1 Introduction

While post-secondary education portrays itself as progressive, welcoming, and inclusive, digital accessibility remains a significant barrier to the participation and academic success of disabled students. Despite decades of legislation, many digital learning materials remain inaccessible as post-secondary institutions continue to rely on reactive accommodation models rather than proactive design. The current approach to disability in post-secondary education is untenable in a context of rising numbers of disabled students, increased demand for academic accommodations, and limited resources. A more proactive approach to accessible digital learning material through inclusive design can reduce the need for individual accommodations while creating learning environments that are more welcoming and useful to all learners.

Existing literature addresses academic accommodations and digital accessibility, but there is limited research on how inaccessible digital learning material affects disabled students’ learning experiences. Using the principles of inclusive design, this mixed-methods action research brings disabled students and post-secondary employees (faculty, staff, and administrators) together in practical, results-oriented work. In. phased approach, disabled students co-designed a digital resource to help inform post-secondary employees about their experience. Post-secondary employees were asked in a second phase about the impact of learning about the disabled student experience. This project asks: how are disabled students impacted by inaccessible digital learning materials, and how can post-secondary employees be motivated to act?

1.1 Disability Terminologies

There is substantial debate over the most appropriate language to use when discussing disability. Preferred and accepted terminology evolves over time and differs across cultures. The most significant divide in disability language is between person-first and identity-first language. In a disability context, person-first language could be exemplified by, for example, ‘people with disabilities’, whereas identity-first language could be exemplified by ‘disabled people.’ Person-first language aims to ensure that people are not defined by a single aspect of their lived experience, in this case disability. Person-first language could protect individuals from stereotypes, prejudice, or objectification based on their disability. According to guidelines from the National Institutes of Health (2025) “person-first language is a way to emphasize the person and view the disorder, disease, condition, or disability as only one part of the whole person”. In contrast, identity-first language is “a way to show pride in who they are and their membership in a community of similar people”. By focusing disability, identity-first language offers individuals agency to claim disability as an identity, express a cultural affiliation, and act as an affirmation of disability pride. Reclaiming disability as a positive term through identity-first language allows disabled people to define their own terms and may prevent others from naming and classifying them against their wishes or applying terms with negative implications.

While most research on preferred language has been associated with autism, multiple sclerosis, and deaf/blind populations, there is a general trend toward identity-first language (Grech et al., 2023). Perhaps the first usage of identity-first language regarding disability was James Woodward’s definition of ‘capital D Deaf’ as “sociological deafness” where “the term ‘deaf’ refers to audiological deafness” (Woodward, 1982, p. 1). This identity-first language prefers the capitalized Deaf over ‘people who are deaf.’ Modern scholarship confirms the general preference for identity-first language amongst the Deaf community, reaffirming the value of cultural identity and membership in the Deaf community “as a privilege (‘Deaf gain’) rather than a disability” (Aldè et al., 2025, p. 9). A similar preference for identity-first language also extends to the Autistic community (De Laet et al., 2025; National Institutes of Health, 2025). A 2022 study of 519 disabled people from 23 countries found that 49% preferred identity-first language and 33% preferred person-first language while 18% expressed no preference (Sharif et al., 2022). A 2024 study found that participants with neurodevelopmental conditions were most likely to use identity-first language (Grech et al., 2024), while a 2025 study found that persons with a visible disability, or both a visible and invisible disability, were more likely to use identity-first language as compared to those with only an invisible disability (Janiszewski et al., 2025). Potts et al. (2023) and Grech et al. (2024) found that healthcare professionals, educators, media and the public were less likely to use identity-first language to refer to disabled people. A 2022 study noted that journals and publishers may advise authors to use one or the other, regardless of their (or their participants’) preference (Andrews et al., 2022). This suggests a disconnect between the preferred language of disabled people and the non-disabled groups referring to them.

