Accessibility and Universal Design for Learning

Section 1 of four

How this landscape is organized

This is the accessibility work of a learning design practice, gathered in one place. It draws on two branches: Accessibility, which concerns access at the level of an individual person and the obligation an institution holds toward them, and Universal Design for Learning, which concerns designing for the predictable range of learners before any individual request is made. The two are related but not the same, and the arrangement here keeps them distinct while showing where they meet.

Resources are arranged in seven groups by what they are for, rather than by which branch they grow on. A group therefore holds resources from both branches where the question they answer is shared. Each resource names its home branch so the distinction is never lost. Groups are given in alphabetical order.

Every resource states the bodies of knowledge it rests on and cites its sources by number to the reference list in Section 4. Where a resource is still in development, it is marked as such: the grounding and sources are settled, and the written resource is not yet published.

Two kinds of relationship are given for each resource. Most related is calculated from sources and themes held in common, and surfaces resources that answer similar questions from different groups. Connected resources are the direct relationships recorded on the map — the resources a reader is likely to need alongside this one.

Section 2 of four

What is here

Resources in each group, how many are published, and where each group lives
Group	Resources	Published	Page
Designing for variability	4	1	Group page
Grounding	8	0	Group page
Institutions, governance and change	4	1	Group page
Rights, duty and accommodation	8	2	Group page
Sectors and participation	3	0	Group page
Services	3	0	Group page
Standards and technical practice	5	0	Group page
All groups	35	4

Section 3 of four

Every resource, in full

Sources are written out in full here as well as numbered, so that following a reference is never necessary to understand an entry.

Designing for variability

Designing for the predictable range of learners. Distinct from disability, and kept distinct here: variability is a design premise, disability is a relationship between a person and an environment.

Visit the Designing for variability page · Read this group on its own

Designing for Learner Variability at Scale

The thesis the other UDL work inherits

Published resource

Designing from the outset for the full, predictable range of human variability, so the environment fits diverse learners rather than a mythical average one. It is the worldview that grounds every other contribution on this branch.

Group. Designing for variability

Home branch. Universal Design for Learning · Well established

Grounding. Universal Design for Learning (CAST; Rose & Meyer)

Themes. Variability, Scale

Sources

Reference 1: Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. ASCD.
Reference 2: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Onboarding Across Wide Experience Ranges — Variability · 1 shared source
Engaging Voluntary & Cautious Adult Learners — Variability · 1 shared source
Scaling Personalization Without Scaling Cost — Scale · 1 shared source
From Accommodation to Proactive Inclusive Design — Variability · 1 shared source
Eliminating Construct-Irrelevant Barriers in Assessment — 1 shared source

Connected resources

From Accommodation to Proactive Inclusive Design — Rights, duty and accommodation

Engaging Voluntary & Cautious Adult Learners

The engagement principle in practice

In development

Designing multiple pathways into motivation for learners who arrive with very different reasons for being there, including those who would rather not be. Where engagement is not solved, little downstream can land.

Group. Designing for variability

Home branch. Universal Design for Learning · Newer or contested

Grounding. UDL engagement principle; adult learning

Themes. Motivation, Variability

Sources

Reference 2: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.
Reference 3: Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being.” American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Designing for Learner Variability at Scale — Variability · 1 shared source
Onboarding Across Wide Experience Ranges — Variability · 1 shared source
From Accommodation to Proactive Inclusive Design — Variability · 1 shared source
Scaling Personalization Without Scaling Cost — 1 shared source
Why Universal Design Never Eliminates Individual Accommodation — Variability · 1 shared source

Connected resources

Designing for Learner Variability at Scale — Designing for variability

Onboarding Across Wide Experience Ranges

Multiple entry points and pathways

In development

Designing entry so newcomers and experienced practitioners can each begin where they are, without boring the one or losing the other. It is a representation-principle problem common to every sector.

Group. Designing for variability

Home branch. Universal Design for Learning · Newer or contested

Grounding. UDL representation principle

Themes. Variability, Access

Sources

Reference 2: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Designing for Learner Variability at Scale — Variability · 1 shared source
From Accommodation to Proactive Inclusive Design — Access, Variability · 1 shared source
Engaging Voluntary & Cautious Adult Learners — Variability · 1 shared source
Making Accessibility More Than Compliance — Access · 1 shared source
Eliminating Construct-Irrelevant Barriers in Assessment — Access · 1 shared source

Connected resources

Designing for Learner Variability at Scale — Designing for variability

Scaling Personalization Without Scaling Cost

The production economics of flexibility

In development

Making multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression economically feasible at scale, increasingly with AI-assisted production. It is the meta-capability that makes the rest affordable to deliver.

Group. Designing for variability

Home branch. Universal Design for Learning · Newer or contested

Grounding. Learning technology; AI-assisted design

Themes. Scale, Iteration

Sources

Reference 2: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.
Reference 4: Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Designing for Learner Variability at Scale — Scale · 1 shared source
Onboarding Across Wide Experience Ranges — 1 shared source
Engaging Voluntary & Cautious Adult Learners — 1 shared source
From Accommodation to Proactive Inclusive Design — 1 shared source
Eliminating Construct-Irrelevant Barriers in Assessment — 1 shared source

Connected resources

Designing for Learner Variability at Scale — Designing for variability

Grounding

How disability is understood, and what follows from the understanding. These resources supply the frame every later decision is made inside.

Visit the Grounding page · Read this group on its own

Disability Studies for Learning Designers

The grounding that changes what a designer sees

In development

Social, medical, and interactional models of disability; ableism as institutional structure rather than individual attitude; disability as identity, culture, and political community. It is the grounding that allows a barrier to be named as a design failure rather than a learner’s deficit, and it is what distinguishes accessibility practice from compliance administration.

Group. Grounding

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. Social model (Oliver); academic ableism (Dolmage); Titchkosky; Kafer

Themes. Disability studies, Equity, Access

Sources

Reference 5: Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. Macmillan — the foundational statement of the social model of disability.
Reference 6: Dolmage, J. T. (2017). Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education. University of Michigan Press.
Reference 7: Titchkosky, T. (2011). The Question of Access: Disability, Space, Meaning. University of Toronto Press.
Reference 8: Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, Queer, Crip. Indiana University Press.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Models of Disability as Design Decisions — Access, Disability studies, Equity · 1 shared source
Designing Out the Disclosure Requirement — Access, Disability studies, Equity · 1 shared source
Partnering with Disabled People in Learning Design — Disability studies, Equity
Equity-Centered Learning Design — Equity
Disability Etiquette and Communication in Learning Environments — Disability studies

Connected resources

Why Universal Design Never Eliminates Individual Accommodation — Rights, duty and accommodation
Partnering with Disabled People in Learning Design — Grounding
Equity-Centered Learning Design — Grounding

Partnering with Disabled People in Learning Design

Co-design without extraction

In development

Structuring lived-experience partnership so that it is compensated, early enough to shape decisions rather than ratify them, and accessible in its own conduct. It attends to the pattern in which technical expertise quietly eclipses lived experience, and favours partnership with disability-led organizations already doing this work over convening participants anew.

