Have you ever heard someone describe accessibility as one more thing they have to do when developing an online course? Perhaps it comes up after the lectures have been recorded, the assignments have been created, and the course is almost ready to launch. Suddenly, someone mentions captions, alternative text, document headings, or keyboard navigation, and accessibility becomes another item on an already lengthy checklist.
I understand why that happens. Faculty members and instructional designers already manage competing priorities, tight deadlines, changing technologies, and institutional requirements. When accessibility enters the conversation late in the development process, it can feel like additional work because, at that point, it often is.
But here's the part we sometimes overlook: Accessibility isn't something we add to good instructional design. Accessibility is part of good instructional design.
When we create accessible learning experiences from the beginning, we often make courses clearer, more organized, easier to navigate, and more useful for everyone. Accessible design helps students using assistive technologies, but its benefits extend beyond any single group of learners. It encourages us to think carefully about how information is presented, how students interact with content, and whether unnecessary barriers interfere with learning.
The real question isn't whether accessibility creates work. Every aspect of course development requires work. The question is whether we're designing learning experiences thoughtfully from the beginning or creating avoidable problems that someone will have to fix later.
Let's look at why accessibility belongs at the center of instructional design, how it supports effective learning, and what faculty and instructional designers can do to make accessible course development a normal part of their workflow.
Accessibility Is a Design Decision, Not a Final Inspection
One of the most common problems in course development is treating accessibility as something to check after everything else is finished. The course content is developed, instructional materials are uploaded, and activities are configured. Only then does someone begin reviewing documents, videos, images, and learning activities for accessibility concerns.
This approach creates unnecessary work because problems become harder to correct after materials have been completed. A poorly structured document may need substantial formatting changes. An instructional video without captions may require additional processing and review. An interactive activity that cannot be operated with a keyboard may need to be redesigned entirely.
Now consider what happens when accessibility is addressed during development instead. Documents are created using proper heading styles, instructional videos are captioned as part of the production process, and learning activities are evaluated for accessibility before they are introduced into the course. These practices become part of the normal development workflow rather than separate corrective tasks.
The difference is similar to building a house. It's considerably easier to plan accessible entrances, doorways, and pathways during construction than to redesign the building after everything is finished. Instructional materials work much the same way.
Accessibility becomes extra work when we treat it as an afterthought.
That doesn't mean accessible design requires no time or effort. It means thoughtful planning can prevent many of the problems that make accessibility feel overwhelming.
Accessible Design Often Makes Learning Easier for Everyone
Accessibility is frequently discussed in terms of supporting students with disabilities, and that responsibility is essential. However, many accessible design practices also improve the learning experience for students who do not use assistive technologies.
Consider captions on instructional videos. Captions are necessary for many students who are deaf or hard of hearing, but they can also help students studying in noisy environments, reviewing unfamiliar terminology, or watching videos when audio is unavailable. A searchable transcript may help learners locate a specific explanation without replaying an entire recording.
Clear headings provide another example. Properly structured headings allow screen reader users to navigate a document efficiently, but they also make information easier for everyone to scan and understand. Students can identify major topics, locate relevant sections, and recognize how ideas are organized.
Consistent navigation works similarly. Predictable module structures and clearly labeled activities support students who use assistive technologies, but they also reduce confusion for students who are balancing coursework with employment, family responsibilities, and other commitments. Learners spend less time figuring out where to go and more time engaging with the material.
These benefits do not mean that every accessibility accommodation automatically improves every learner's experience. Different learners have different needs, and some accessibility solutions require specialized approaches. However, many accessibility practices address barriers that can affect a broad range of students.
When we remove unnecessary obstacles, we create more opportunities for learners to focus on what actually matters: learning.
Accessibility and Universal Design for Learning Work Together
Accessibility and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) are closely related, but they are not interchangeable. Accessibility focuses on ensuring that learners, including those with disabilities, can access and use instructional materials and activities. UDL provides a framework for anticipating learner variability and designing flexible learning experiences.
The CAST Universal Design for Learning Guidelines encourage educators to consider multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression. These principles help instructional designers think beyond a single method of presenting information or demonstrating learning. Rather than assuming that one approach will work equally well for everyone, designers consider how different learners may interact with the experience.
For example, an instructor might provide an instructional video with accurate captions and a transcript. The captions and transcript address important accessibility needs, while the availability of different formats may also support flexible engagement with the content. Students can watch the demonstration, review the transcript, or revisit specific explanations depending on their circumstances.
