Three engagements for decisions an institution has to be able to defend. Each draws on the knowledge resources that set out its method in full.
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, followed by the three engagements that draw on them.
Every resource states the bodies of knowledge it rests on and cites its sources by number to the reference list in Section 4. Every resource on this page is practised; where it is marked as in development, the grounding and sources are settled and the written resource is not yet published.
This landscape zooms into two branches of the learning design practice mapped at andrearobin.com, where the trunk is Groundwork, the learning design method. The contributions here that do not appear on that map are made possible by Fieldwork, the research method practised at Accessible Learning Labs.
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.
Sources are written out in full here as well as numbered, so that following a reference is never necessary to understand an entry.
Engagements
Three engagements for decisions an institution has to be able to defend. Each draws on the knowledge resources that set out its method in full.
Essential Requirements Review
Engagement · Accessible Learning Labs
Offered as an engagement
For health, clinical and professional programmes and the professions they lead into, and for learning programmes of every kind. A requirement-by-requirement review, from admission to completion, that separates what a profession or programme genuinely requires from what has been inherited by convention, and tests each against the justification Canadian human rights law requires. The legal test sets the floor; disabled students and practitioners sit on the review, so their knowledge shapes what counts as essential; and the defensibility file the programme keeps is built to be revised as evidence arrives. Offered in support of accommodation offices and legal counsel, never in place of them.
Group. Engagements
Home branch. Accessibility · Well established
Grounding. Human rights and accommodation law; essential requirements; assessment validity; disability studies
Themes. Accommodation, Assessment, Policy
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 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 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 38: Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210. Province of British Columbia.
For programmes, testing centres and credentialing bodies. Assessments are examined for construct-irrelevant variance: the time limits, formats and conditions that measure something other than the outcome. Conformance and the duty to accommodate set the floor; the people who take the assessment take part in judging what it measures; and evaluation is built into the redesign so the assessment keeps improving. The result reduces how often individual accommodation is needed, without treating accommodation as lesser, and leaves the assessment more valid for everyone who takes it.
Group. Engagements
Home branch. Accessibility · Well established
Grounding. Educational measurement; validity theory; Universal Design for Learning; accommodation law
Themes. Assessment, Access, Accommodation
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.
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.
For organisations required to publish an accessibility plan under the Accessible British Columbia Act or the Accessible Canada Act. Every plan commits to learning: staff training, faculty development, accessible onboarding, mandatory courses. Those commitments are where a plan changes practice or does not. Evidence, gathered with the people the training is meant to reach, of where the commitment and what people actually receive have drifted apart, and what to redesign before the next three-year update. The plan and the Act set the floor; the people the training serves judge whether it reached them; and evaluation is built into the training itself, so the next cycle can learn from this one.
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.
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.
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.
Evaluation55. Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.
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.