Group. Grounding

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. Nothing about us without us (Charlton); inclusive design; TCPS 2 research ethics

Themes. Disability studies, Community, Equity

Sources

Reference 9: Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment. University of California Press.
Reference 10: Inclusive Design Research Centre. The Inclusive Design Guide. OCAD University — the source of the one-size-fits-one principle and the inclusive design framework.
Reference 11: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (2022). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans — TCPS 2 (2022).

Most related, by shared source and theme

Disability Etiquette and Communication in Learning Environments — Community, Disability studies · 1 shared source
Disability Studies for Learning Designers — Disability studies, Equity
Accessible Research Participation and Knowledge Products — Equity · 1 shared source
Models of Disability as Design Decisions — Disability studies, Equity
Disability Data and the Limits of Prevalence Figures — Disability studies, Equity

Connected resources

Disability Studies for Learning Designers — Grounding
Accessible Research Participation and Knowledge Products — Sectors and participation

Models of Disability as Design Decisions

The frame chosen before any design decision is made

In development

Medical, social, biopsychosocial, economic, functional solutions, social identity or cultural affiliation, and charity — seven models in active circulation, each of which settles in advance what counts as the problem and who is obliged to act on it. This resource sets them beside one another with their strengths and their costs, and treats the choice of model as a design decision rather than a philosophical preference, because the model implicit in a project brief is usually the model that shapes what gets built.

Group. Grounding

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. ICF (WHO, 2001); social model (Oliver); Retief & Letšosa; Shakespeare

Themes. Disability studies, Access, Equity

Sources

Reference 12: World Health Organization (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). WHO — the source of the biopsychosocial model of disability.
Reference 5: Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. Macmillan — the foundational statement of the social model of disability.
Reference 13: Retief, M., & Letšosa, R. (2018). “Models of Disability: A Brief Overview.” HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies, 74(1).
Reference 14: Shakespeare, T. (2013). Disability Rights and Wrongs Revisited (2nd ed.). Routledge — a critical reassessment of the strong social model.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Disability Studies for Learning Designers — Access, Disability studies, Equity · 1 shared source
Disability Categories and the Barriers People Meet — Access, Disability studies · 2 shared sources
Designing Out the Disclosure Requirement — Access, Disability studies, Equity
Disability Data and the Limits of Prevalence Figures — Disability studies, Equity · 1 shared source
From Accommodation to Proactive Inclusive Design — Access

Connected resources

Disability Studies for Learning Designers — Grounding
Why Universal Design Never Eliminates Individual Accommodation — Rights, duty and accommodation
From Accommodation to Proactive Inclusive Design — Rights, duty and accommodation

Disability Categories and the Barriers People Meet

The reference layer, written barrier-first

In development

Visual, auditory, deafblind, speech, mobility and body structure, cognitive and learning, seizure, and psychological disabilities, each set against the barriers people actually encounter in digital and physical environments. It is written barrier-first rather than diagnosis-first, so that a designer reaches for the environmental change rather than the label — and it is the reference layer that the more argumentative resources on this branch quietly assume a reader already holds.

Group. Grounding

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. ICF (WHO, 2001); WCAG 2.2; disability studies

Themes. Disability studies, Access, Variability

Sources

Reference 12: World Health Organization (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). WHO — the source of the biopsychosocial model of disability.
Reference 15: W3C (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation.
Reference 5: Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. Macmillan — the foundational statement of the social model of disability.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Models of Disability as Design Decisions — Access, Disability studies · 2 shared sources
Designing for the Assistive Technology People Actually Use — Access, Disability studies · 1 shared source
Assistive Technology and Adaptive Strategies — Access, Disability studies
Disability Studies for Learning Designers — Access, Disability studies · 1 shared source
Designing for Episodic and Fluctuating Conditions — Access

Connected resources

Designing for the Assistive Technology People Actually Use — Standards and technical practice
Models of Disability as Design Decisions — Grounding
Designing for Episodic and Fluctuating Conditions — Rights, duty and accommodation

Assistive Technology and Adaptive Strategies

What exists, and what it does for a person

In development

Screen readers, magnification, speech input, alternative pointing, augmentative and alternative communication, hearing technologies, and the low-technology and adaptive strategies used at least as often — described by what they accomplish for a person rather than by product name, and paired with the frameworks that structure a selection decision. It is the survey that has to precede the harder question of why conformant content still fails against the technology people actually use.

Group. Grounding

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. HAAT model (Cook & Polgar); SETT framework (Zabala); WHO assistive technology guidance

Themes. Disability studies, Access, Standards

Sources

Reference 16: Cook, A. M., & Polgar, J. M. (2015). Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice (4th ed.). Elsevier — the source of the Human Activity Assistive Technology (HAAT) model.
Reference 17: Zabala, J. S. (2005). Ready, SETT, Go! Getting Started with the SETT Framework — the Student, Environments, Tasks, Tools framework for assistive technology decision-making.
Reference 18: World Health Organization & UNICEF (2022). Global Report on Assistive Technology. World Health Organization.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Designing for the Assistive Technology People Actually Use — Access, Disability studies, Standards · 2 shared sources
Disability Categories and the Barriers People Meet — Access, Disability studies
Accessible Procurement and Vendor Accountability — Access, Standards
Disability Studies for Learning Designers — Access, Disability studies
Models of Disability as Design Decisions — Access, Disability studies

Connected resources

Designing for the Assistive Technology People Actually Use — Standards and technical practice
Disability Categories and the Barriers People Meet — Grounding
Accessible Procurement and Vendor Accountability — Institutions, governance and change

Disability Data and the Limits of Prevalence Figures

Why the numbers disagree, and how to use one honestly

In development

Measurement by diagnosis, by function, or by self-identification produces materially different populations, which is why global and national prevalence figures diverge so widely and why the choice of instrument is never neutral. This resource covers the major global and Canadian sources and their known undercounts, and how to carry a number into a business case or a funding application without asking it to bear more weight than it can.