However, providing multiple formats does not automatically guarantee accessibility. Each format must still be usable, and alternatives must communicate the information necessary to achieve the learning objectives. A transcript that omits important visual demonstrations, for example, may not provide equivalent access to the instructional content.
The relationship between accessibility and UDL is best understood as a shared commitment to reducing barriers. Accessibility establishes important expectations for usable instructional experiences, while UDL encourages thoughtful flexibility in how learning is supported.
Together, they help us design courses that anticipate differences among learners rather than waiting for students to encounter obstacles.
Clear Course Organization Is an Accessibility Practice
When discussing accessibility, people often focus on documents, captions, images, and color contrast. Those elements matter, but course organization also influences how easily students can locate and use instructional materials.
Imagine opening an online course where every module follows a different structure. One week, assignments appear inside the content area. The next week, students must locate them through the assignments tool. Discussions may be linked from the module in one lesson but accessible only through the discussion tool in another.
Even students who are comfortable with technology may find this frustrating. For learners using screen readers, keyboard navigation, or other assistive technologies, inconsistent organization can introduce additional navigation challenges.
A predictable course structure reduces unnecessary searching. When modules consistently include an overview, learning materials, activities, assessments, and a closing summary, students can develop a reliable understanding of where information is located. Descriptive link text and meaningful headings provide additional guidance.
This is not simply about making a course look organized. It is about reducing the effort learners must spend navigating the environment so they can devote more attention to the instructional content.
A well-organized course supports accessibility, usability, and learning efficiency. Those are not separate goals competing for attention. They are closely connected outcomes of thoughtful design.
Accessible Documents Begin With Proper Structure
One of the simplest ways to improve accessibility is to use the formatting tools already available in common document applications. Unfortunately, many instructional materials rely on visual formatting rather than meaningful document structure.
For example, an instructor may create a heading by increasing the font size, making the text bold, and changing its color. Visually, the heading may look appropriate. However, without an actual heading style, assistive technologies may not identify it as a heading.
Using built-in heading styles creates a meaningful hierarchy that supports navigation. Properly constructed lists, tables, and hyperlinks provide similar benefits. These practices also make documents easier to maintain because formatting can be updated consistently.
Consider a lengthy assignment guide containing instructions, examples, grading criteria, and submission requirements. A student should be able to locate the submission instructions without reading every paragraph from the beginning. Clear headings and logical organization make that possible.
Accessible document design is not primarily about making materials more elaborate. Often, it involves using familiar tools correctly and organizing information with greater intention.
Once these practices become habits, they generally require far less effort than repairing poorly structured documents later.
Alternative Text Is About Meaning, Not Decoration
Images can support learning by illustrating concepts, showing relationships, and providing examples that may be difficult to communicate through text alone. However, when an image communicates important information, students who cannot perceive it visually need an accessible way to obtain that information.
Alternative text, commonly called alt text, provides a text alternative for images. Effective alt text communicates the image's relevant purpose or information rather than simply listing everything visible. The appropriate description depends on how the image functions within the learning experience.
Consider a photograph of a laboratory instrument included only to show students what the equipment looks like. A concise description identifying the instrument and its distinguishing features may be sufficient. Now imagine a diagram showing how the instrument's components interact during an experiment. That image may require a more detailed explanation or an additional accessible description to communicate the instructional information.
Decorative images require different treatment. If an image contributes no meaningful information and serves only a visual purpose, it can generally be marked as decorative so assistive technologies do not announce unnecessary descriptions.
The important question is not, "How do I describe everything in this picture?" It is, "What information does this image communicate that learners need?"
That question connects accessibility directly to instructional purpose. It also encourages designers to evaluate whether an image genuinely supports learning or simply fills space.
Captions and Transcripts Are Part of Instructional Quality
Video has become a familiar component of online teaching. Faculty use recordings to explain concepts, demonstrate procedures, introduce modules, and provide feedback. However, instructional videos must be designed so learners can access the information they communicate.
Accurate captions provide access to spoken information and meaningful audio for students who need text alternatives. Transcripts can offer another way to review content, particularly when learners need to search for terminology or revisit specific explanations. For videos that communicate essential information visually, additional description may also be necessary.
Automatic captioning tools can reduce the time required to produce captions, but their output should be reviewed. Technical vocabulary, unfamiliar names, disciplinary terminology, and poor audio quality can produce errors that change the meaning of the content. A caption that misrepresents an important concept is not merely an inconvenience. It can interfere with learning.
Planning for accessibility during video production can prevent many problems. Clear audio, readable visuals, descriptive narration, and accurate captions make recordings easier to use and maintain. Faculty members may also find that preparing concise scripts or outlines improves the clarity of their explanations.
