Inclusion and Accessibility in Institutional Communication: Study of the Official Facebook Accounts of Ecuadorian Public Institutions

Abstract

Social media have become central tools for government communication; however, they also present significant accessibility challenges for people with disabilities, particularly those with visual impairments. This study analyzes inclusive communication and digital accessibility practices in the official Facebook accounts of six Ecuadorian public institutions. A mixed-methods approach was employed, combining documentary analysis, a focus group with visually impaired users, and content analysis of 2429 Facebook posts published between 2023 and 2025. The analysis was conducted using four dimensions: propositional communication, copywriting, images, and videos. The results show that most publications only partially comply with accessibility criteria. While progress was identified in the use of clear and accessible language in textual content, significant deficiencies persist in multimedia content, particularly in the lack of alternative text, subtitles, and audio descriptions. The study concludes that inclusive communication in Ecuadorian public institutions remains fragmented and is not yet implemented as a cross-cutting public communication policy.

1. Introduction

Social media have become fundamental tools for government communication, facilitating the dissemination of public information and interaction between institutions and citizens. In Latin America, these platforms have increasingly been incorporated into public communication strategies, creating new opportunities for citizen engagement and access to government services [1].

In Ecuador, the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) has experienced sustained growth over the last decade. As of January 2025, the country had approximately 15.2 million Internet users, representing 83.7% of the population, while active social media identities reached 13.5 million, equivalent to 74% of the national population [2]. Within this context, Facebook has become one of the most widely used digital platforms by public institutions, serving as a strategic channel for disseminating information and interacting with citizens.

Despite this expansion, significant challenges remain regarding equitable access to institutional digital communication. These challenges are particularly relevant for persons with disabilities, who may encounter barriers when digital content is not designed according to accessibility principles [3]. In Ecuador, approximately 1.1 million people live with some form of disability, with visual disability representing an important proportion of this population [4].

Although the Ecuadorian regulatory framework recognizes the right of persons with disabilities to access information under equal conditions and promotes the adoption of accessible communication practices [5] previous studies suggest that the implementation of such measures within institutional social media remains uneven [6]. Consequently, barriers to accessing public information may persist despite technological advances and legal guarantees.

Given the strategic role of Facebook in public communication and the growing importance of digital inclusion, it becomes necessary to evaluate the extent to which accessibility principles are incorporated into institutional communication practices. Therefore, this study analyzes the accessibility of Facebook content published by Ecuadorian public institutions, seeking to identify the strategies used to promote inclusive communication and the barriers that continue to affect people with visual disabilities.

1.1. Inclusive Communication

Inclusive communication is defined as the set of practices, resources, and strategies that guarantee access to information and participation for all people, regardless of their physical, sensory, cognitive, cultural, or linguistic conditions [7]. In digital environments, this approach requires communication processes to be designed according to principles of accessibility and universal inclusion.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [8] recognizes access to information and communication as a fundamental right. In line with this framework, Ecuador has incorporated accessibility principles into its regulatory system through the Organic Law on Disabilities, which establishes the obligation of public institutions to provide accessible communication channels [5].

Authors such as [9] argue that inclusive communication extends beyond technical accessibility, as it is closely related to social inclusion and democratic participation. From this perspective, barriers in digital communication environments may restrict not only access to information but also citizens’ capacity to participate in public life. Consequently, analyzing institutional communication requires considering both technological accessibility and the broader conditions that enable meaningful participation.

1.2. Social Media, Inclusive Communication, and Digital Accessibility

Social media have become central spaces for institutional communication, allowing governments to disseminate information and interact with citizens in real time. Their democratic potential, however, depends on the capacity to ensure accessibility for diverse audiences, including persons with disabilities [10,11,12].

Digital accessibility refers to the design and adaptation of digital environments so that all users can access, perceive, understand, and interact with content regardless of their abilities [13]. Within social media platforms, accessibility practices include alternative text for images, video captions, screen-reader compatibility, accessible color contrast, and clear language [9].

Although Facebook incorporates several accessibility features, previous studies indicate that their effectiveness depends largely on how institutional administrators implement them [14]. Therefore, accessibility should be understood not only as a technological feature of platforms but also as an institutional responsibility in the production and dissemination of content [10].

1.3. Digital Inequalities, Accessibility, and Digital Governance

The analysis of inclusive communication in institutional Facebook accounts requires a broader theoretical framework that connects digital accessibility with digital inequalities and digital governance. Traditional approaches to the digital divide have evolved beyond concerns regarding physical access to technologies and now emphasize differences in skills, usage patterns, participation, and outcomes derived from digital engagement. Within this perspective, refs. [15,16,17] conceptualizes the digital divide as a sequential process involving motivational, material, skills-based, and usage access, all conditioned by social, cultural, economic, and cognitive resources. Consequently, digital inclusion cannot be assessed solely through connectivity indicators but must also consider individuals’ ability to effectively use digital environments and benefit from them.

