Learning Design Specialization

Accessibility

Access, disability, and accommodation. Every resource in this branch, with its grounding, sources, and relationships, set out in reading order.

Screen reader and keyboard optimised version. All content is presented in reading order, with no diagram, tabs, or scripting. An interactive version of this area map is also available.

Section 1

About this branch

This branch is developed further through Fieldwork, the research method practised at Accessible Learning Labs. Access understood at the level of the individual person and the obligation an institution holds toward them, alongside the proactive design that reduces how often that obligation must be invoked. This branch gathers knowledge resources written for learning designers, faculty, and institutions, offered in support of — never in place of — the accessibility advisors and accommodation professionals who carry this work day to day.

Grounding. Human rights and accommodation law; disability studies; accessibility standards; inclusive design

Every contribution in this set is practised; the status on each shows whether a public resource about it exists yet.

This set at a glance
Resources in this branch28
With a live page4
Practised · resource in development or not yet written24

Visit the Accessibility page · See this set in the context of the whole practice.

Section 2

The 28 resources in this branch

Each entry states what the resource contributes, what grounds it, whether a live page exists, the resources most like it within this set, and the connections that run beyond it.

Why Universal Design Never Eliminates Individual Accommodation

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

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 1: 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 2: 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 3: 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 4: 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 5: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

Where this work leads

The Duty to Accommodate in Learning Design

The legal frame, written for those who build and teach

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 3: 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 6: Accessible Canada Act, S.C. 2019, c. 10.
  • Reference 7: Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210. Province of British Columbia.
  • Reference 8: Accessible British Columbia Act, S.B.C. 2021, c. 19. Province of British Columbia.
  • Reference 9: 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 theory and theme

Connected contributions

Essential Requirements and the Limits of Flexibility

What a standard genuinely requires, articulated in advance

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 4: 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 10: Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (Expanded 2nd ed.). ASCD.
  • Reference 3: 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 theory and theme

Connected contributions

Where this work leads

Disability Studies for Learning Designers

The grounding that changes what a designer sees

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 11: Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. Macmillan — the foundational statement of the social model of disability.
  • Reference 12: Dolmage, J. T. (2017). Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education. University of Michigan Press.
  • Reference 13: Titchkosky, T. (2011). The Question of Access: Disability, Space, Meaning. University of Toronto Press.
  • Reference 14: Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, Queer, Crip. Indiana University Press.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

Where this work leads

Designing Out the Disclosure Requirement

Disclosure burden as a design variable

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 15: Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice-Hall.
  • Reference 12: Dolmage, J. T. (2017). Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education. University of Michigan Press.
  • Reference 16: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165. Province of British Columbia.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

Partnering with Disabled People in Learning Design

Co-design without extraction

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 17: Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment. University of California Press.
  • Reference 1: 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 18: 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 theory and theme

Connected contributions

Where this work leads

Accessibility Triage for Existing Course Inventories

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

Practised · resource 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.

Grounding. WCAG 2.2; EN 301 549; remediation prioritisation

Sources

  • Reference 19: W3C (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation.
  • Reference 20: ETSI/CEN/CENELEC (2021). EN 301 549 V3.2.1: Accessibility Requirements for ICT Products and Services. Harmonised European Standard.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

Designing for the Assistive Technology People Actually Use

Why conformant content can still fail in practice

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 21: 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 22: 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 19: W3C (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

Accessible Procurement and Vendor Accountability

The decisions made before anything is built

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 20: ETSI/CEN/CENELEC (2021). EN 301 549 V3.2.1: Accessibility Requirements for ICT Products and Services. Harmonised European Standard.
  • Reference 23: Information Technology Industry Council. Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) and Accessibility Conformance Reports.
  • Reference 19: W3C (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

Designing for Episodic and Fluctuating Conditions

Program architecture for conditions that vary

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 24: 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 14: Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, Queer, Crip. Indiana University Press.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

Where this work leads

Access in Clinical and Placement Education

Holding patient safety and access seriously at once

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 25: 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 4: 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 3: 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 theory and theme

Connected contributions

Where this work leads

Faculty Development That Changes Accessible Practice

From awareness to what instructors actually do

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 26: 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 27: Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The Adult Learner (8th ed.). Routledge.
  • Reference 5: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

