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 eight 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.
Rights and obligation
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.
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 and obligation
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
Connected resources
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 and obligation
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
Connected resources
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 and obligation
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
Connected resources
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 and obligation
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
Connected resources
Canadian Accessibility and Accommodation Law for Learning Designers
Two separate instruments, in plain language
In development
The Accessible Canada Act, the Accessible British Columbia Act and the BC Human Rights Code duty to accommodate, written for learning designers and faculty. Human rights law and accessibility legislation are separate instruments with different mechanisms, different scope and different remedies, and the distinction determines what an institution owes and to whom. It sets out what binds a public post-secondary institution in British Columbia, where obligations differ for private training providers, and includes the Ontario legislation for comparison.
Group. Rights and obligation
Home branch. Accessibility · Well established
Grounding. Accessible Canada Act; Accessible British Columbia Act; BC Human Rights Code; CRPD
Themes. Policy, Access, Accommodation
Sources
- Reference 29: Accessible Canada Act, S.C. 2019, c. 10.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/a-0.6/
- Reference 30: Accessible British Columbia Act, S.B.C. 2021, c. 19. Province of British Columbia.
- Reference 38: Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210. Province of British Columbia.
- 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.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii652/1999canlii652.html
- Reference 60: Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 11. Province of Ontario.
- Reference 61: CAN/ASC-EN 301 549:2024. Accessibility Requirements for ICT Products and Services (EN 301 549:2021, IDT). Accessibility Standards Canada, published 31 May 2024, available free of charge.
Most related, by shared source and theme
Connected resources
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 and obligation
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
Connected resources
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 and obligation
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
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.