Building upon this approach, refs. [18,19,20] argue that digital inequalities are strongly associated with differences in operational, informational, strategic, and navigation skills. Their work demonstrates that access to digital platforms does not necessarily translate into effective participation, since users may encounter difficulties locating, interpreting, and applying information. Similarly, refs. [21,22,23] identifies a second-level digital divide associated with disparities in online skills and information retrieval capacities among individuals who are already connected. From this perspective, the effectiveness of institutional communication on Facebook depends not only on the availability of information but also on citizens’ capacity to access, understand, and use that information for civic purposes.

Ref. [24] further expands this discussion by proposing that digital exclusion mirrors broader forms of social exclusion. According to her corresponding fields model, inequalities in digital participation are interconnected with economic, social, cultural, and personal disadvantages. Therefore, the absence of accessibility features in institutional communication may reinforce pre-existing inequalities by limiting the participation of groups that already experience structural disadvantages, including persons with disabilities. This perspective is particularly relevant for evaluating social media communication because it shifts the focus from technological availability to the social outcomes generated by digital participation.

From the perspective of digital governance, accessibility also acquires a democratic dimension. Ref. [25] argue that the transition toward the information society requires the adaptation of constitutional principles to digital environments, emphasizing transparency, accountability, and citizens’ rights to information. Their concept of the digital constitutional state suggests that public institutions retain their obligations of intelligibility, transparency, and democratic responsibility even when communication occurs through private digital platforms such as Facebook. Consequently, accessibility should not be understood merely as a technical feature but as a prerequisite for the effective exercise of information rights and democratic participation. In this sense, evaluating accessibility in institutional Facebook accounts provides not only an assessment of communication quality but also an indicator of digital inclusion, governance performance, and democratic legitimacy in contemporary digital societies.

1.4. Digital Governance and Inclusive Public Communication

Digital governance refers to the integration of digital technologies into public administration processes with the aim of improving transparency, efficiency, and citizen participation [26,27]. Within this framework, institutional communication serves as a key interface between governments and citizens.

Recent literature emphasizes that digital transformation should not be assessed solely in terms of technological modernization but also according to its capacity to promote inclusion and equitable access [28,29]. From this perspective, accessibility becomes an indicator of governance quality because it reflects the extent to which public institutions guarantee equal opportunities for participation and access to information.

Accordingly, accessible public communication should be understood as an essential component of digital governance. By ensuring that institutional content is available to all citizens, including persons with visual disabilities, governments strengthen transparency, democratic participation, and the effective exercise of digital rights [30,31].

Despite the growing recognition of digital accessibility as a fundamental component of inclusive communication, limited evidence exists regarding the extent to which public institutions incorporate accessibility practices into their social media communication, particularly in the Ecuadorian context. To address this gap, the present study seeks to answer the following research questions:

RQ1: To what extent do Facebook posts published by Ecuadorian public institutions incorporate inclusive communication and digital accessibility practices for people with visual disabilities?

RQ2: Which dimensions of inclusive communication—propositional communication, copywriting, images, and videos—present the greatest strengths and weaknesses in the Facebook communication strategies of Ecuadorian public institutions?

By addressing these questions, this study contributes to the understanding of how public institutions integrate accessibility principles into their digital communication practices and provides empirical evidence on the current state of inclusive communication in Ecuadorian governmental social media.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

The present study adopted a mixed-methods approach, integrating quantitative and qualitative techniques to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the object of analysis. This type of design allows for data triangulation and increases the validity of findings [32]. The research applied two sequential and complementary phases, ranging from the construction of analysis instruments to the empirical evaluation of social media posts [33].

2.2. Qualitative Phase

The first phase consisted of documentary research aimed at identifying the main international criteria for inclusive communication in digital environments. Reports and guidelines issued by international organizations such as the World Health Organization, the United Nations, and the International Telecommunication Union were reviewed [34]. This analysis made it possible to compile guidelines related to digital accessibility, inclusive language, and best practices on social media.

Subsequently, the researchers conducted a focus group consisting of seven people with visual disabilities, all officially registered as such and active users of social media. The purpose of this phase was twofold: (a) to identify the social media platform most frequently used by this population, and (b) to establish criteria for determining whether a digital post could be considered inclusive. The session was conducted following ethical and methodological protocols recommended for research involving vulnerable populations [35].

The findings obtained from the documentary review and focus group enabled the identification of relevant accessibility and inclusive communication criteria, which served as the basis for developing a preliminary content analysis matrix.

The preliminary content analysis matrix was subsequently submitted to an expert validation process involving specialists in digital communication, accessible communication, and inclusion. Experts assessed each indicator according to three criteria: relevance, clarity, and adequacy, using a five-point evaluation scale ranging from 1 (low) to 5 (high). In addition to quantitative ratings, the experts provided qualitative observations regarding the wording, applicability, and accessibility relevance of the proposed indicators. Based on their recommendations, several indicators were refined to improve conceptual precision and applicability to the analysis of Facebook content. Adjustments included the reformulation of indicators related to hashtags, visual accessibility, alternative text descriptions, and accessibility criteria associated with images, videos, and textual content. The expert review also led to the elimination, reformulation, or clarification of indicators that could generate ambiguity when evaluating content accessibility for users with visual impairments. The final version of the matrix consisted of four analytical dimensions encompassing indicators related to propositional communication, copywriting, images, and videos, which served as the basis for the content analysis. This validation process strengthened the reliability, clarity, and methodological consistency of the instrument [36].