Group. Grounding

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. WHO World Report on Disability; WHO Global Report on Health Equity for Persons with Disabilities; Canadian Survey on Disability; ICF

Themes. Research, Disability studies, Equity

Sources

Reference 19: World Health Organization & World Bank (2011). World Report on Disability. World Health Organization.
Reference 20: World Health Organization (2022). Global Report on Health Equity for Persons with Disabilities. World Health Organization.
Reference 21: Statistics Canada. Canadian Survey on Disability — the national source for disability prevalence in Canada.
Reference 12: World Health Organization (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). WHO — the source of the biopsychosocial model of disability.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Models of Disability as Design Decisions — Disability studies, Equity · 1 shared source
Accessible Health and Patient Education — Equity
Disability Studies for Learning Designers — Disability studies, Equity
Partnering with Disabled People in Learning Design — Disability studies, Equity
Disability Categories and the Barriers People Meet — Disability studies · 1 shared source

Connected resources

Accessible Health and Patient Education — Sectors and participation
Institutional Accessibility Planning as a Change Program — Institutions, governance and change

Disability Etiquette and Communication in Learning Environments

Professional practice, not a list of prohibitions

In development

Person-first and identity-first language and why the choice belongs to the person rather than the institution; addressing someone directly rather than their interpreter or support worker; offering assistance without presuming it is wanted or acting before it is accepted. It is written for facilitators and instructors as professional communication practice, on the understanding that the failures that matter in a learning room are rarely failures of intention and almost always failures of default behaviour under time pressure.

Group. Grounding

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. Disability etiquette guidance (United Spinal Association); CRPD; disability studies

Themes. Community, Disability studies, Capacity

Sources

Reference 22: United Spinal Association. Disability Etiquette: Tips on Interacting with People with Disabilities.
Reference 23: United Nations (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
Reference 9: Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment. University of California Press.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Partnering with Disabled People in Learning Design — Community, Disability studies · 1 shared source
Inclusive Facilitation & Capacity Building — Capacity, Community
Disability Studies for Learning Designers — Disability studies
Models of Disability as Design Decisions — Disability studies
Disability Categories and the Barriers People Meet — Disability studies

Connected resources

Inclusive Facilitation & Capacity Building — Services
Partnering with Disabled People in Learning Design — Grounding
Disability Studies for Learning Designers — Grounding

Equity-Centered Learning Design

The social and cultural layer over everything

In development

Attending to power, culture, and whose knowledge is treated as legitimate across the whole design, rather than as a separate module. It connects directly to equity evaluation and to equity-centred knowledge mobilization.

Group. Grounding

Home branch. Universal Design for Learning · Well established

Grounding. Equity-centred and culturally responsive design

Themes. Equity

Sources

Reference 24: Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). “Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.” American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Disability Studies for Learning Designers — Equity
Designing for Learner Variability at Scale — Designing for variability
Partnering with Disabled People in Learning Design — Equity
Models of Disability as Design Decisions — Equity
Disability Data and the Limits of Prevalence Figures — Equity

Connected resources

Designing for Learner Variability at Scale — Designing for variability

Institutions, governance and change

Where accessibility is decided before anything is designed - procurement, planning, faculty development - and what makes a published commitment turn into changed practice.

Visit the Institutions, governance and change page · Read this group on its own

Accessible Procurement and Vendor Accountability

The decisions made before anything is built

In development

An inaccessible platform, once purchased, sets the ceiling on everything designed inside it. This resource covers reading an accessibility conformance report critically rather than accepting it at face value, using recognised standards as procurement criteria, writing remediation commitments into agreements, and piloting with disabled users before signature.

Group. Institutions, governance and change

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. EN 301 549; WCAG 2.2; VPAT and accessibility conformance reports

Themes. Standards, Policy, Access

Sources

Reference 25: ETSI/CEN/CENELEC (2021). EN 301 549 V3.2.1: Accessibility Requirements for ICT Products and Services. Harmonised European Standard.
Reference 26: Information Technology Industry Council. Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) and Accessibility Conformance Reports.
Reference 15: W3C (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Accessibility Triage for Existing Course Inventories — Access, Standards · 2 shared sources
Designing for the Assistive Technology People Actually Use — Access, Standards · 1 shared source
Assistive Technology and Adaptive Strategies — Access, Standards
Institutional Accessibility Planning as a Change Program — Policy
International and Regional Disability Rights Instruments — Access, Policy, Standards

Connected resources

Accessibility Triage for Existing Course Inventories — Standards and technical practice
Designing for the Assistive Technology People Actually Use — Standards and technical practice
Institutional Accessibility Planning as a Change Program — Institutions, governance and change

Faculty Development That Changes Accessible Practice

From awareness to what instructors actually do

In development

Institutions have offered accessibility and inclusive design workshops for years, often with limited change in daily teaching practice. This resource diagnoses whether the gap is capability, opportunity, or motivation, then designs accordingly — point-of-need supports, discipline-specific exemplars, and department-embedded work — with any content on legal obligation delivered alongside the accommodation office rather than independently of it.

Group. Institutions, governance and change

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. COM-B and the Behaviour Change Wheel (Michie et al.); adult learning; UDL

Themes. Capacity, Change, Access

Sources

Reference 27: Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). “The Behaviour Change Wheel: A New Method for Characterising and Designing Behaviour Change Interventions.” Implementation Science, 6:42.
Reference 28: Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The Adult Learner (8th ed.). Routledge.
Reference 2: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Inclusive Facilitation & Capacity Building — Access, Capacity · 1 shared source
Institutional Accessibility Planning as a Change Program — Change
Closing the Knowing–Doing Gap — Institutions, governance and change
Onboarding Across Wide Experience Ranges — Access · 1 shared source
Making Accessibility More Than Compliance — Access · 1 shared source

Connected resources

Closing the Knowing–Doing Gap — Institutions, governance and change
Inclusive Facilitation & Capacity Building — Services
Institutional Accessibility Planning as a Change Program — Institutions, governance and change

Institutional Accessibility Planning as a Change Program

From a published plan to demonstrable change

In development

Statutory obligation produces an accessibility plan, a committee, and a feedback mechanism; it does not by itself produce sequencing, ownership, or capability. This resource brings systems design and change management to accessibility governance, and is written for a contributing role on an institutional plan rather than for authorship of an institution’s accessibility position.

Group. Institutions, governance and change

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. Accessible Canada Act; Accessible British Columbia Act; change management; systems thinking

Themes. Policy, Systems, Change

Sources

Reference 29: Accessible Canada Act, S.C. 2019, c. 10.
Reference 30: Accessible British Columbia Act, S.B.C. 2021, c. 19. Province of British Columbia.
Reference 31: Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.
Reference 32: Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday.

