"

Digital Accessibility

Accessible design is good design.

When content is designed with accessibility best practices in mind, everyone benefits. Accessible content enhances inclusion and respects user preferences. Pinheiro et al. (2021) provide numerous examples, including closed captions, to illustrate that more accessibility directly benefits everyone, not just disabled people. Consider the curb cut (ramped section of sidewalk that creates a smooth transition between the street and sidewalk) which was initially created for wheelchair users. However, a 2007 study found that 9 out of 10 “unencumbered pedestrians” go out of their way to use a curb cut (Greve, n.p.). Features designed for disabled people benefit everyone.
The most studied format, web content, provides useful insight into the impact of accessibility on general user experience. Ekin et al. (2025) and Palmquist & Oppmark (2025) posit that higher levels of accessibility in web content benefit all users. Briggs et al. (2024) found that “more rigorous conformance with accessibility standards can also improve the experience and performance of nondisabled persons” (p. 321). Similarly, Schmutz et al. (2016) found that high levels of web accessibility conformance led to better performance including task completion time and rate of completion as well as improved user ratings for usability, aesthetics, and trustworthiness. Fritz et al. (2019) and Lazar et al. (2015) confirm that accessible content is rated as easier to use.
When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all
(Keeler & Dietter, 2002)
In an educational context, Gelber’s 2025 history of learning disabilities in American higher education shows a historical pattern in which teaching techniques implemented to assist disabled students (“such as stating the goal for the class session, highlighting key points, and providing clear written directions”) become standard practices that make instructors more effective and benefit all learners (p. 28). Dolmage (2017) notes that while describing visual content of slides may be required by law, “recognizing that careful, thick description of visual content would be great teaching for all students” (p. 89). Other work finds that “digital accessibility practices are not only beneficial for students with disabilities, but it is also valuable for all adult learners” (Jackson, 2023, p. 110). Numerous studies find that accessible course design benefits all students, not just disabled students (Case & Davidson, 2011; Fovet and Houghton, 2012; van Rooij and Zirkle, 2016; Gronseth, 2018; Lowenthal et al., 2021). Nash et al. (2023) posits that inclusive pedagogy “supports digital access for all learners” (p. 212). Fovet (2020) suggests that inclusive design strategies meet most student needs and can reduce pressure on accessibility services and academic accommodations.
Creating accessible content as courses are designed “costs little in time, effort, and resources” (Case and Davidson, 2011, p. 49). Gifford (2024) argues, “accessibility problems could be avoided if designers and developers integrated accessibility considerations from the start rather than treating them as an afterthought.” Lowenthal & Lomellini (2023) argue that it is more efficient to design with accessibility in mind from the beginning. Retrofitting is always going to be more time consuming than incorporating accessibility from the beginning. However, as very little content has been made with accessibility best practices in mind, most people’s experience with digital accessibility is remediation. Remediation is costly and requires significant knowledge and expertise. Remediation is also done ad hoc, on a case-by-case basis and results in no lasting changes and often ends up being repeated term by term.
For most formats, creating more accessible content is straightforward without requiring a high degree of technical competencies or significant time (Case & Davidson, 2011). For existing courses and content, accessibility best practices can be included during periodic reviews of course content and design. Some examples of low effort, high reward accessibility practices Langara employees could undertake include:
  • Avoiding PDFs in favour of Word documents or Brightspace (or other web) content.
  • Creating proper heading structures.
  • Reviewing machine-generated closed captions for accuracy.
  • Evaluating the use of colour.
  • Adding text alternatives to visual information.

References

Expand for References

Briggs, M., Archibald, A., Heap, T., Thompson, R. ‘Rudi,’ & Liss, A. ‘Ellie.’ (2024). Identifying one university’s prevailing online course accessibility issues. Educational Technology & Society, 27(4), 319–338.

Case, D. E., & Davidson, R. C. (2011). Accessible online learning. New Directions for Student Services, 2011(134), 47–58.

Dolmage, J. T. (2017). Academic ableism: Disability and higher education. University of Michigan Press.

Ekin, M., Krejtz, K., Duarte, C., Pereira, L. S., Marcus-Quinn, A., & Krejtz, I. (2025). Impact of web accessibility on cognitive engagement in individuals without disabilities: Evidence from a psychophysiological study. PLOS ONE, 20(7), e0328552.

Fovet, F. (2020). Universal Design for Learning as a Tool for Inclusion in the Higher Education Classroom: Tips for the Next Decade of Implementation. Education Journal, 9, 163–172.

Fovet, F., & Houghton, M. (2012). Reframing Disability, reshaping the provision of services. Communiqué, 13, 16–19.

Fritz, R., Vu, K.-P. L., & Dick, W. E. (2019). Customization: The path to a better and more accessible web experience. In S. Yamamoto & H. Mori (Eds.), Human interface and the management of information. Visual information and knowledge management (pp. 3–21). Springer International Publishing.

Gelber, S. M. (2025). From compensation to accommodation: The history of learning disabilities in American higher education. History of Education Quarterly, 65(1), 8–28.

Greve, F. (2007, January 31). Curb ramps liberate Americans with disabilities—And everyone else. McClatchy Washington Bureau.

Gronseth, S. (2018). Inclusive design for online and blended courses: Connecting web content accessibility guidelines and universal design for learning. Educational Renaissance, 7, 14–22.

Jackson, A. K. (2023). Closing the digital divide: Understanding organizational approaches to digital accessibility in higher education [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota].

Keeler, K. (Writer), & Dietter, S. (Director). (2002, March 17). Godfellas (Season 3, Episode 20) [TV series episode]. In M. Groening & D. X. Cohen (Executive Producers), Futurama. The Curiosity Company; 20th Century Fox Television.

Lazar, J., Goldstein, D., & Taylor, A. (2015). Ensuring digital accessibility through process and policy. Morgan Kaufmann.

Lowenthal, P. R., Humphrey, M., Conley, Q., Dunlap, J. C., Greear, K., Lowenthal, A., & Giacumo, L. A. (2021). Creating accessible and inclusive online learning: Moving beyond compliance and broadening the discussion. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 21(2), 1–21.

Lowenthal, P. R., & Lomellini, A. (2023). Accessible online learning: A preliminary investigation of educational technologists’ and faculty members’ knowledge and skills. TechTrends, 67(2), 384–392.

Nash, H. M., Pedersen, J. K., & Swanson, H. R. (2023). Using a pilot study to pivot toward digital accessibility practices. In R. Mancilla & B. A. Frey (Eds.), Guide to digital accessibility: Policies, practices, and professional development (pp. 212–227). Stylus Publishing.

Palmquist, S., & Oppmark, J. (2025). How governmental website accessibility affects all users: Adapting Swedish governmental websites’ visual accessibility and how it affects the access to information and services as well as general user experience.

Pinheiro, R., Barroso, J., & Rocha, T. (2021). How accessibility is for everyone – A deaf user perspective. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-Exclusion, DSAI ’20, 47–50.

Schmutz, S., Sonderegger, A., & Sauer, J. (2016). Implementing recommendations from web accessibility guidelines: Would they also provide benefits to nondisabled users. Human Factors, 58(4), 611–629.

van Rooij, S. W., & Zirkle, K. (2016). Balancing pedagogy, student readiness and accessibility: A case study in collaborative online course development. The Internet and Higher Education, 28, 1–7.

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Accessibility Handbook for Teaching and Learning Copyright © 2023 by Briana Fraser and Luke McKnight is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book