To facilitate the interpretation of the findings, the level of compliance with the validated indicators was analyzed using five qualitative performance categories (Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor). These categories were applied to assess the extent to which the analyzed Facebook posts incorporated inclusive communication and accessibility practices. The classification criteria used throughout the study are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Factors and Indicators Analyzed in Each Post.

Factors	Indicators
F1 Propositional Communication	Posts include stories, examples, or mentions that portray blind people in a positive, normalized, and non-stereotyped way.
	The content reflects a commitment to promoting diversity and accessibility.
F2 Copy	The text is brief, concise, and presents the main information at the beginning.
	The text uses simple language without technical jargon.
	Posts use headings or subtitles that facilitate navigation.
	Posts avoid ambiguous phrases such as “Click here” and provide clear context about the expected action.
	The text does not overuse capital letters or italics.
	Hashtags are placed at the end of the post text.
	The first letter of each hashtag is capitalized.
	Shared links include clear descriptions indicating where they lead.
	The use of emojis is moderate and does not interfere with reading.
	Emojis are placed at the end of sentences, avoiding inserting them within the text.
F3. Image	Infographics, charts, organizational charts, diagrams, illustrations, and maps visually complement textual information, including descriptions and links where expanded information can be found.
	Images use contrast so that people with low vision can better identify text.
	Published images include clear, relevant, and contextual descriptions in the alternative text.
F4. Video	Posts containing videos offer a full transcription of spoken content.
	Shared videos include audio descriptions narrating important visual actions.

Note. Prepared by the authors.

Before the coding process began, the research team received specialized training from experts from Fundación ONCE (Spain) and the National Council for the Equality of Disabilities (CONADIS). The training focused on digital accessibility standards, inclusive communication principles, and the interpretation of the indicators included in the validated content analysis matrix. This preparatory stage sought to ensure the consistent application of the coding criteria and to strengthen the reliability of the content analysis process.

2.3. Quantitative Phase

In the second phase, the validated content analysis matrix was applied to Facebook posts published by government entities. The study focused on six public institutions belonging to the social sector of the Ecuadorian government, as these organizations regularly disseminate information related to public services, social policies, and populations in vulnerable situations, including persons with disabilities. This decision was also informed by the results of the focus group, whose participants identified these institutions as relevant sources of public information. A purposive sampling strategy was employed to select the six public institutions included in this study. The selection criteria focused on institutions that maintain continuous communication with the public, particularly addressing populations with special needs, including persons with visual disabilities. Once the institutions were selected intentionally, all original Facebook posts published by these institutions during the defined observation period were included in the analysis. This approach constitutes a census of the available institutional content rather than a random or probabilistic sample, ensuring that every post within the defined timeframe was considered for the study.

This clarification distinguishes clearly between the intentional selection of institutions and the complete inclusion of all posts from those institutions, avoiding potential confusion regarding the sampling methodology.

The corpus included the following institutions:

• Ministry of Education (MINEDUC)
• Ministry of Urban Development and Housing (MIDUVI)
• Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and Fisheries (MAGAP)
• Ministry of Economic and Social Inclusion (MIES)
• Ministry of Public Health (MSP)
• National Council for the Equality of Disabilities (CONADIS)

The observation period corresponded to the first year of President Daniel Noboa’s administration and was divided into four consecutive intervals:

• November 2023–February 2024
• March 2024–June 2024
• July 2024–October 2024
• November 2024–February 2025

A purposive sampling strategy was employed to select Facebook posts published during the observation period. Only original posts disseminated through the official Facebook accounts of the selected institutions were included in the analysis. The sampling process focused on posts that constituted official institutional communication and were available at the time of data collection. The final corpus consisted of 2429 Facebook posts.

The six institutions were selected because they belong to the social policy sector of the Ecuadorian government and maintain continuous communication with populations in vulnerable situations, including persons with disabilities. All original posts published during the observation period were included, resulting in a census of available institutional content rather than a probabilistic sample.

Each post was evaluated according to four dimensions and their corresponding indicators: propositional communication, copywriting, images, and videos, as detailed in Table 1. The evaluation was conducted using the classification criteria presented in Table 2. Before the coding process began, the research team received specialized training from experts from Fundación ONCE (Spain) and the National Council for the Equality of Disabilities (CONADIS) to ensure the consistent interpretation and application of the validated indicators included in the instrument.

Table 2. Interpretation Criteria for Inclusive Communication Ratings.

Rating Category	Interpretation
Excellent	The publication demonstrates a comprehensive and consistent implementation of the accessibility and inclusive communication indicators established for the evaluated dimension.
Very Good	The publication complies with most of the indicators and presents only minor limitations in terms of accessibility or inclusion.
Good	The publication incorporates several inclusive communication indicators, although relevant aspects of accessibility remain insufficiently addressed.
Fair	The publication shows limited compliance with the established indicators and only partially facilitates accessible communication.
Poor	The publication demonstrates minimal or no compliance with the accessibility and inclusive communication indicators, creating significant barriers to information access and participation.

