This site is a home for ideas, frameworks, and critiques that sit at the intersection of assistive technology, accessibility, disability culture, and human‑centered design. It exists because compliance alone - checklists, standards, and minimum requirements - has never been enough to produce real access.

In education, healthcare, and technology systems, we often mistake technical alignment for human understanding. We meet the letter of the law while missing the lived experience of the person in front of us. We adopt tools without interrogating how they shape thinking, language, identity, or participation. We call something accessible because it technically functions, even when it cognitively, culturally, or relationally fails.

My work asks a different question: What happens when we design and evaluate access through meaning, not just mechanics?

Much of my writing focuses on Assistive Technology, particularly AAC, not as a set of tools, but as cognitive infrastructure. How language is accessed matters. How automaticity is achieved matters. How systems support (or constrain) thought, expression, regulation, and agency matters. When access is reduced to motor plans, workflows, or procedural compliance, we risk optimizing movement while ignoring meaning.

I propose frameworks that decouple access from narrow assumptions: that speed only comes from repetition, that competence must be proven linearly, and that accommodation is an exception rather than a design principle. This includes emerging concepts such as human‑centered accessibility, radial access to vocabulary, and treating AAC and AT as dynamic, adaptive systems rather than static products.

This work is grounded in practice - with students, educators, clinicians, and families - but it is also intentionally public, portable, and citable. These ideas are meant to travel: into classrooms, policy conversations, conference rooms, and design teams.

From Compliance to Culture is an invitation to what must come next.

Culture shapes whether people are welcomed or merely permitted, understood or simply accommodated, supported as whole humans or reduced to technical requirements. Culture lives in daily decisions: how tools are selected and implemented, how language is used, how competence is presumed, how collaboration unfolds across roles and disciplines.

My stance is intentionally collaborative and practice‑grounded. I am an advocate because I see where systems fail people. I am a collaborator because sustainable change does not happen in isolation. And I do this work because I love it, because I believe accessibility, when approached with curiosity and care, can become a shared professional ethic rather than an external mandate.

This work argues for continuity: from law to practice, from standards to understanding, from compliance to culture.

If accessibility is going to matter in a rapidly changing technological landscape, it cannot remain a checklist. It has to become a shared way of thinking.

- Radmila