If Accessibility Improves Learning for Everyone, Why Isn't It Standard Practice?
Accessibility has long been discussed as a legal requirement, a compliance issue, or an accommodation strategy. However, instructional designers and learning professionals should be asking a different question:
If accessibility improves learning outcomes for everyone, why isn't it a baseline requirement in every learning design process?
The conversation surrounding accessibility often focuses on supporting learners with disabilities. While this remains critically important, research and practice suggest that accessible design extends far beyond accommodation. When accessibility is integrated into learning experiences from the beginning, it improves usability, engagement, comprehension, and overall learner success across diverse audiences.
Accessibility Benefits All Learners
For more than a decade, Sheryl Burgstahler (2013) has advocated for the application of Universal Design principles in education. Her work highlights that inclusive design practices increase usability and create learning environments that are more effective for all participants—not just those with identified disabilities.
This concept aligns with the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which encourage educators and designers to provide multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression (CAST, 2024). These principles recognize a simple reality: learner variability is the norm, not the exception.
When accessibility is intentionally designed into learning experiences, organizations often see benefits such as:
Improved comprehension and knowledge retention
Increased learner engagement and participation
Greater consistency across devices and learning environments
Enhanced usability and navigation
Reduced cognitive load
Increased equity and inclusion
Fewer barriers related to language, technology, environment, or ability
Features commonly associated with accessibility—such as captions, transcripts, clear navigation, alternative text, structured headings, and multiple methods of content delivery—frequently improve the experience for all learners. For example, captions support not only individuals with hearing impairments but also learners in noisy environments, non-native language speakers, and those who prefer reading while listening.
Why do organizations bypass accessibility?
Despite growing evidence supporting accessible and inclusive design, many organizations continue to treat accessibility as a final review step rather than a foundational design principle. Several factors contribute to this challenge.
1. Accessibility is still viewed as compliance rather than necessity
Many organizations approach accessibility primarily through the lens of legal compliance. While compliance standards such as Section 508 and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are important, this perspective can unintentionally limit accessibility efforts to a checklist exercise.
When accessibility is viewed solely as a requirement to satisfy regulations, organizations often overlook its broader impact on learner performance, engagement, and business outcomes.
2. Misconceptions about cost and time
A common perception is that designing for accessibility requires significantly more time, resources, and budget. However, retrofitting inaccessible learning products after development is often far more expensive than incorporating accessibility from the beginning.
Research consistently demonstrates that proactive design approaches reduce the need for costly redesigns and accommodations later in the project lifecycle (Burgstahler, 2013).
3. Limited accessibility knowledge and training
Many instructional designers receive limited formal education on accessibility standards, assistive technologies, or inclusive design methodologies. As a result, accessibility may be viewed as a specialized skill rather than a core design competency.
Organizations that invest in accessibility training often find that designers become more effective at creating intuitive, user-centered learning experiences overall.
4. Organizational culture and priorities
Learning teams frequently operate under tight deadlines, competing priorities, and limited resources. In these environments, accessibility may be perceived as an enhancement rather than a necessity.
However, organizations that successfully integrate accessibility into their design culture tend to treat it as a quality standard—similar to instructional effectiveness, usability, or learner engagement.
5. The persistence of the "average learner" myth
Traditional instructional design models often assume a relatively uniform learner population. Yet modern workplaces and educational environments are increasingly diverse in terms of ability, language, culture, technology access, learning preferences, and work environments.
Universal Design for Learning challenges this assumption by encouraging designers to plan for variability from the outset rather than attempting to address it after barriers emerge (CAST, 2024).
Accommodation to Inclusion
Perhaps the most significant mindset shift involves moving from accommodation-based thinking to inclusion-based thinking.
Accommodation asks:
"How do we modify this experience for someone who cannot access it?"
Inclusive design asks:
"How do we design this experience so more people can access it from the start?"
The difference is substantial.
When accessibility is embedded into instructional design processes from project initiation through evaluation, learning experiences become more flexible, usable, and effective for everyone.
Standard Practice: Accessibility
If organizations want accessibility to become a baseline expectation rather than an afterthought, several actions can help:
Integrate accessibility requirements into project planning and design documentation.
Train instructional designers on accessibility standards and inclusive design principles.
Conduct accessibility reviews throughout development rather than only at project completion.
Include diverse learners in usability testing and evaluation efforts.
Measure accessibility as a quality metric alongside learning outcomes and learner satisfaction.
The evidence is increasingly difficult to ignore: accessibility is not simply a compliance obligation. It is a learner-centered design strategy that improves the experience for everyone.
The question is no longer whether accessibility benefits learners. Research and practice have demonstrated that it does.
The real question is whether organizations are willing to move accessibility from the margins of instructional design to the foundation of it.
References
Burgstahler, S. (2013). Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (2nd ed.). Harvard Education Press.
CAST. (2024). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 3.0. https://udlguidelines.cast.org
World Wide Web Consortium. (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
U.S. General Services Administration. (2024). Section 508 standards. https://www.section508.gov
Thank you for joining me today! Let’s keep learning altogether, as lifelong #LearningMatters.
Best,
Laura Lawson
LearningMatters, LLC
Instructional Designer