Note. The categories were used to classify the degree of compliance with the indicators included in the content analysis matrix. The indicators were previously validated through expert judgment involving specialists in accessible communication and inclusion.

To operationalize the analysis of inclusive communication on social media, a content analysis matrix was developed and validated through documentary review, focus group discussions, and expert judgment. Table 1 summarizes the dimensions and indicators that guided the evaluation of Facebook posts. These dimensions reflect the main accessibility and inclusion criteria identified in the literature and by participants with visual disabilities, providing a structured framework for assessing institutional communication practices in digital environments.

To facilitate the interpretation of the findings, Table 2 outlines the classification framework used to evaluate the level of compliance with the inclusive communication indicators. The framework was developed following the expert validation of the content analysis matrix and provides qualitative descriptions of the five performance categories applied throughout the study. These categories served as a standardized mechanism for assessing the extent to which institutional Facebook posts incorporated accessibility and inclusive communication practices.

2.4. Procedure and Data Analysis

The procedure was developed sequentially. First, posts were collected and systematized. Then, they were evaluated according to the criteria established for each factor, under the categories of excellent, very good, good, fair, and poor. Finally, the data were entered into Excel and later into SPSS version 30 to perform descriptive statistical analysis. The combination of these tools facilitated the obtaining of consistent quantitative results, in accordance with the logic of the design [34].

2.5. Ethical Considerations

The research followed internationally recognized ethical standards [37]. All focus group participants signed an informed consent form that guaranteed the protection of their privacy, data confidentiality, and the exclusive use of the information for academic and scientific purposes. In addition, the study promoted the active participation of people with disabilities in defining the analysis criteria, in order to ensure an inclusive and participatory approach throughout the research process.

3. Results

The results show differences in communication activity among institutions. Most posts were classified as fair in terms of inclusive communication. Copywriting showed better accessibility results, while images and videos presented significant accessibility barriers, particularly due to the absence of alternative text, subtitles, and audio descriptions.

3.1. Distribution of Posts by Institution

Table 3 presents the distribution of the 2429 Facebook posts analyzed across the six public institutions included in the study. Examining the volume of publications allows for the identification of differences in institutional communication activity and provides contextual information for interpreting subsequent analyses of inclusive communication practices.

Table 3. Total Number of Posts.

Institution	Number of Posts/Frequency (n)	Percentage (%)
National Council for the Equality of Disabilities (CONADIS)	412	16.96%
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and Fisheries (MAGAP)	387	15.93%
Ministry of Urban Development and Housing (MIDUVI)	433	17.83%
Ministry of Economic and Social Inclusion (MIES)	365	15.03%
Ministry of Education (MINEDUC)	539	22.19%
Ministry of Public Health (MSP)	293	12.06%
Grand Total	2429	100%

Note: Number and percentage of posts analyzed.

The analysis of the distribution of the total 2429 posts published by the official Facebook accounts of the six public institutions shows significant differences in the level of communication activity. The Ministry of Education (MINEDUC) accounts for the highest proportion, with 539 posts (22.19%), reflecting intensive use of the platform as an institutional dissemination channel. The Ministry of Urban Development and Housing (MIDUVI) ranks second with 433 posts (17.83%), followed by the National Council for the Equality of Disabilities (CONADIS) with 412 posts (16.96%). These institutions maintain an active digital presence compared to other ministries.

In the intermediate range are the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and Fisheries (MAGAP) with 387 posts (15.93%) and the Ministry of Economic and Social Inclusion (MIES) with 365 posts (15.03%). Finally, the Ministry of Public Health (MSP) records the lowest level of activity, with 293 posts (12.06%), reflecting lower digital interaction.

3.2. Propositional Communication

Table 4 summarizes the results of the propositional communication dimension across the analyzed institutions. This dimension evaluates the extent to which posts incorporate positive, normalized, and non-stereotypical representations of people with visual disabilities, as well as content that promotes diversity and accessibility.

Table 4. Distribution of Propositional Communication Ratings Across Institutions.

PC.		CONADIS	MAGAP	MIDUVI	MIES	MINEDUC	MSP	Total
G	Count	262	134	1	3	66	9	475
	% within Institution	63.6%	34.6%	0.2%	0.8%	12.2%	3.1%	19.6%
P	Count	75	132	430	347	299	269	1552
	% within Institution	18.2%	34.1%	99.3%	95.1%	55.5%	91.8%	63.9%
E	Count	16	0	0	4	5	0	25
	% within Institution	3.9%	0.0%	0.0%	1.1%	0.9%	0.0%	1.0%
VG	Count	8	16	1	1	0	5	31
	% within Institution	1.9%	4.1%	0.2%	0.3%	0.0%	1.7%	1.3%
F	Count	51	105	1	10	169	10	346
	% within Institution	12.4%	27.1%	0.2%	2.7%	31.4%	3.4%	14.2%
Grand Total	Count	412	387	433	365	539	293	2429
	% within Institution	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

Abbreviations: E = Excellent, VG = Very Good, G = Good, F = Fair, P = Poor. Note: Number and percentage of propositional communication in posts from the analyzed institutions.