Most related, by shared source and theme

The Duty to Accommodate in Learning Design — Policy · 2 shared sources
Accessible Procurement and Vendor Accountability — Policy
Faculty Development That Changes Accessible Practice — Change
International and Regional Disability Rights Instruments — Policy
Disability Data and the Limits of Prevalence Figures — Grounding

Connected resources

The Duty to Accommodate in Learning Design — Rights, duty and accommodation
Evaluating Whether Design Reduced Barriers — Standards and technical practice

Closing the Knowing–Doing Gap

From understanding to changed practice

Published resource

Designing for the distance between what learners understand and what they actually do — the transfer problem seen through an inclusive lens. It shares its machinery with reflection at the experience level and with change at the systems level.

Group. Institutions, governance and change

Home branch. Universal Design for Learning · Well established

Grounding. Transfer research; Universal Design for Learning

Themes. Transfer

Sources

Reference 33: Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action. Harvard Business School Press.
Reference 34: Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Expanded ed.). National Academy Press.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Faculty Development That Changes Accessible Practice — Institutions, governance and change
Designing for Learner Variability at Scale — Designing for variability

Connected resources

Designing for Learner Variability at Scale — Designing for variability

Rights, duty and accommodation

What is owed to a person, and what proactive design does and does not discharge. The legal and ethical architecture within which access decisions are made and defended.

Visit the Rights, duty and accommodation page · Read this group on its own

Why Universal Design Never Eliminates Individual Accommodation

The anchor · why both are permanent, and both are skilled

In development

Individual accommodation is not a residue left behind by imperfect design. Human variability has no outer edge, some barriers are the very thing an assessment is meant to measure, and the duty is owed to a person rather than discharged by a process — which is why proactive design and individual accommodation remain complementary, and why the accommodation encounter is skilled professional practice rather than an administrative step.

Group. Rights, duty and accommodation

Home branch. Accessibility · Long-settled practice

Grounding. Inclusive design and one-size-fits-one; the duty to accommodate; construct validity

Themes. Accommodation, Access, Variability

Sources

Reference 10: Inclusive Design Research Centre. The Inclusive Design Guide. OCAD University — the source of the one-size-fits-one principle and the inclusive design framework.
Reference 35: Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., Steinfeld, E., Story, M., & Vanderheiden, G. (1997). The Principles of Universal Design, Version 2.0. Center for Universal Design, North Carolina State University.
Reference 36: British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3, 1999 CanLII 652 (SCC) — the “Meiorin” decision, establishing the unified bona fide requirement test and accommodation to the point of undue hardship.
Reference 37: Messick, S. (1995). “Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferences from Persons’ Responses and Performances as Scientific Inquiry into Score Meaning.” American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.
Reference 2: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.

Most related, by shared source and theme

From Accommodation to Proactive Inclusive Design — Access, Variability · 1 shared source
Essential Requirements and the Limits of Flexibility — Accommodation · 2 shared sources
The Duty to Accommodate in Learning Design — Access, Accommodation · 1 shared source
Accessible Physical and Hybrid Learning Environments — Access, Variability · 1 shared source
Making Accessibility More Than Compliance — Access · 1 shared source

Connected resources

From Accommodation to Proactive Inclusive Design — Rights, duty and accommodation
Making Accessibility More Than Compliance — Standards and technical practice
The Duty to Accommodate in Learning Design — Rights, duty and accommodation
Essential Requirements and the Limits of Flexibility — Rights, duty and accommodation
Designing Out the Disclosure Requirement — Rights, duty and accommodation

The Duty to Accommodate in Learning Design

The legal frame, written for those who build and teach

In development

The architecture within which access decisions are made and defended: the procedural and substantive duty, the unified bona fide requirement test, and accommodation to the point of undue hardship, set in the Canadian frame with the cross-border standards that vendor and partnership work require. It is offered as synthesis for designers, faculty, and institutions; determinations in individual cases rest with accessibility advisors and accommodation offices, and with legal counsel where a matter becomes contested.

Group. Rights, duty and accommodation

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. Meiorin and the BFOR test; Accessible Canada Act; BC Human Rights Code; Accessible British Columbia Act; ADA and Sections 504/508

Themes. Accommodation, Policy, Access

Sources

Reference 36: British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3, 1999 CanLII 652 (SCC) — the “Meiorin” decision, establishing the unified bona fide requirement test and accommodation to the point of undue hardship.
Reference 29: Accessible Canada Act, S.C. 2019, c. 10.
Reference 38: Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210. Province of British Columbia.
Reference 30: Accessible British Columbia Act, S.B.C. 2021, c. 19. Province of British Columbia.
Reference 39: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Sections 504 and 508, as amended.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Why Universal Design Never Eliminates Individual Accommodation — Access, Accommodation · 1 shared source
International and Regional Disability Rights Instruments — Access, Policy
Essential Requirements and the Limits of Flexibility — Accommodation · 1 shared source
Institutional Accessibility Planning as a Change Program — Policy · 2 shared sources
Designing for Episodic and Fluctuating Conditions — Access, Accommodation

Connected resources

Why Universal Design Never Eliminates Individual Accommodation — Rights, duty and accommodation
Essential Requirements and the Limits of Flexibility — Rights, duty and accommodation
Institutional Accessibility Planning as a Change Program — Institutions, governance and change

Essential Requirements and the Limits of Flexibility

What a standard genuinely requires, articulated in advance

In development

The most demanding judgment in the field: when flexibility preserves what is being measured, and when it alters it. This resource supports programs in articulating their essential requirements before any dispute arises — separating what a standard genuinely requires from what it has inherited by convention — so that the reasoning is available to everyone who later needs it.

Group. Rights, duty and accommodation

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. Construct validity; constructive alignment; bona fide academic and technical standards

Themes. Accommodation, Assessment, Alignment

Sources

Reference 37: Messick, S. (1995). “Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferences from Persons’ Responses and Performances as Scientific Inquiry into Score Meaning.” American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.
Reference 40: Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (Expanded 2nd ed.). ASCD.
Reference 36: British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3, 1999 CanLII 652 (SCC) — the “Meiorin” decision, establishing the unified bona fide requirement test and accommodation to the point of undue hardship.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Access in Clinical and Placement Education — Accommodation, Assessment · 2 shared sources
Why Universal Design Never Eliminates Individual Accommodation — Accommodation · 2 shared sources
Eliminating Construct-Irrelevant Barriers in Assessment — Assessment · 1 shared source
The Duty to Accommodate in Learning Design — Accommodation · 1 shared source
Inclusive Course & Curriculum Design — Alignment · 1 shared source

Connected resources

Why Universal Design Never Eliminates Individual Accommodation — Rights, duty and accommodation
Eliminating Construct-Irrelevant Barriers in Assessment — Rights, duty and accommodation
Access in Clinical and Placement Education — Sectors and participation

Designing Out the Disclosure Requirement

Disclosure burden as a design variable

In development

Access that is gated behind disclosure asks a person to name a private matter to someone holding authority over them, and the documented costs of that request are real: anticipated stigma, delay, and for some, a decision not to ask at all. This resource treats disclosure burden as something design can measure and reduce — why a flexible deadline requiring an email is a disclosure event and a built-in buffer is not — while leaving the accommodation record itself where it belongs, with the office that holds it.