Where this work leads

Institutional Accessibility Planning as a Change Program

From a published plan to demonstrable change

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 6: Accessible Canada Act, S.C. 2019, c. 10.
  • Reference 8: Accessible British Columbia Act, S.B.C. 2021, c. 19. Province of British Columbia.
  • Reference 28: Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.
  • Reference 29: Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

Where this work leads

Accessible Health and Patient Education

Access beyond the learner, to the person receiving care

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 30: 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 31: 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 32: 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 33: Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. ASCD.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

Where this work leads

Accessible Research Participation and Knowledge Products

Who can take part, and who can read the findings

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 18: 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 34: 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 19: W3C (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

Where this work leads

Models of Disability as Design Decisions

The frame chosen before any design decision is made

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 35: World Health Organization (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). WHO — the source of the biopsychosocial model of disability.
  • Reference 11: Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. Macmillan — the foundational statement of the social model of disability.
  • Reference 36: Retief, M., & Letšosa, R. (2018). “Models of Disability: A Brief Overview.” HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies, 74(1).
  • Reference 37: Shakespeare, T. (2013). Disability Rights and Wrongs Revisited (2nd ed.). Routledge — a critical reassessment of the strong social model.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

Where this work leads

Disability Categories and the Barriers People Meet

The reference layer, written barrier-first

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 35: World Health Organization (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). WHO — the source of the biopsychosocial model of disability.
  • Reference 19: W3C (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation.
  • Reference 11: Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. Macmillan — the foundational statement of the social model of disability.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

Assistive Technology and Adaptive Strategies

What exists, and what it does for a person

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 22: 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 21: 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 38: World Health Organization & UNICEF (2022). Global Report on Assistive Technology. World Health Organization.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

Disability Data and the Limits of Prevalence Figures

Why the numbers disagree, and how to use one honestly

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 39: World Health Organization & World Bank (2011). World Report on Disability. World Health Organization.
  • Reference 40: World Health Organization (2022). Global Report on Health Equity for Persons with Disabilities. World Health Organization.
  • Reference 41: Statistics Canada. Canadian Survey on Disability — the national source for disability prevalence in Canada.
  • Reference 35: 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 theory and theme

Connected contributions

Where this work leads

Disability Etiquette and Communication in Learning Environments

Professional practice, not a list of prohibitions

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 42: United Spinal Association. Disability Etiquette: Tips on Interacting with People with Disabilities.
  • Reference 43: United Nations (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
  • Reference 17: Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment. University of California Press.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

International and Regional Disability Rights Instruments

The layer above domestic duty

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 44: United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  • Reference 43: 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 theory and theme

Connected contributions

Accessible Physical and Hybrid Learning Environments

The part of universal design most often handed to facilities

Practised · resource 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.

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

Sources

  • Reference 2: 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 47: CSA Group. CSA B651: Accessible Design for the Built Environment. Canadian Standards Association.
  • Reference 6: Accessible Canada Act, S.C. 2019, c. 10.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

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.

Grounding. WCAG; UDL; disability studies; systems knowledge

Read the Accessibility Review resource

Sources

  • Reference 19: W3C (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation.
  • Reference 5: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

Where this work leads

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.

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

Read the Inclusive Course & Curriculum Design resource

Sources

  • Reference 5: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.
  • Reference 10: Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (Expanded 2nd ed.). ASCD.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

Where this work leads

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.

Grounding. Power-aware facilitation; adult learning; equity

Read the Inclusive Facilitation & Capacity Building resource

Sources

  • Reference 27: Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The Adult Learner (8th ed.). Routledge.
  • Reference 48: Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

Where this work leads

Making Accessibility More Than Compliance

Access as design quality, not a checklist

Practised · resource 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.

A resource in two areas. Its home is Universal Design for Learning, and it is also part of the Accessibility set.

Grounding. WCAG; UDL; inclusive design

Sources

  • Reference 19: W3C (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation.
  • Reference 5: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

Where this work leads

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.

A resource in two areas. Its home is Universal Design for Learning, and it is also part of the Accessibility set.

