5.1 Formats Theme

As indicated by the co-designers, the file format of digital learning material has a significant impact on students. The integration of digital material potentially increases the number of access points to learning. However, when that content is inaccessible, learners cannot access it and the promise of increased access morphs into an additional barrier (Huss & Eastep, 2016; Bartz, 2020). Inaccessible content may be an insurmountable barrier to disabled students’ academic progress (Lomellini et al., 2022). Several co-designers mentioned the impact inaccessible content had on their academic trajectory.

Those who choose and create digital learning material have an excellent opportunity to create more inclusive student experiences by ensuring content is accessible by design (Briggs et al., 2024). The Government of Ontario (2022) proposed that course syllabi list all the technology, electronic resources, and other digital material to be used in the course. This would help students to be best prepared for the course and allow the student to take proactive steps to deal with inaccessible content or switch to another course or section. However, that puts the onus on the student to identify potentially problematic content and potentially alter their academic path. The practice of listing all sources and platforms before the course begins could motivate instructors to create and choose more accessible content.

Post-secondary staff and faculty may have a fear of being told they must make things accessible as they lack the technical skills and knowledge to do so. While some facets of accessibility can be complex and require significant time and expertise, content created in Word, PowerPoint, and ‘what you see is what you get’ web editors (such as those included in WordPress, Pressbooks, Brightspace, and Canvas) is quite straightforward to make accessible. However, research suggests some faculty believe their course material is not compatible with accessibility (Read, 2024). One survey respondent indicated they plan to share inaccessible content or not share material at all due to the time required to add descriptions to slides. Dolmage (2017) and Gelber (2025) discuss how practices introduced to assist disabled students, such as detailed outlines and rich descriptions, have become standard practice that benefit all students. While including descriptions of images may currently be a requirement for screen reader access, the practice may have unintended and unforeseen benefits in the future. Research that considers how more accessible content is of greater benefit to all students, such as measuring task completion or reading comprehension, would work to emphasize the value of accessible learning material.

Co-designers indicated a preference (or in some cases need) for Word documents and accessible web content. The results of this research alone are not significant enough to generalize what formats are universally desired, however these findings mirror the general inaccessibility of PDFs noted in section 2.3.2. and as I argue in previous research (The People v. PDF) that PDFs are not only inaccessible but also difficult for most users to read. 86% of phase 2 respondents found the Format theme impactful suggesting that understanding the specifics of inaccessible formats, and what formats work better for disabled students, is important to helping post-secondary employees create and choose more accessible digital learning material. One survey respondent mentioned they were “pleasantly surprised to learn how effective Word is, which makes me feel the learning curve isn’t that steep.” Creating accessible content as courses are designed “costs little in time, effort, and resources” (Case & Davidson, 2011, p. 49). For most formats, creating more accessible content is straightforward without requiring high technical competencies or significant time. 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.

Accessibility is a benefit to all, not just those that require it. Fritz et al. (2019) argues how adherence to accessibility standards may improve the usability of software. Accessible content allows for greater customization, such as font size and contrast, that benefits disabled users and any user that needs, benefits from, or prefers content to appear a certain way. Word documents and web content offer these features and are thus not only more accessible but also more reader-friendly for all. However, further research is needed to determine how best to implement change, specifically regarding the choice of digital formats, including the overreliance on the PDF as a file format. Significant research is needed to understand how PDFs have become ubiquitous (often the default file format) and how to undo decades of dependence on a less-than-optimal file. Statistical analysis of PDF usage and oral histories with content authors could provide significant insight into the rise of the PDF. Without understanding to fuel meaningful change through shifting practice, sustainable improvement to inclusion and accessibility are unlikely.

One respondent argued that “the more accessible I make my materials, the more likely they are to end up online, plugged into LLMs, uploaded to cheating sites, or simply taken by the institution, which I no longer trust to respect my intellectual property. I have spent countless hours preparing this material and it is simply not secure.” The respondent may be mistaking the term accessible with available, as there is little evidence to suggest that inaccessible content does not “end up online, plugged into LLMs, uploaded to cheating sites, or simply taken by the institution.” Given most websites and PDFs are inaccessible (as discussed in section 2.3.2), if only accessible content made it online as the respondent seems to be suggesting, the web would be barren.

Resistance to inclusion and digital accessibility is not uncommon, as concerns about academic freedom are cited as barriers to faculty creating accessible material (Lewsen, 2024; Gelber, 2025). Examining how post-secondary employees view academic freedom and copyright, together with misconceptions about accessibility and availability, could reveal insight into some apprehension about digital accessibility. The ask of using more accessible digital formats is not a significant one. Choosing Word and web content over PDFs is a low effort, high reward initiative that would greatly improve the student experience.