Group. Rights, duty and accommodation

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. Stigma and concealment (Goffman); academic ableism; BC information-governance requirements

Themes. Disability studies, Access, Equity

Sources

Reference 41: Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice-Hall.
Reference 6: Dolmage, J. T. (2017). Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education. University of Michigan Press.
Reference 42: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165. Province of British Columbia.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Disability Studies for Learning Designers — Access, Disability studies, Equity · 1 shared source
Why Universal Design Never Eliminates Individual Accommodation — Access
Designing for Episodic and Fluctuating Conditions — Access
Models of Disability as Design Decisions — Access, Disability studies, Equity
From Accommodation to Proactive Inclusive Design — Access

Connected resources

Why Universal Design Never Eliminates Individual Accommodation — Rights, duty and accommodation
Disability Studies for Learning Designers — Grounding
Designing for Episodic and Fluctuating Conditions — Rights, duty and accommodation

Designing for Episodic and Fluctuating Conditions

Program architecture for conditions that vary

In development

Attendance policy, deadline architecture, cohort progression, and leave-and-return pathways — the structural layer of a problem that individual accommodation handles with difficulty because most systems assume stable limitations. It is program and policy design, offered in the knowledge that disabled people and experienced advisors hold far more understanding of these conditions than the design literature yet reflects.

Group. Rights, duty and accommodation

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. Episodic disability framework (O’Brien et al.); disability studies

Themes. Accommodation, Wellbeing, Access

Sources

Reference 43: O’Brien, K. K., Bayoumi, A. M., Strike, C., Young, N. L., & Davis, A. M. (2008). “Exploring Disability from the Perspective of Adults Living with HIV/AIDS: Development of a Conceptual Framework.” Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6:76.
Reference 8: Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, Queer, Crip. Indiana University Press.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Essential Requirements and the Limits of Flexibility — Accommodation
Designing Out the Disclosure Requirement — Access
Disability Categories and the Barriers People Meet — Access
Why Universal Design Never Eliminates Individual Accommodation — Access, Accommodation
The Duty to Accommodate in Learning Design — Access, Accommodation

Connected resources

Designing Out the Disclosure Requirement — Rights, duty and accommodation
Essential Requirements and the Limits of Flexibility — Rights, duty and accommodation

International and Regional Disability Rights Instruments

The layer above domestic duty

In development

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its General Comments, and the Marrakesh Treaty, together with the regional instruments — the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the Inter-American Convention. It explains why accessibility obligations converge across jurisdictions rather than arising independently in each, and supplies the vocabulary required to work with partners outside Canada.

Group. Rights, duty and accommodation

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. UDHR (1948); CRPD (2006); Marrakesh Treaty (2013); regional human rights instruments

Themes. Policy, Standards, Access

Sources

Reference 44: United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Reference 23: United Nations (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
Reference 45: World Intellectual Property Organization (2013). Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled.
Reference 46: European Union (2012). Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2012/C 326/02.

Most related, by shared source and theme

The Duty to Accommodate in Learning Design — Access, Policy
Accessible Procurement and Vendor Accountability — Access, Policy, Standards
Institutional Accessibility Planning as a Change Program — Policy
Partnering with Disabled People in Learning Design — Grounding
From Accommodation to Proactive Inclusive Design — Access

Connected resources

The Duty to Accommodate in Learning Design — Rights, duty and accommodation
Institutional Accessibility Planning as a Change Program — Institutions, governance and change
Partnering with Disabled People in Learning Design — Grounding

From Accommodation to Proactive Inclusive Design

The field's defining reframe

Published resource

Shifting from retrofitting access for individuals after the fact to designing inclusively from the start, so fewer barriers are ever built in. It states the paradigm shift the field rests on, plainly.

Group. Rights, duty and accommodation

Home branch. Universal Design for Learning · Well established

Grounding. Universal Design for Learning; inclusive design principles

Themes. Access, Variability

Sources

Reference 47: Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice. CAST Professional Publishing.
Reference 2: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Why Universal Design Never Eliminates Individual Accommodation — Access, Variability · 1 shared source
Onboarding Across Wide Experience Ranges — Access, Variability · 1 shared source
Designing for Learner Variability at Scale — Variability · 1 shared source
Accessibility Review — Access · 1 shared source
Eliminating Construct-Irrelevant Barriers in Assessment — Access · 1 shared source

Connected resources

Designing for Learner Variability at Scale — Designing for variability
Accessibility Review — Services
Why Universal Design Never Eliminates Individual Accommodation — Rights, duty and accommodation

Eliminating Construct-Irrelevant Barriers in Assessment

Measuring capability, not obstacles

Published resource

Removing features of an assessment that get in the way of demonstrating mastery without being part of what is measured, so results reflect capability rather than incidental barriers. It works alongside assessment designed as experience.

Group. Rights, duty and accommodation

Home branch. Universal Design for Learning · Well established

Grounding. Construct validity; UDL action & expression

Themes. Assessment, Access

Sources

Reference 37: Messick, S. (1995). “Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferences from Persons’ Responses and Performances as Scientific Inquiry into Score Meaning.” American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.
Reference 2: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Essential Requirements and the Limits of Flexibility — Assessment · 1 shared source
Accessibility Review — Access · 1 shared source
Designing for Learner Variability at Scale — 1 shared source
Why Universal Design Never Eliminates Individual Accommodation — Access · 2 shared sources
From Accommodation to Proactive Inclusive Design — Access · 1 shared source

Connected resources

Designing for Learner Variability at Scale — Designing for variability
Accessibility Review — Services
Essential Requirements and the Limits of Flexibility — Rights, duty and accommodation

Sectors and participation

Clinical, health and research settings, where access questions carry additional duties, and the question of who is able to take part at all.