Grounding. Construct validity; UDL action & expression

Read the Eliminating Construct-Irrelevant Barriers in Assessment resource

Sources

  • Reference 4: 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 5: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

Where this work leads

Evaluating Whether Design Reduced Barriers

Closing the UDL cycle with evidence

Practised · resource 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.

A resource in two areas. Its home is Universal Design for Learning, and it is also part of the Accessibility set.

Grounding. Evaluation design; Universal Design for Learning

Sources

  • Reference 49: Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.
  • Reference 5: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

Connected contributions

Where this work leads

Section 3

References and resources

The theory, law, and standards these contributions 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. Inclusive design1. 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/
  2. Universal design2. 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.
  3. Human rights law3. 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
  4. Assessment4. 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.
  5. Universal Design for Learning5. CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.
    https://udlguidelines.cast.org
  6. Accessibility law6. Accessible Canada Act, S.C. 2019, c. 10.
    https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/a-0.6/
  7. Human rights law7. Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210. Province of British Columbia.
  8. Accessibility law8. Accessible British Columbia Act, S.B.C. 2021, c. 19. Province of British Columbia.
  9. Accessibility law9. 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/
  10. Instructional design10. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (Expanded 2nd ed.). ASCD.
  11. Disability studies11. Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. Macmillan — the foundational statement of the social model of disability.
  12. Disability studies12. Dolmage, J. T. (2017). Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education. University of Michigan Press.
  13. Disability studies13. Titchkosky, T. (2011). The Question of Access: Disability, Space, Meaning. University of Toronto Press.
  14. Disability studies14. Kafer, A. (2013). Feminist, Queer, Crip. Indiana University Press.
  15. Disclosure and stigma15. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice-Hall.
  16. Information governance16. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165. Province of British Columbia.
  17. Disability justice17. Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment. University of California Press.
  18. Research ethics18. 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
  19. Accessibility standards19. W3C (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation.
    https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
  20. Accessibility standards20. 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
  21. Assistive technology21. Zabala, J. S. (2005). Ready, SETT, Go! Getting Started with the SETT Framework — the Student, Environments, Tasks, Tools framework for assistive technology decision-making.
  22. Assistive technology22. 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.
  23. Accessibility standards23. Information Technology Industry Council. Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) and Accessibility Conformance Reports.
    https://www.itic.org/policy/accessibility/vpat
  24. Episodic disability24. 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.
  25. Health professions education25. 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.
  26. Behaviour change26. 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
  27. Adult learning27. Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2015). The Adult Learner (8th ed.). Routledge.
  28. Change management28. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.
  29. Organizational learning29. Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday.
  30. Health literacy30. 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.
  31. Disability and health equity31. 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.
  32. Social determinants32. 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.
  33. Universal Design for Learning33. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. ASCD.
  34. Knowledge mobilization34. 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.
  35. Disability classification35. 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
  36. Disability studies36. Retief, M., & Letšosa, R. (2018). “Models of Disability: A Brief Overview.” HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies, 74(1).
  37. Disability studies37. Shakespeare, T. (2013). Disability Rights and Wrongs Revisited (2nd ed.). Routledge — a critical reassessment of the strong social model.
  38. Assistive technology38. World Health Organization & UNICEF (2022). Global Report on Assistive Technology. World Health Organization.
    https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240049451
  39. Disability data39. World Health Organization & World Bank (2011). World Report on Disability. World Health Organization.
  40. Disability and health equity40. World Health Organization (2022). Global Report on Health Equity for Persons with Disabilities. World Health Organization.
  41. Disability data41. Statistics Canada. Canadian Survey on Disability — the national source for disability prevalence in Canada.
  42. Disability etiquette42. United Spinal Association. Disability Etiquette: Tips on Interacting with People with Disabilities.
  43. International instruments43. 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
  44. International instruments44. United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
  45. 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.
  46. Regional instruments46. European Union (2012). Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2012/C 326/02.
  47. Built environment47. CSA Group. CSA B651: Accessible Design for the Built Environment. Canadian Standards Association.
  48. Social learning48. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press.
  49. Evaluation49. Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.

Back to contents

Every contribution 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.