First define "accessibility"--it is self-representation, the ability to participate in process from its start. People denied access to process (i.e. board membership, voting capacity in an organization), are generally denied access at other levels.
        If membership is not accessible in by-laws, accessibility on any other level is moot. Language often constricts membership: Women not too long ago did not sit on boards. People of African descent did not. The only barrier in their way was word. It took civil rights movements to remove the words that were the barrier.
       Architectural access, the removal of physical barriers to participation, is then a great concern. Once the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation opened board membership to a person with a dis-ability, they then encountered the physical barriers personally: The site for their meeting was not accessible. They would not have known had they not made membership on the board "accessible".
       The most infamous language of inaccessibility in the US was " Whites Only".
       People who have a legally defined dis-ability, have broad concerns about accessibility: What a person who employs a wheeled chair needs is vastly different from someone with a severe hearing impairment, or...name the disability.
      If I were to offer one suggestion it would be, " Know the audience you are addressing and ask yourself, am I contributing in any way to inaccessibility at  a meeting."  Sometimes, the inaccessibility is a priori. That is the most difficult to address, because a decision has already been made. Robert Wood Johnson's decision to in-clude was made a priori, after many years of language that made their meetings in-accessible. People are still making that mistake.

Harold A. Maio