Visit the Sectors and participation page · Read this group on its own

Access in Clinical and Placement Education

Holding patient safety and access seriously at once

In development

Placement, simulation, precepting, and competency assessment are where essential requirements are most contested and where safety arguments can close conversations that deserve to stay open. This resource works through the design and assessment architecture that allows a program to protect genuine safety requirements while examining the ones it has never had reason to question.

Group. Sectors and participation

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. Technical standards in health professions education (Meeks & Jain); construct validity; duty to accommodate

Themes. Accommodation, Assessment, Access

Sources

Reference 48: Meeks, L. M., & Jain, N. R. (2018). Accessibility, Inclusion, and Action in Medical Education: Lived Experiences of Learners and Physicians with Disabilities. Association of American Medical Colleges.
Reference 37: Messick, S. (1995). “Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferences from Persons’ Responses and Performances as Scientific Inquiry into Score Meaning.” American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.
Reference 36: British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3, 1999 CanLII 652 (SCC) — the “Meiorin” decision, establishing the unified bona fide requirement test and accommodation to the point of undue hardship.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Essential Requirements and the Limits of Flexibility — Accommodation, Assessment · 2 shared sources
Accessible Health and Patient Education — Access
Eliminating Construct-Irrelevant Barriers in Assessment — Access, Assessment · 1 shared source
Why Universal Design Never Eliminates Individual Accommodation — Access, Accommodation · 2 shared sources
Accessible Physical and Hybrid Learning Environments — Access

Connected resources

Essential Requirements and the Limits of Flexibility — Rights, duty and accommodation
Accessible Health and Patient Education — Sectors and participation

Accessible Health and Patient Education

Access beyond the learner, to the person receiving care

In development

Health literacy, plain language, communication access, and accessible patient education and informed consent, set against the documented health disparities disabled people experience. It is the point at which accessible learning design reaches materials intended for patients and the public rather than for students and staff.

Group. Sectors and participation

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. Health literacy (Nutbeam); disability health disparities (Krahn et al.); social determinants of health

Themes. Access, Wellbeing, Equity

Sources

Reference 49: Nutbeam, D. (2000). “Health Literacy as a Public Health Goal: A Challenge for Contemporary Health Education and Communication Strategies into the 21st Century.” Health Promotion International, 15(3), 259–267.
Reference 50: Krahn, G. L., Walker, D. K., & Correa-De-Araujo, R. (2015). “Persons with Disabilities as an Unrecognized Health Disparity Population.” American Journal of Public Health, 105(S2), S198–S206.
Reference 51: WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (2008). Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity Through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. World Health Organization.
Reference 1: Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. ASCD.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Access in Clinical and Placement Education — Access
Designing for Learner Variability at Scale — 1 shared source
Disability Data and the Limits of Prevalence Figures — Equity
Accessible Research Participation and Knowledge Products — Access, Equity
Disability Studies for Learning Designers — Access, Equity

Connected resources

Access in Clinical and Placement Education — Sectors and participation
Designing for Learner Variability at Scale — Designing for variability

Accessible Research Participation and Knowledge Products

Who can take part, and who can read the findings

In development

Consent materials, participant-facing instruments, plain-language summaries, and accessible dissemination — increasingly expected by research ethics boards and funders, and rarely designed for. It sits at the junction of knowledge mobilization and accessibility, where a study’s reach is set as much by its materials as by its recruitment.

Group. Sectors and participation

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. TCPS 2 (2022); knowledge mobilization; WCAG 2.2

Themes. Research, Access, Equity

Sources

Reference 11: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (2022). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans — TCPS 2 (2022).
Reference 52: Graham, I. D., Logan, J., Harrison, M. B., Straus, S. E., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W., & Robinson, N. (2006). “Lost in Knowledge Translation: Time for a Map?” Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1), 13–24.
Reference 15: W3C (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Partnering with Disabled People in Learning Design — Equity · 1 shared source
Accessible Health and Patient Education — Access, Equity
Making Accessibility More Than Compliance — Access · 1 shared source
Accessibility Review — Access · 1 shared source
Accessibility Triage for Existing Course Inventories — Access · 1 shared source

Connected resources

Partnering with Disabled People in Learning Design — Grounding

Services

The three engagements the knowledge resources ground. Each names the resource that sets out its method in full.

Visit the Services page · Read this group on its own

Accessibility Review

Service · Accessible Learning Labs

Offered as a service

A rigorous review of learning environments that holds four interconnected bodies of knowledge in view at once, producing findings a surface-level compliance check cannot. It is offered as a specific, scoped service.

Group. Services

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. WCAG; UDL; disability studies; systems knowledge

Themes. Access, Evaluation

Sources

Reference 15: W3C (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation.
Reference 2: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Making Accessibility More Than Compliance — Access · 2 shared sources
Inclusive Course & Curriculum Design — Access · 1 shared source
From Accommodation to Proactive Inclusive Design — Access · 1 shared source
Eliminating Construct-Irrelevant Barriers in Assessment — Access · 1 shared source
Evaluating Whether Design Reduced Barriers — Access, Evaluation · 1 shared source

Connected resources

Making Accessibility More Than Compliance — Standards and technical practice
Inclusive Course & Curriculum Design — Services
Accessibility Triage for Existing Course Inventories — Standards and technical practice

Inclusive Course & Curriculum Design

Service · Accessible Learning Labs

Offered as a service

Inclusive design of courses and curricula for faculty, designers, and curriculum committees — integrating design frameworks, pedagogy, and the systems knowledge that makes change endure. It is offered as a specific service.

Group. Services

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. UDL; backward design; assessment equity; systems knowledge

Themes. Access, Alignment

Sources

Reference 2: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.
Reference 40: Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (Expanded 2nd ed.). ASCD.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Accessibility Review — Access · 1 shared source
Making Accessibility More Than Compliance — Access · 1 shared source
Essential Requirements and the Limits of Flexibility — Alignment · 1 shared source
Onboarding Across Wide Experience Ranges — Access · 1 shared source
From Accommodation to Proactive Inclusive Design — Access · 1 shared source

Connected resources

Accessibility Review — Services
Making Accessibility More Than Compliance — Standards and technical practice
Essential Requirements and the Limits of Flexibility — Rights, duty and accommodation

Inclusive Facilitation & Capacity Building

Service · Accessible Learning Labs

Offered as a service

Facilitation understood as a professional stance shaped by how power, identity, and legitimate knowledge are held — and the building of others' capacity to facilitate inclusively. It is offered as a specific service.