The propositional communication variable included two subvariables: (a) posts that incorporate stories, examples, or references that present blind people in a positive, normalized, and non-stereotyped way; and (b) content that expresses a commitment to promoting diversity and accessibility. The analysis shows that, overall, the evaluated ministries do not achieve significant performance in either dimension. Most posts fall into the Poor category (63.9%), followed by Good (19.6%). This result indicates that although there are isolated efforts toward inclusive communication, the dominant practice continues to reproduce purely informative and administrative messages. The higher categories, Excellent (1%) and Very Good (1.3%), lack representativeness, demonstrating that propositional communication in the Ecuadorian public sector is an exceptional rather than a structural phenomenon.

3.3. Inclusive Communication

Table 5 presents the overall assessment of inclusive communication based on the combined evaluation of the four dimensions analyzed in this study: propositional communication, copywriting, images, and videos. The table provides an integrated overview of the level of inclusiveness achieved by the institutions in their Facebook communication practices.

Table 5. Comprehensive Evaluation of Inclusive Communication.

CE		CONADIS	MAGAP	MIDUVI	MIES	MINEDUC	MSP	Total
G	Count	229	44	5	4	22	9	313
	% within Institution	55.6%	11.4%	1.2%	1.1%	4.1%	3.1%	12.9%
P	Count	3	3	24	105	8	30	173
	% within Institution	0.7%	0.8%	5.5%	28.8%	1.5%	10.2%	7.1%
VG	Count	8	2	0	0	0	0	10
	% within Institution	1.9%	0.5%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.4%
F	Count	172	338	404	256	509	254	1933
	% within Institution	41.7%	87.3%	93.3%	70.1%	94.4%	86.7%	79.6%
Grand Total	Count	412	387	433	365	539	293	2429
	% within Institution	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

Abbreviations: VG = Very Good, G = Good, F = Fair, P = Poor. Note: Number and percentages of all analyzed indicators.

The comprehensive evaluation table brings together the results of four key dimensions of inclusive communication: propositional communication, copy, images, and videos. The data show that most posts fall into the Fair category (79.6%), followed by Good (12.9%) and Poor (7.1%), while higher performance categories, Very Good (0.4%) and Excellent (0%), are practically nonexistent. This pattern shows that although there is constant communication production, the inclusive quality of posts is limited and, in most cases, insufficient to guarantee accessibility and diversity in digital messages.

3.4. Images Evaluation of Images with Inclusion Criteria

Table 6 displays the evaluation of images according to inclusive communication criteria. The analysis considers the presence of alternative text, the accessibility of infographics and visual resources, and the use of adequate visual contrast to facilitate access for people with visual impairments.

Table 6. Evaluation of Images with Inclusion Criteria by Institution.

Images		CONADIS	MAGAP	MIDUVI	MIES	MINEDUC	MSP	Total
G	Count	13	58	129	67	69	164	500
	% within Institution	3.2%	15.0%	29.8%	18.4%	12.8%	56.0%	20.6%
P	Count	58	212	132	227	162	46	837
	% within Institution	14.1%	54.8%	30.5%	62.2%	30.1%	15.7%	34.5%
E	Count	197	2	0	0	0	0	199
	% within Institution	47.8%	0.5%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	8.2%
VG	Count	13	8	7	5	0	22	55
	% within Institution	3.2%	2.1%	1.6%	1.4%	0.0%	7.5%	2.3%
F	Count	131	107	165	66	308	61	838
	% within Institution	31.8%	27.6%	38.1%	18.1%	57.1%	20.8%	34.5%
Grand Total	Count	412	387	433	365	539	293	2429
	% within Institution	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

Abbreviations: E = Excellent, VG = Very Good, G = Good, F = Fair, P = Poor. Note: Numbers and percentages from the image analysis.

The table on images with inclusion criteria reflects the performance of six Ecuadorian public institutions in the application of inclusive criteria in their graphic posts, considering the three sub-variables mentioned: use of alternative text, informational support in infographics, and visual contrast. The results show a heterogeneous distribution, where the Poor (34.5%) and Fair (34.5%) categories predominate, meaning that more than two-thirds of graphic posts do not adequately meet basic accessibility parameters. The Good category (20.6%) ranks third, while higher ratings, Very Good (2.3%) and Excellent (8.2%), are in the minority, showing that inclusive quality in the use of images is fair and even poor.