The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA) (2020) style states that “both person-first and identity-first approaches to language are designed to respect disabled persons” and that either person-first, identity-first, or a mix of both are permissible “unless or until you know that a group clearly prefers one approach” (p. 137). The claim that both approaches are intended to respect disabled persons could be undone by the intent of the author as rigid use of one naming convention or the other could lead to stigmatization of disabled people (Andrews et al., 2022). APA guidance presumes disabled people to be a monolith, all in consensus regarding preferred language. APA style notes that disability language is “evolving” and that “the expressed preference of people with disabilities regarding identification supersedes matters of style” (p. 136). Regarding research, APA style recommends that when working with participants with disabilities, authors should “use the language [participants] use to describe themselves” (p. 137). Similarly, the Modern Languages Association also notes that the choice of language should “reflect the expressed preferences of individuals or groups when those preferences are known” (MLA Handbook, 2021, p. 90).

In this project, students were intentionally not asked for any demographic data, including the nature of their disability or how they self-identified. This choice was made to avoid unintentional disclosure as the co-designers are students that could be taught in future by readers of the study. Additionally, while the students’ disabilities are important, disability is not the sole factor influencing their interaction with digital learning material. Other factors include digital literacy and confidence using technology. Additionally, disabled people may be disabled and able-bodied simultaneously; the two states are not a dichotomy of opposites (Withers, 2012).

Regarding language, this work will prioritize identity-first language. However, as some of the discussion focuses on general access to learning material and impacts the larger student body there may be value in also referring to students with disabilities, i.e., person-first language. In post-secondary education, disabled students are in dire need of more accessible experiences and resources should be deployed appropriately. However, if we consider the broader beneficial impact of inclusive design and experiences, all students will benefit from better digital learning material. However, tagging students as disabled students, international students, or gifted students creates and codifies difference (from an implied norm). These labels “silo students to conform to distinctive categories of difference” (Heng, 2019, p. 43). This research centers disabled students or students with disabilities but aims to craft environments where those tags become unnecessary.

Ultimately, the question of language preference rests with individuals and “the right for disabled people to define their own relationships with disability” (Dolmage, 2017, p. 5). One project co-designer (Stella Grynspan)^[1] stated, unprompted: “You can call me whatever you want . . . you can say whatever you want to me as long as you actually make an effort to give the accessible format.” While only speaking for themselves, Stella hits at the heart of the purpose of this research; while philosophical considerations are important, only tangible action will improve the student experience.

1.2 Disability Statistics

An estimated 1.3 billion people, around 16% of the global population, experience disability (World Health Organization, 2022). In 2022, 27% of the Canadian population (nearly 8 million people) reported having a disability (Statistics Canada, 2024a), increasing from 22% in 2017. Statistics Canada found that 20% of Canadian youth (aged 15-24) reported having a disability in 2022, a 7% increase since 2017 (2023). 24% of working-age adults reported having a disability in 2022, a rise of 4% from 2017 (Statistics Canada, 2024a). The greater number of people with disabilities correlates with increased numbers of disabled people attending post-secondary education.

1.3 Digital Accessibility

Accessibility is a state in which disabled people can participate in, engage with, or use something. Accessibility is a minimum standard often defined by legislation. Those minimums are not a guarantee that an experience will be pleasant or that the content will be useful, only that under ideal conditions any person should be able to participate or use the content. Digital accessibility refers to the state of digital content such as websites, documents, or digital media. When content is less accessible and not compatible with assistive technology, disabled users are excluded. Digital accessibility aims to address issues in the design of technology and digital spaces, ensuring that all users can engage with and consume content regardless of disability or technology used, without delay or modification. In digital content, very few things are fully accessible or entirely inaccessible. A more reasonable assessment is to consider something more accessible or less accessible. For example, a website may have some accessibility errors but be significantly more accessible than a PDF of the same information. Addressing gaps in digital accessibility requires attention to several core elements including (but not limited to) structured headings, meaningful hyperlinks, sufficient color contrast, text alternatives (alternative text for images, captions for video, and transcripts of audio), and customizability. For the more specific purposes of this study, examples of digital learning material that are easier to make accessible include major learning management systems (however the accessibility of content added to those platforms cannot be guaranteed) and file formats such as Word, PowerPoint, HTML, and EPUB digital books. Digital publisher platforms and PDFs are often the least accessible and the hardest formats to make more accessible. When digital learning material has low levels of accessibility, academic accommodations are necessary to ensure disabled students have access.