Group. Services

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. Power-aware facilitation; adult learning; equity

Themes. Community, Capacity, Access

Sources

Reference 28: Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The Adult Learner (8th ed.). Routledge.
Reference 53: Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Faculty Development That Changes Accessible Practice — Access, Capacity · 1 shared source
Accessibility Review — Access
Disability Etiquette and Communication in Learning Environments — Capacity, Community
Inclusive Course & Curriculum Design — Access

Connected resources

Accessibility Review — Services
Faculty Development That Changes Accessible Practice — Institutions, governance and change

Standards and technical practice

Conformance, assistive technology, and the gap between the two. What a standard requires, and why meeting it does not always mean a person can use the thing.

Visit the Standards and technical practice page · Read this group on its own

Accessibility Triage for Existing Course Inventories

A defensible order of work when everything cannot be fixed at once

In development

Most institutions hold thousands of documents, modules, videos, and pages built before anyone was checking, with no realistic path to full conformance. This resource offers a tiered protocol — what is remediated now, what is rebuilt at next revision, what is retired, and which standard applies to each tier — using high-volume required and compliance training as the worked example.

Group. Standards and technical practice

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. WCAG 2.2; EN 301 549; remediation prioritisation

Themes. Standards, Access, Scale

Sources

Reference 15: W3C (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation.
Reference 25: ETSI/CEN/CENELEC (2021). EN 301 549 V3.2.1: Accessibility Requirements for ICT Products and Services. Harmonised European Standard.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Accessible Procurement and Vendor Accountability — Access, Standards · 2 shared sources
Designing for the Assistive Technology People Actually Use — Access, Standards · 1 shared source
Accessibility Review — Access · 1 shared source
Making Accessibility More Than Compliance — Access · 1 shared source
Accessible Physical and Hybrid Learning Environments — Access, Standards

Connected resources

Accessible Procurement and Vendor Accountability — Institutions, governance and change
Designing for the Assistive Technology People Actually Use — Standards and technical practice
Accessibility Review — Services

Designing for the Assistive Technology People Actually Use

Why conformant content can still fail in practice

In development

Conformance and assistive-technology fluency are not the same thing, and the difference shows quickly in real use. This resource covers testing with actual assistive technology rather than automated checking alone, and the reasons technically conformant material can still obstruct — while leaving assessment, tool matching, and training to the assistive technology specialists and advisors whose professional work that is.

Group. Standards and technical practice

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. SETT framework (Zabala); HAAT model (Cook & Polgar); WCAG 2.2

Themes. Standards, Access, Disability studies

Sources

Reference 17: Zabala, J. S. (2005). Ready, SETT, Go! Getting Started with the SETT Framework — the Student, Environments, Tasks, Tools framework for assistive technology decision-making.
Reference 16: Cook, A. M., & Polgar, J. M. (2015). Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice (4th ed.). Elsevier — the source of the Human Activity Assistive Technology (HAAT) model.
Reference 15: W3C (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Assistive Technology and Adaptive Strategies — Access, Disability studies, Standards · 2 shared sources
Accessibility Triage for Existing Course Inventories — Access, Standards · 1 shared source
Disability Categories and the Barriers People Meet — Access, Disability studies · 1 shared source
Accessible Procurement and Vendor Accountability — Access, Standards · 1 shared source
Accessibility Review — Access · 1 shared source

Connected resources

Accessibility Triage for Existing Course Inventories — Standards and technical practice
Accessible Procurement and Vendor Accountability — Institutions, governance and change
Accessibility Review — Services

Accessible Physical and Hybrid Learning Environments

The part of universal design most often handed to facilities

In development

The seven principles of universal design as they were originally written — for buildings, spaces, and products — and what they require of a classroom, a laboratory, a placement site, and the hybrid arrangements that now carry a large share of teaching. It is the part of universal design that learning designers most often hand to facilities management, and the part that determines whether a person can be present in the room at all.

Group. Standards and technical practice

Home branch. Accessibility · Well established

Grounding. Principles of Universal Design (Connell et al., 1997); CSA B651; Accessible Canada Act

Themes. Access, Variability, Standards

Sources

Reference 35: Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., Steinfeld, E., Story, M., & Vanderheiden, G. (1997). The Principles of Universal Design, Version 2.0. Center for Universal Design, North Carolina State University.
Reference 54: CSA Group. CSA B651: Accessible Design for the Built Environment. Canadian Standards Association.
Reference 29: Accessible Canada Act, S.C. 2019, c. 10.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Why Universal Design Never Eliminates Individual Accommodation — Access, Variability · 1 shared source
Making Accessibility More Than Compliance — Access
Access in Clinical and Placement Education — Access
Accessibility Triage for Existing Course Inventories — Access, Standards
Designing for the Assistive Technology People Actually Use — Access, Standards

Connected resources

Why Universal Design Never Eliminates Individual Accommodation — Rights, duty and accommodation
Access in Clinical and Placement Education — Sectors and participation
Making Accessibility More Than Compliance — Standards and technical practice

Making Accessibility More Than Compliance

Access as design quality, not a checklist

In development

Treating accessibility as a dimension of good design rather than a minimum legal standard met at the end. It is the conceptual bridge from inclusive learning design to the accessibility, disability and accommodation branch, and to the service line offered alongside it.

Group. Standards and technical practice

Home branch. Universal Design for Learning · Newer or contested

Grounding. WCAG; UDL; inclusive design

Themes. Access

Sources

Reference 15: W3C (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation.
Reference 2: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Accessibility Review — Access · 2 shared sources
Inclusive Course & Curriculum Design — Access · 1 shared source
Accessible Physical and Hybrid Learning Environments — Access
Why Universal Design Never Eliminates Individual Accommodation — Access · 1 shared source
Evaluating Whether Design Reduced Barriers — Access · 1 shared source

Connected resources

Designing for Learner Variability at Scale — Designing for variability
Accessibility Review — Services
Inclusive Course & Curriculum Design — Services
Why Universal Design Never Eliminates Individual Accommodation — Rights, duty and accommodation

Evaluating Whether Design Reduced Barriers

Closing the UDL cycle with evidence

In development

Measuring whether an inclusive design actually lowered barriers, rather than assuming that it did — ending on rigor rather than aspiration. It belongs to the shared evaluation family that runs across the practice.

Group. Standards and technical practice

Home branch. Universal Design for Learning · Well established

Grounding. Evaluation design; Universal Design for Learning

Themes. Evaluation, Access

Sources

Reference 55: Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.
Reference 2: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.

