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 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.
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.
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
Connected resources
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
Connected resources
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
Connected resources
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
Connected resources
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
Connected resources
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.