In the institutional comparison, relevant contrasts are identified. CONADIS leads in relative terms: 47.8% of its graphic posts reach the Excellent category and 3.2% fall into Good, reflecting a sustained effort to ensure images with descriptions, visual contrast, and complementary graphic resources. At the opposite end, ministries such as MIES (62.2%) and MIDUVI (30.5%) concentrate most of their posts in the Poor category, revealing deep shortcomings in meeting accessibility standards. MAGAP presents an intermediate profile, with 54.8% in Poor and 15% in Good, while MINEDUC (57.1% Fair; 30.1% Poor) is mostly in lower ranges, with only 12.8% in Good. Finally, MSP stands out with contrasting percentages, 56% in Good, but simultaneously 15.7% in Poor and 20.8% in Fair, reflecting inconsistent results. It is important to note that only CONADIS and MAGAP show percentages in the Excellent category in the analysis of their graphic posts.

These findings allow us to state that the use of images by Ecuadorian ministries is far from constituting a consolidated, inclusive practice. Although cases such as CONADIS show a significant frequency in the Excellent category, most institutions maintain a fair or poor level in the application of basic criteria such as alternative text, clarity in infographics, and visual contrast.

3.5. Videos

Table 7 presents the results of the evaluation of video accessibility. The analysis focuses on the incorporation of accessibility features such as audio descriptions and content transcriptions, which are essential for ensuring equitable access to audiovisual information.

Table 7. Evaluation of the Quality of Inclusive Videos.

Videos		CONADIS	MAGAP	MIDUVI	MIES	MINEDUC	MSP	Total
G	Count	6	32	27	34	76	22	197
	% within Institution	1.5%	8.3%	6.2%	9.3%	14.1%	7.5%	8.1%
P	Count	395	345	371	324	456	262	2153
	% within Institution	95.9%	89.1%	85.7%	88.8%	84.6%	89.4%	88.6%
E	Count	9	7	0	0	3	0	19
	% within Institution	2.2%	1.8%	0.0%	0.0%	0.6%	0.0%	0.8%
VG	Count	0	1	6	5	1	4	17
	% within Institution	0.0%	0.3%	1.4%	1.4%	0.2%	1.4%	0.7%
F	Count	2	2	29	2	3	5	43
	% within Institution	0.5%	0.5%	6.7%	0.5%	0.6%	1.7%	1.8%
Grand Total	Count	412	387	433	365	539	293	2429
	% within Institution	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

Abbreviations: E = Excellent, VG = Very Good, G = Good, F = Fair, P = Poor. Note: Numbers and percentages from the analysis of inclusive videos.

The data reflect the application of inclusive criteria in audiovisual posts from six Ecuadorian public institutions. Considering the two subvariables—use of audio descriptions and provision of content transcriptions—the results show a critical panorama: the Poor category (88.6%) accounts for the vast majority of posts, while the Good (8.1%) and Excellent (0.8%) categories appear only occasionally. Higher levels such as Very Good (0.7%) and Fair (1.8%) are also low, showing the almost total absence of consistent strategies to guarantee audiovisual accessibility.

The institutional analysis reveals that all ministries present very high percentages in the Poor category. CONADIS registers the highest value with 95.9%, followed closely by MSP (89.4%), MAGAP (89.1%), and MIES (88.8%). Although slightly lower, the percentages for MIDUVI (85.7%) and MINEDUC (84.6%) also reflect limited compliance. The number of videos classified as Good is low across all ministries, with MINEDUC standing out with 14.1% in this category. The Excellent category appears only in CONADIS (2.2%), MAGAP (1.8%), and MINEDUC (0.6%), while Very Good appears sporadically in MIDUVI (1.4%), MIES (1.4%), MINEDUC (0.2%), and MSP (1.4%), without reaching significant weight overall.

These results allow us to conclude that the audiovisual production of Ecuadorian ministries lacks an inclusive orientation. The near-total absence of audio descriptions and transcriptions in videos shows that audiovisual accessibility has not been prioritized as part of institutional communication strategies. Although some isolated cases demonstrate emerging practices, these do not constitute a sustained trend.

3.6. Copy

Table 8 summarizes the evaluation of copy quality and accessibility. This dimension examines aspects such as clarity of language, text structure, the use of headings, hashtags, links, emojis, and other elements that contribute to improving the accessibility and readability of institutional communication.

Table 8. Evaluation of Copy Quality.

Copy		CONADIS	MAGAP	MIDUVI	MIES	MINEDUC	MSP	Total
Good	Count	201	160	186	239	320	183	1289
	% within Institution	48.8%	41.3%	43.0%	65.5%	59.4%	62.5%	53.1%
Poor	Count	0	0	4	9	0	0	13
	% within Institution	0.0%	0.0%	0.9%	2.5%	0.0%	0.0%	0.5%
Excellent	Count	9	3	3	0	0	0	15
	% within Institution	2.2%	0.8%	0.7%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.6%
Very Good	Count	186	217	225	97	188	26	939
	% within Institution	45.1%	56.1%	52.0%	26.6%	34.9%	8.9%	38.7%
Fair	Count	16	7	15	20	31	84	173
	% within Institution	3.9%	1.8%	3.5%	5.5%	5.8%	28.7%	7.1%
Grand Total	Count	412	387	433	365	539	293	2429
	% within Institution	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

Note: Numbers and percentages from the copy analysis.