Most related, by shared source and theme

Accessibility Review — Access, Evaluation · 1 shared source
Making Accessibility More Than Compliance — Access · 1 shared source
Designing for Learner Variability at Scale — 1 shared source
Onboarding Across Wide Experience Ranges — Access · 1 shared source
From Accommodation to Proactive Inclusive Design — Access · 1 shared source

Connected resources

Designing for Learner Variability at Scale — Designing for variability
Institutional Accessibility Planning as a Change Program — Institutions, governance and change

Section 4 of four

References and resources

The theory, law, and standards these resources are rooted in, listed once and cited by number above. Peer-reviewed, statutory, and institutional sources link directly. Books, reports, and legislation are cited in full so they can be found in any library catalogue or official register.

Universal Design for Learning1. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. ASCD.
Universal Design for Learning2. CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.
https://udlguidelines.cast.org
Motivation3. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being.” American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Learning sciences4. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Disability studies5. Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. Macmillan — the foundational statement of the social model of disability.
Disability studies6. Dolmage, J. T. (2017). Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education. University of Michigan Press.
Disability studies7. Titchkosky, T. (2011). The Question of Access: Disability, Space, Meaning. University of Toronto Press.
Disability studies8. Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, Queer, Crip. Indiana University Press.
Disability justice9. Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment. University of California Press.
Inclusive design10. Inclusive Design Research Centre. The Inclusive Design Guide. OCAD University — the source of the one-size-fits-one principle and the inclusive design framework.
https://guide.inclusivedesign.ca/
Research ethics11. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (2022). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans — TCPS 2 (2022).
https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique_tcps2-eptc2_2022.html
Disability classification12. World Health Organization (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). WHO — the source of the biopsychosocial model of disability.
https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health
Disability studies13. Retief, M., & Letšosa, R. (2018). “Models of Disability: A Brief Overview.” HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies, 74(1).
Disability studies14. Shakespeare, T. (2013). Disability Rights and Wrongs Revisited (2nd ed.). Routledge — a critical reassessment of the strong social model.
Accessibility standards15. W3C (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation.
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
Assistive technology16. Cook, A. M., & Polgar, J. M. (2015). Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice (4th ed.). Elsevier — the source of the Human Activity Assistive Technology (HAAT) model.
Assistive technology17. Zabala, J. S. (2005). Ready, SETT, Go! Getting Started with the SETT Framework — the Student, Environments, Tasks, Tools framework for assistive technology decision-making.
Assistive technology18. World Health Organization & UNICEF (2022). Global Report on Assistive Technology. World Health Organization.
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240049451
Disability data19. World Health Organization & World Bank (2011). World Report on Disability. World Health Organization.
Disability and health equity20. World Health Organization (2022). Global Report on Health Equity for Persons with Disabilities. World Health Organization.
Disability data21. Statistics Canada. Canadian Survey on Disability — the national source for disability prevalence in Canada.
Disability etiquette22. United Spinal Association. Disability Etiquette: Tips on Interacting with People with Disabilities.
International instruments23. United Nations (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
https://social.desa.un.org/issues/disability/crpd/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-crpd
Culturally relevant pedagogy24. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). “Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.” American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
Accessibility standards25. ETSI/CEN/CENELEC (2021). EN 301 549 V3.2.1: Accessibility Requirements for ICT Products and Services. Harmonised European Standard.
https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/03.02.01_60/en_301549v030201p.pdf
Accessibility standards26. Information Technology Industry Council. Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) and Accessibility Conformance Reports.
https://www.itic.org/policy/accessibility/vpat
Behaviour change27. Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). “The Behaviour Change Wheel: A New Method for Characterising and Designing Behaviour Change Interventions.” Implementation Science, 6:42.
https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
Adult learning28. Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The Adult Learner (8th ed.). Routledge.
Accessibility law29. Accessible Canada Act, S.C. 2019, c. 10.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/a-0.6/
Accessibility law30. Accessible British Columbia Act, S.B.C. 2021, c. 19. Province of British Columbia.
Change management31. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.
Organizational learning32. Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday.
Knowing–doing gap33. Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action. Harvard Business School Press.
Learning sciences34. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Expanded ed.). National Academy Press.
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/9853/how-people-learn-brain-mind-experience-and-school
Universal design35. Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., Steinfeld, E., Story, M., & Vanderheiden, G. (1997). The Principles of Universal Design, Version 2.0. Center for Universal Design, North Carolina State University.
Human rights law36. British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3, 1999 CanLII 652 (SCC) — the “Meiorin” decision, establishing the unified bona fide requirement test and accommodation to the point of undue hardship.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii652/1999canlii652.html
Assessment37. Messick, S. (1995). “Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferences from Persons’ Responses and Performances as Scientific Inquiry into Score Meaning.” American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.
Human rights law38. Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210. Province of British Columbia.
Accessibility law39. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Sections 504 and 508, as amended.
https://www.ada.gov/
Instructional design40. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (Expanded 2nd ed.). ASCD.
Disclosure and stigma41. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice-Hall.
Information governance42. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165. Province of British Columbia.
Episodic disability43. O’Brien, K. K., Bayoumi, A. M., Strike, C., Young, N. L., & Davis, A. M. (2008). “Exploring Disability from the Perspective of Adults Living with HIV/AIDS: Development of a Conceptual Framework.” Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 6:76.
International instruments44. United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
International instruments45. World Intellectual Property Organization (2013). Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled.
Regional instruments46. European Union (2012). Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2012/C 326/02.
Universal Design for Learning47. Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice. CAST Professional Publishing.
Health professions education48. Meeks, L. M., & Jain, N. R. (2018). Accessibility, Inclusion, and Action in Medical Education: Lived Experiences of Learners and Physicians with Disabilities. Association of American Medical Colleges.
Health literacy49. Nutbeam, D. (2000). “Health Literacy as a Public Health Goal: A Challenge for Contemporary Health Education and Communication Strategies into the 21st Century.” Health Promotion International, 15(3), 259–267.
Disability and health equity50. Krahn, G. L., Walker, D. K., & Correa-De-Araujo, R. (2015). “Persons with Disabilities as an Unrecognized Health Disparity Population.” American Journal of Public Health, 105(S2), S198–S206.
Social determinants51. WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (2008). Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity Through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. World Health Organization.
Knowledge mobilization52. Graham, I. D., Logan, J., Harrison, M. B., Straus, S. E., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W., & Robinson, N. (2006). “Lost in Knowledge Translation: Time for a Map?” Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1), 13–24.
Social learning53. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press.
Built environment54. CSA Group. CSA B651: Accessible Design for the Built Environment. Canadian Standards Association.
Evaluation55. Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.

Back to contents

Every resource on this page reflects applied work carried out with learners, design teams, and partner organizations, and is grounded in the scholarship listed above. An interactive version of this map presents the same content as a navigable diagram.