My role as an Instructional Designer is a bit unique. I work for a publishing company designing learning materials for higher ed, so I work in a private space, partnering with public institutions. My role is primarily curricular – together with faculty experts, reviewing learning objectives and designing activities – but also technical, reviewing tools and content for functionality, usability, and accessibility.
To date, I’ve approached the role informed mostly by a background in teaching, instructional design, and eLearning. The network of instructional designers I connect with regularly have similar backgrounds, too. When I have assessed tools or created new activities, the conversations usually center on things like chunking, activating prior knowledge, scaffolding, and the like. All of these things are important, but when I need to decide whether a button should be blue or grey, whether it should have a shadow or outline, what font to use…I am out of my depth. Last year, I began a M.S. program in User Experience (UX) to gain more insight into these types of decisions and marry adult learning theory with usability and beyond.
As part of this program, I am taking a course on the Design of Accessible and Inclusive Digital Learning. A primary focus of the class is building an understanding of learning differences and empathy for the student experience. Weekly assignments have focused on the experience for learners navigating assignments with dyslexia, color blindness (deuteranopia), hearing loss, and limited mobility. Sometimes, accessibility is presented as an optional improvement for websites or a task to retrofit existing materials. But with almost 25% of the population reporting one or more disabilities, accessibility is not something that should be an afterthought. Students with learning differences should not be burdened with disclosure, delays, or a lack of equivalence. It’s not just the law – it’s a matter of equity and ethics.
Practical Applications
In considering how to best create an accessible and inclusive learning experience that accounts for learning differences and disabilities, a few key concepts stood out to me: keyboard navigation, improving understanding, considering time on task, and where accessibility fits into the design process.
Keyboard Navigation
The accessibility guidelines related to keyboard navigation (WCAG 2.1) are really important! Things like labeling headers appropriately, tagging images as decorative (where appropriate), and maintaining a clean organizational structure are essential prerequisites for many assistive technologies (ATs). Individuals relying on a screen reader need these elements to be able to navigate more quickly and effectively. Individuals with limited mobility may use keyboard controls instead of a trackpad or mouse. Individuals who are short on time may also use keyboard shortcuts.
These changes don’t just make the content more accessible – they also facilitate a better learning experience. When the heading structure is clear, students are better able to create schema to organize information. When the author determines whether an image is decorative or conveys significant information, they are also deciding whether the image adds value to the content. While we might traditionally think about the functionality as corresponding most closely to the second and fourth pillars in the POUR guidelines (Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, Robust), it also aids in the understanding of the content.
Improving Understanding
While keyboard navigation enables learners to progress more easily through the content, understanding can also be inhibited by other factors. Videos without closed captions (WCAG 1.2) can cause a complete loss of understanding for learners with hearing loss, who have visual processing delays, or who are in a noisy environment. For example, in a video describing an organization’s goals, without captions a learner may miss the significance of why a photograph showing people working with plants was selected.
This extends to audio description, color contrast, avoiding using color as the sole signifier of meaning, and many other methods of ensuring that understanding is not conveyed through a single format or medium. This is necessary for content to be accessible to individuals with physical and cognitive disabilities, but also helpful for all learners. Reinforcing key concepts through text, visuals, and audio formats and differentiating the complexity of the content to address a diverse audience with differing levels of understanding, literacy, and experience ensures the content provides multiple means of representation (CAST, 2018). This thoughtfulness benefits all.
For example, initially, a presentation on conservation techniques was designed with poor color contrast. Adjusting the contrast in the presentation template aids readability for all learners.
Though this improvement meets accessibility guidelines for color contrast, the reading level may still be too complex for someone needing or desiring a simplified explanation. To provide multiple means of representation, the content can be added to the website directly, with a simplified reading level, to aid those looking to read through the content simply and concisely.
Like the more technical elements of improving accessibility, a consideration of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) also centers on methods of engagement that are helpful for all users. In evaluating the GreenPath Forward website after it was reformatted to better meet WCAG 2.1 accessibility criteria, several barriers remained to broader inclusivity and UDL standards. One of the barriers was the learner ability to quickly identify the purpose of each module, which was remediated by adding learning objectives.