Accessible multimedia is not just about satisfying a technical requirement. It is about making sure students receive the information the instructor intended to teach.
Color and Visual Design Should Support Understanding
Color can help organize information, direct attention, and establish visual relationships. However, problems arise when instructional materials rely on color alone to communicate meaning.
Imagine a chart where students are instructed to compare the red line with the green line. Without additional labels or patterns, some learners may have difficulty distinguishing the information. Similarly, an assignment checklist that identifies required tasks only through colored indicators may create unnecessary barriers.
Accessible visual design uses multiple ways to communicate important information. Charts can include labels, patterns, or descriptive explanations. Required fields can be identified with text rather than color alone. Error messages can explain what needs to be corrected instead of relying exclusively on a red outline.
Text contrast also matters. Pale gray text on a white background may look attractive in a design mockup, but it can be difficult to read. Appropriate contrast supports readability for many learners, including those with low vision or those using screens under challenging lighting conditions.
Good visual design is not simply about creating something attractive. It is about communicating information clearly and consistently.
When accessibility guides visual decisions, the result is often a design that is both more usable and more effective.
Accessible Assessments Measure Learning, Not Unnecessary Barriers
Assessments should provide evidence of what students know or can do. When an assessment introduces barriers unrelated to the intended learning outcome, it may measure something other than the skill or knowledge the instructor intended to evaluate.
Consider an assignment requiring students to demonstrate their understanding of a historical event. If the learning objective focuses on analyzing historical evidence, the assessment should evaluate that analysis. Requiring students to use a complicated multimedia application may introduce additional technical demands that are not necessary to demonstrate the intended skill.
This does not mean students should always be allowed to choose any assessment format. Some learning outcomes specifically require particular forms of communication, professional performance, or technology use. In those cases, the assessment format may be an essential part of what students must demonstrate.
The instructional design task is to distinguish between essential requirements and unnecessary obstacles. Clear instructions, accessible submission processes, appropriate timing, and well-designed rubrics can help students understand what is expected. When alternative approaches are appropriate, they should still provide comparable evidence of the same learning outcomes.
Accessibility does not require lowering academic standards. It requires ensuring that students have an equitable opportunity to demonstrate their learning without encountering avoidable barriers.
Accessibility Supports Better Communication
Many accessibility practices are also good communication practices. Clear instructions, descriptive headings, meaningful link text, consistent terminology, and well-organized information help students understand what they need to do.
Consider the difference between a link labeled "Click Here" and one labeled "Download the Week 3 Assignment Instructions." The second label communicates the destination without requiring additional context. It is more useful for screen reader users and also helps students who are scanning a page for a particular resource.
Assignment instructions benefit from the same attention to clarity. Students should be able to identify the purpose of the assignment, the required tasks, the submission format, the evaluation criteria, and the deadline without searching through several unrelated paragraphs. Providing that information in a logical structure supports accessibility and reduces avoidable questions.
This is particularly important in asynchronous online courses, where students may encounter instructions outside normal business hours. When information is unclear, they cannot always ask a question and receive an immediate response.
Accessible communication reduces uncertainty. It helps learners understand expectations and allows instructors to spend less time repeatedly clarifying information that could have been communicated more effectively from the beginning.
Accessibility Can Reduce Long-Term Workload
One of the strongest practical arguments for accessible course development is that it can reduce the need for repeated corrections. When materials are created using accessible practices, they are often easier to update, reuse, and maintain.
For example, a properly structured Word document can be revised without rebuilding its formatting. An instructional video with accurate captions and a transcript provides reusable learning resources. A consistent course template makes it easier to identify missing information and maintain predictable navigation across modules.
The opposite approach creates what might be called accessibility debt. Similar to technical debt in software development, accessibility debt accumulates when problems are postponed rather than addressed during creation. Over time, those problems become more difficult and time-consuming to correct.
An institution with hundreds of inaccessible documents may eventually need to devote substantial resources to remediation. A faculty member who creates new materials without accessible structure may face repeated correction requests. These situations illustrate why prevention is often more efficient than repair.
Of course, accessibility still requires ongoing review. Technologies change, course materials are updated, and new barriers may emerge. However, establishing accessible development practices reduces the number of preventable problems that must be addressed later.
The objective is not eliminating accessibility work. It is making that work more predictable, manageable, and effective.
Accessibility Is a Shared Responsibility
Although instructional designers play an important role in accessible course development, accessibility should not rest entirely on one individual or department. Faculty members, instructional designers, technology specialists, disability services professionals, administrators, and institutional leaders all contribute to creating accessible learning environments.