The table on copy quality analyzes textual practices in Facebook posts from six public institutions, considering parameters of accessibility and communicational clarity. These include brevity and conciseness of text, use of simple language, inclusion of subtitles that facilitate navigation, clarity in calls to action, moderation in the use of capital letters and italics, as well as proper management of hashtags, links, and emojis. The results show a more favorable panorama than in other analyzed dimensions (such as images or videos): most posts fall into the Good (53.1%) and Very Good (38.7%) categories, while the Fair (7.1%) category is minor and the Poor (0.5%) and Excellent (0.6%) levels are residual. This pattern suggests that although standards of excellence have not yet been reached, performance in copywriting is the most consistent within the digital communication practices of ministries.

In the institutional comparison, relevant differences are evident. MIES, MSP, and MINEDUC concentrate the highest proportions in the Good category (65.5%, 62.5%, and 59.4%, respectively), indicating frequent use of clear texts with basic accessibility structures, although without reaching higher levels of inclusive quality. CONADIS, despite being a specialized disability agency, shows divided performance: 48.8% of posts in Good and 45.1% in Very Good, with only 2.2% in Excellent. In contrast, MAGAP (56.1%), MIDUVI (52.0%), and MINEDUC (34.9%) stand out for their relatively high percentages in the Very Good category, reflecting greater effort to apply clarity criteria, avoid technical language, and structure messages in a more accessible way. However, none of these institutions manages to consolidate a significant volume in the Excellent category.

These data confirm that the analyzed ministries have advanced more in the textual dimension than in the graphic or audiovisual dimension, but still present gaps in achieving fully inclusive communication.

4. Discussion

4.1. Institutional Communication, Accessibility, and Digital Inequalities

The findings indicate that although Ecuadorian public institutions have consolidated Facebook as a strategic communication channel, this expansion has not been accompanied levels of inclusiveness suggests that digital communication remains primarily oriented toward information dissemination rather than equitable access.

These results support previous studies arguing that digital transformation processes frequently prioritize visibility, efficiency, and service delivery while overlooking accessibility and inclusion criteria [26,28,38]. From this perspective, the absence of accessibility features such as alternative text, subtitles, and audio descriptions should be understood as a manifestation of digital inequalities rather than merely a technical limitation [39,40].

The findings further suggest that people with visual disabilities continue to encounter structural barriers when accessing public information through social media. This reinforces previous evidence indicating that persons with disabilities face multiple forms of exclusion within digital environments, affecting both access to information and opportunities for civic participation [41].

These findings may also be interpreted from an organizational and sociological perspective. The limited incorporation of accessibility practices does not necessarily indicate institutional opposition to inclusion. Rather, it may reflect organizational routines, limited technical expertise, resource constraints, competing communication priorities, and the persistence of traditional information dissemination models. From this perspective, accessibility gaps emerge not only from normative shortcomings but also from institutional capacities and patterns of digital adaptation.

4.2. Representation and Multimedia Accessibility

The limited presence of proactive communication and inclusive representations of persons with disabilities reveals that accessibility has not yet been integrated into the dominant institutional narrative. The scarcity of positive and non-stereotypical representations contributes to symbolic invisibility, reducing the capacity of institutional communication to promote social inclusion and recognition [9].

Similarly, the deficiencies identified in multimedia content constitute one of the most critical findings of this study. The widespread absence of audio descriptions, transcripts, and accessible visual resources demonstrates that accessibility remains largely disconnected from content production processes. Given the predominance of visual and audiovisual formats in contemporary digital communication, these shortcomings significantly restrict access to public information.

At the same time, the relatively positive performance observed in copywriting indicates that some progress has been achieved in the use of clear and understandable language. Nevertheless, linguistic clarity alone is insufficient to guarantee inclusive communication, as accessibility also requires technical, representational, and participatory dimensions [42].

4.3. Digital Governance and Democratic Implications

The differences observed among ministries reveal significant institutional heterogeneity in the implementation of accessibility practices. The comparatively stronger performance of CONADIS suggests that accessibility remains dependent on organizational initiatives rather than being embedded within a coherent state-wide strategy.

This finding highlights weaknesses in digital governance, particularly the absence of mandatory standards, monitoring mechanisms, and cross-cutting accessibility policies. Consistent with previous research, effective digital transformation requires not only technological adoption but also institutional frameworks capable of ensuring inclusion, accountability, and policy coherence [27,43].

Ultimately, the findings demonstrate that accessibility is still treated as an optional feature rather than a fundamental right. In the context of the digital society, this has important democratic implications because access to public information directly influences citizens’ capacity to participate in public deliberation and decision-making processes. As [11] argue, digital inequalities shape who can participate, under what conditions, and with what outcomes. Consequently, advancing toward accessible institutional communication should be considered not only a technical challenge but also a democratic imperative.

4.4. Limitations and Future Research

Although the research results provide important evidence, they cannot be generalized as a representation of all public communication management, since only six ministries were analyzed. Nor can it be generalized as a digital communication strategy, since the study focused only on one social network, Facebook.

Future research could include other institutional social media platforms such as Instagram or TikTok. It would also be important to incorporate the perception of users with disabilities to evaluate accessibility from their experience and analyze accessibility according to type of disability (visual, auditory, cognitive).