The needs of each learner for understanding (and later, application!) may be different, but a thorough assessment of accessibility guidelines and Universal Design for Learning standards can help identify areas for improvement.
Considering Time on Task
As I learned more about how each learning difference might impact the student experience, one of the biggest surprises was the wide variation in the amount of time each student may need to complete an assignment. When activities (or interfaces) are not designed to be accessible, the burden is then on the learner to either muddle through or pursue accommodation. At best, this can be contribute to delays in the learner’s ability to participate and/or be time consuming for the learner to remediate.
Even if the content is accessible, the amount of time needed to complete an assignment may vary widely across learners. Students accessing audio description may need more time to listen to a video than those who watch. Learners using a mouth stick to navigate may need more time to navigate to (and through) a reading. Learners with dyslexia may need more time to read through content. And those whose mental resources are otherwise occupied (with work, kids, grief, ADHD, etc.) may also need more time. The amount of time each person needs may vary widely, and so it is better to avoid timed assignments where possible or be prepared for alternative ways to meet the learning objectives and demonstrate mastery.
Design Process
Remediating websites to be accessible is necessary, but it’s much easier to design with accessibility (and inclusivity) in mind from the outset. For example, an accessibility audit identified many areas of the GreenPath website that required remediation and meticulous work to fix. But once the issues were fixed, adding new content that continued to meet accessibility guidelines was straightforward.
Inclusivity and Culturally Relevant Pedagogy
I enjoyed diving deeper into the WCAG guidelines, but also moving beyond accessibility to think more broadly about inclusivity. For this course, inclusivity was presented through the lens of Universal Design for Learning standards and considerations of culturally relevant content. While learning designers can (and should) individually work to better understand a variety of lived experiences, the most inclusive environments are made when the people in them participate in the design process so their experiences are properly represented. Because cultures are not monolithic, this also allows for freedom to include a spectrum of experiences. Xeturah Woodley et al. (2017) echo this in their encouragement to have students “move from being passive participants…to becoming co-constructors” (p. 470).
For example, as part of the UDL audit, several changes were made to ensure the site was more culturally inclusive, including individuals with different educational paths, employment statuses, and heritages. These are important changes, and may also help learners better engage with and identify with the content.
However, these changes are not enough to be truly inclusive, and (if selected only by the designer) can run the risk of tokenism. To this, I would add activities that increase the ability of students to share their voice: through a community forum, guided and self-directed discussions, reflection activities activating prior knowledge, and an emphasis on strengths and a growth mindset for the individual, the instructor, and the institution.
Final Thoughts
To me, this is the most important takeaway: our design spaces need to be inclusive, too. It is important to understand learning differences, disabilities, and to learn more about the shared values and experiences of many cultures (in the disability community and beyond). But there is no replacement for inclusive design – truly, co-design – where the variety of lived experiences are represented by those living them. There were so many aspects of navigating each assignment where the system was disabling that I could not have anticipated, even with significant personal and professional experience. The WCAG guidelines are extensive and helpful, but designing starts with people, and people from the community need to be included in the design process.
I think this is what I want to focus on most as I move forward: how can I better advocate for more inclusive design spaces? How do I ensure that they are inclusive without being exploitative? How do I ensure the process is agile and iterative, so the learning experience continues to positively evolve? I am fortunate to work with a team who is committed and vocal in this regard, but we are just scratching the surface. I too want to move beyond accessibility to broader inclusivity.
References
Campbell, A., Adams, C., Montgomery, R. B., Cooper, M., Kirkpatrick, A. (2023, October 5). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. https://udlguidelines.cast.org
Center for Disease Control. (2023). Disability impacts all of us. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/infographic-disability-impacts-all.html
Woodley, X., Hernandez, C., Parra, J. & Negash, B. (2017, July 4). Celebrating difference: Best practices in culturally responsive teaching online. TechTrends, 61, 470-478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0207-z
design | teach | reflect 
