and associated with the field).
– Add text alternatives where there is visual dependency.
– Phase 2 (stabilization, 1–2 releases):
– Review/update problematic UI components (dropdowns, calendars, modals).
– Validate chat and embedded support with assistive technologies.
– Fix PDFs/labels from the generating tool (not only“manual patches”).
– Phase 3 (structural change, ongoing):
– Include post-purchase in the standard scope of accessibility testing before launch.
– Define an end-to-end flow owner and fix SLAs.
– Require accessibility criteria from vendors (portals, chat, PDFs, logistics) as part of integration.
Success checkpoint: a user can start, complete, and track a return without relying on a call or store.

The good news is that improving accessibility in returns does not always require rebuilding systems from scratch. The most effective approach is usually incremental and based on failure points:

• Consistent labeling and semantic structure in forms and flow steps.
• Full keyboard navigation and visible focus on all interactive components.
• Clear error messages associated with the corresponding field, with actionable instructions.
• Text alternatives for critical visual elements (for example, labels or instructions).
• Real compatibility of chat and embedded support with assistive technologies.
• Accessible documents (especially PDFs) when they are part of the process.

In addition, it is worth reviewing real-time communication barriers: systems that rely only on visual indicators or rigid timing can exclude users who interact at different paces.

The business case for accessible returns

Accessible returns, measurable impact
– Measurable loyalty: the article cites that 54% of consumers with disabilities are more likely to buy from companies with inclusive values; an accessible return protects that repeat business.
– Avoidable cost: when self-service fails, the return “jumps” to calls or store, which are usually more expensive and slower channels than a well-designed digital flow.
– Risk at scale: with $890 billion in returns (NRF), even small post-purchase frictions are amplified in volume, contacts, and reputation.

Accessible returns are not just “doing the right thing”: they are a business decision. In a market where returns represent hundreds of billions, every post-purchase friction can turn into:

• abandonment of future purchases,
• increased customer support costs,
• more store visits for avoidable issues,
• and loss of reputation.

Accessibility also tends to improve the overall experience: clearer forms, navigationmore predictable and better error handling reduce friction for everyone, not just for people with disabilities.

The message is simple: if a company invests in an accessible checkout to win customers in December, it shouldn’t lose them in January because of a returns portal they can’t use.

The importance of accessibility in retail

Accessibility doesn’t end when payment is confirmed. In modern retail, the full experience includes what happens afterward: exchanges, returns, refunds, and support.

Challenges in the returns process

The main challenge is the lack of continuity: post-purchase systems built in parallel, with less testing and lower priority, create repeatable barriers—forms, keyboard, chat, PDFs—that block customer autonomy.

Benefits of an inclusive approach

An inclusive approach protects revenue and brand: it improves loyalty, reduces friction and support costs, and strengthens reputation in communities that actively share their experiences. It also raises the quality of the digital product for the overall user base.

Strategies to improve accessibility

The most effective strategy combines auditing and execution:

• audit post-purchase flows with the same rigor as the checkout,
• prioritize the most frequent blocking points,
• integrate accessibility testing into releases and changes,
• and ensure that vendors and tools (chat, PDFs, portals) meet requirements from the design stage.

In an environment where returning is part of the shopping habit, making returns accessible isn’t an extra: it’s a condition for not losing the customer right after having won them.

The blind spot of returns in retail is a reminder that accessibility must also be sustained in post-purchase flows—throughout the entire journey—so as not to break the brand promise. From Suricata Cx’s experience in automating conversational journeys with human control and operational integrations, this “end-to-end” perspective is what turns a returns procedure into a truly inclusive and consistent experience.

Framed from omnichannel CX operations, the focus here is on how post-purchase friction points (forms, documents, chat, and handoffs to agents) become systemic failures when they are not tested and governed with the same rigor as the checkout.