Accessible Learning Labs

Grounding

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

Screen reader and keyboard optimised version. All content is presented in reading order, with no diagram, tabs, or scripting. An interactive map version presents the same content as a navigable diagram.

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

8 resources in this group — 7 from Accessibility and 1 from Universal Design for Learning. Resources from other groups are named where they are closely related; the full landscape carries all thirty-five.

Visit the Grounding page · All seven groups in one page

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.

Grounding

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

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

Connected resources

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

Connected resources

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

Connected resources

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

Connected resources

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

Connected resources

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

Connected resources

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

Connected resources

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

Connected resources

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.

  1. Disability studies5. Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. Macmillan — the foundational statement of the social model of disability.
  2. Disability studies6. Dolmage, J. T. (2017). Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education. University of Michigan Press.
  3. Disability studies7. Titchkosky, T. (2011). The Question of Access: Disability, Space, Meaning. University of Toronto Press.
  4. Disability studies8. Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, Queer, Crip. Indiana University Press.
  5. Disability justice9. Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment. University of California Press.
  6. 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/
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Disability studies13. Retief, M., & Letšosa, R. (2018). “Models of Disability: A Brief Overview.” HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies, 74(1).
  10. Disability studies14. Shakespeare, T. (2013). Disability Rights and Wrongs Revisited (2nd ed.). Routledge — a critical reassessment of the strong social model.
  11. Accessibility standards15. W3C (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation.
    https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Assistive technology18. World Health Organization & UNICEF (2022). Global Report on Assistive Technology. World Health Organization.
    https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240049451
  15. Disability data19. World Health Organization & World Bank (2011). World Report on Disability. World Health Organization.
  16. Disability and health equity20. World Health Organization (2022). Global Report on Health Equity for Persons with Disabilities. World Health Organization.
  17. Disability data21. Statistics Canada. Canadian Survey on Disability — the national source for disability prevalence in Canada.
  18. Disability etiquette22. United Spinal Association. Disability Etiquette: Tips on Interacting with People with Disabilities.
  19. 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
  20. Culturally relevant pedagogy24. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). “Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.” American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.

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.