{"id":10578,"date":"2026-05-14T17:24:13","date_gmt":"2026-05-14T21:24:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/accessibilityhandbook\/?post_type=chapter&p=10578"},"modified":"2026-05-19T23:10:16","modified_gmt":"2026-05-20T03:10:16","slug":"accessible-design-is-good-design","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/accessibilityhandbook\/chapter\/accessible-design-is-good-design\/","title":{"raw":"Accessible design is good design.","rendered":"Accessible design is good design."},"content":{"raw":"
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 \u201cunencumbered pedestrians\u201d go out of their way to use a curb cut (Greve, n.p.). Features designed for disabled people benefit everyone.<\/div>\r\n
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 \u201cmore rigorous conformance with accessibility standards can also improve the experience and performance of nondisabled persons\u201d (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.<\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_10663\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"1920\"]\"When (Keeler & Dietter, 2002)[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
In an educational context, Gelber\u2019s 2025 history of learning disabilities in American higher education shows a historical pattern in which teaching techniques implemented to assist disabled students (\u201csuch as stating the goal for the class session, highlighting key points, and providing clear written directions\u201d) 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, \u201crecognizing that careful, thick description of visual content would be great teaching for all students\u201d (p. 89). Other work finds that \u201cdigital accessibility practices are not only beneficial for students with disabilities, but it is also valuable for all adult learners\u201d (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 \u201csupports digital access for all learners\u201d (p. 212). Fovet (2020) suggests that inclusive design strategies meet most student needs and can reduce pressure on accessibility services and academic accommodations.<\/div>\r\n
Creating accessible content as courses are designed \u201ccosts little in time, effort, and resources\u201d (Case and Davidson, 2011, p. 49). Gifford (2024) argues, \u201caccessibility problems could be avoided if designers and developers integrated accessibility considerations from the start rather than treating them as an afterthought.\u201d 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\u2019s 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.<\/div>\r\n
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:<\/div>\r\n