Faculty members make decisions about instructional content, assignments, assessments, and communication. Instructional designers help translate learning objectives into accessible activities and materials. Technology teams support the systems and tools used to deliver instruction, while disability services professionals provide specialized guidance and coordinate individual accommodations through established institutional processes.
Institutional leadership also has responsibilities. Accessible course development requires appropriate tools, training, policies, time, and support. When accessibility expectations are communicated without adequate resources, faculty and staff may experience unnecessary frustration.
Collaboration helps prevent accessibility from becoming a last-minute responsibility assigned to whoever happens to notice a problem. Clear processes and shared expectations make it easier to address concerns during development rather than after students encounter barriers.
Accessibility works best when it becomes part of the institution's normal approach to teaching and learning, not a separate project that appears whenever a deadline approaches.
Start With the Practices You Use Every Day
Improving accessibility does not always require purchasing new software or completely redesigning a course. Many meaningful improvements begin with the tools and materials instructors already use.
A practical starting point is to examine the most common development activities. When creating documents, use built-in heading styles and meaningful hyperlinks. When recording videos, plan for accurate captions and consider whether visual information needs additional description. When selecting images, determine whether they communicate information that requires a text alternative.
Course organization deserves similar attention. Use consistent module structures, descriptive titles, and clear instructions so students can navigate without unnecessary confusion. Before introducing a new instructional tool, evaluate whether it supports keyboard access, assistive technologies, and other relevant accessibility needs.
These practices become easier when they are incorporated into established workflows. Faculty members who consistently use accessible document templates, for example, do not need to reconsider basic formatting decisions every time they create a new assignment. Instructional designers can support this process by providing examples, templates, checklists, and practical guidance.
The goal is to make accessible practices familiar enough that they become part of how instructional materials are created. Over time, accessibility begins to feel less like an additional responsibility and more like an expected characteristic of quality course design.
Better Design Begins With Better Questions
One of the most useful changes instructional designers can make is to consider accessibility while making instructional decisions rather than after those decisions have been finalized. This requires asking questions about how learners will access, navigate, understand, and interact with the materials being developed.
For example, before creating an interactive activity, we might ask whether students can complete it using a keyboard. Before selecting a complex diagram, we might consider how its information will be communicated to someone who cannot see it. Before organizing a course module, we might examine whether the structure will be predictable and understandable to students using different technologies.
These questions are not separate from instructional design. They are part of evaluating whether an activity or resource will accomplish its intended purpose.
An instructional activity cannot be effective for a learner who cannot access or use it. A beautifully designed presentation cannot communicate its message if the text is unreadable. An assessment cannot provide accurate evidence of learning if unnecessary barriers prevent students from demonstrating what they know.
Accessibility encourages instructional designers to think more carefully about the relationship between learners, content, activities, and assessment. That attention improves the quality of the design process itself.
Final Thoughts
Accessibility is sometimes presented as an additional burden placed on faculty and instructional designers. When it is introduced late in course development, that perception is understandable because correcting inaccessible materials can require considerable time and effort. However, treating accessibility as an afterthought creates many of the very problems that make it feel burdensome.
When accessibility is included from the beginning, it supports clearer communication, more consistent navigation, better-organized materials, usable multimedia, and assessments that focus on intended learning outcomes. It also helps reduce avoidable remediation work and encourages instructional designers to consider learner needs throughout development.
Accessible design does not eliminate the need for specialized accommodations, ongoing evaluation, or institutional support. It does, however, establish a stronger foundation for learning experiences that more students can access and use effectively.
Accessibility is not extra work added to good instructional design. It is part of the work that makes instructional design good.
The next time you're creating a course, developing an assignment, or recording an instructional video, consider accessibility before the material is finished. Ask whether the design communicates clearly, removes unnecessary barriers, and supports the learners who will use it.
Because the best time to make learning accessible is not after someone encounters a problem. It's while we're designing the learning experience in the first place.
References
CAST. (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 3.0. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/
National Center on Accessible Educational Materials. (n.d.). AEM Center. https://aem.cast.org/
U.S. Department of Justice. (2024). Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability; Accessibility of web information and services of state and local government entities. Federal Register, 89(82), 31320–31396. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/24/2024-07758/nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-disability-accessibility-of-web-information-and-services-of-state
World Wide Web Consortium. (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative. (n.d.). Accessibility principles. https://www.w3.org/WAI/fundamentals/accessibility-principles/