5. Conclusions

Regarding RQ1 (To what extent do Facebook posts published by Ecuadorian public institutions incorporate inclusive communication and digital accessibility practices for people with visual disabilities?), the findings indicate that Ecuadorian public institutions incorporate inclusive communication and digital accessibility practices only partially and unevenly. While Facebook has become a central channel for public communication, most analyzed content was classified within the intermediate levels of accessibility, revealing that inclusive communication has not yet been systematically integrated into institutional communication strategies. Accessibility measures remain fragmented and inconsistent, limiting the effective participation of people with visual disabilities in digital communication environments.

Regarding RQ2 (Which dimensions of inclusive communication—propositional communication, copywriting, images, and videos—present the greatest strengths and weaknesses in the Facebook communication strategies of Ecuadorian public institutions?), the results reveal important differences among the evaluated dimensions. Copywriting emerged as the strongest component, characterized by relatively high levels of clarity, readability, and linguistic accessibility. In contrast, videos and images represented the weakest dimensions due to the limited incorporation of subtitles, audio descriptions, alternative text, and other accessibility features. Likewise, propositional communication showed weaknesses in the representation and visibility of people with disabilities, indicating that inclusion is not yet fully embedded in institutional narratives.

The findings of this study indicate that institutional communication in Ecuadorian public sector social media must be interpreted within the broader framework of the digital society, where access to information, participation, and inclusion are increasingly mediated by digital infrastructures. Although the analyzed institutions have consolidated Facebook as a central communication channel, this expansion remains primarily quantitative and does not translate into structurally inclusive practices. In this sense, the results suggest that inclusive communication is only partially integrated into institutional management, functioning more as a formal requirement than as a transversal principle guiding public communication strategies.

This partial compliance reveals a structural limitation: the mainstreaming of inclusion—understood as a core axis of public management—has not yet been effectively institutionalized. Rather than reflecting a substantive commitment, communication practices appear to respond to normative expectations without fully transforming the design, production, and dissemination of digital content. This finding reinforces the idea that digital transformation in the public sector often prioritizes visibility and information dissemination over equitable access, reproducing an informational logic instead of a rights-based approach.

The limitations become particularly evident in the field of audiovisual accessibility. In digital environments where images and videos play a central communicative role, the widespread absence of subtitles, audio descriptions, and alternative text constitutes a critical barrier. These omissions are not merely technical shortcomings but have direct implications for citizenship. When essential public information—related to health, education, or social services—is disseminated without accessible formats, persons with disabilities are effectively excluded from the digital public sphere. In this context, the absence of accessibility features should be understood not as a minor detail, but as a form of rights deprivation that restricts full participation in society.

At the same time, the study identifies areas of relative progress, particularly in copywriting practices. The high proportion of posts classified as “good” or “very good” reflects institutional efforts to improve clarity, simplify language, and enhance readability. However, this progress remains partial. While the form of communication has improved, its substance has not undergone a comparable transformation. Clearer language does not necessarily translate into more inclusive communication, as it does not inherently incorporate diverse perspectives or address structural barriers to access. This distinction highlights the need to move beyond surface-level improvements toward a more comprehensive approach to inclusion.

The analysis also reveals significant disparities among institutions, underscoring the uneven implementation of accessibility practices. While organizations such as CONADIS demonstrate relatively advanced levels of inclusive communication, others—particularly ministries with high social impact—exhibit persistent deficiencies. This heterogeneity confirms that digital accessibility is not solely a technical issue but a political and institutional one, shaped by priorities, resource allocation, and organizational capacities. The absence of standardized criteria and coordinated policies contributes to a fragmented landscape in which inclusion depends on isolated initiatives rather than systemic governance.

From a digital governance perspective, these findings highlight a critical gap. Accessibility has not yet been consolidated as a mandatory standard within institutional communication, but rather remains an optional or secondary feature. Consistent with [25], the results suggest that accessibility constitutes a prerequisite for guaranteeing citizens’ information rights within digitally mediated public communication environments. The lack of institutionalization limits the capacity of the state to ensure equitable access to information and undermines the development of inclusive digital environments.

The implications of these findings are both theoretical and practical. On the one hand, they reinforce the argument that digital inequalities are reproduced through institutional communication when accessibility is not systematically integrated, as proposed by [7,9,12,13,21,22,23]. On the other hand, they underscore the urgency of adopting concrete measures, including the incorporation of accessibility from the initial stages of communication planning, the training of communication teams in inclusive design, and the establishment of regulatory mechanisms that require the adaptation of all digital content.

Overall, the study demonstrates that inclusive communication in Ecuador exists, but in a fragmented and uneven manner. Inclusion has not yet become a structural axis of institutional communication, but rather remains an isolated and inconsistent effort. This situation reflects a broader challenge within the digital society: transforming inclusion from an exceptional practice into a transversal norm. Addressing this challenge requires not only technical adjustments but also a redefinition of communication as a fundamental component of democratic governance, where accessibility is recognized as an essential condition for the exercise of citizenship.