1 of 6

ACCESSIBILITY IS A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

Collective Responsibility for Compliance

Accessibility is a shared duty involving everyone, not just specialized offices, to meet Title II federal regulations.

Equitable Access Across Modalities

Accessibility applies to all online content and instructional formats including face-to-face, hybrid, HyFlex, and online classes.

Accessibility is More than Compliance

Accessibility and Universal Design for Learning support equity and high-quality design and engagement for everyone. Being aware of barriers presented by inaccessible materials, and either eliminating those or, if necessary, providing workarounds, is key.

Accessibility Responsibility Isn’t Just About What We Create

When we use external tools and link to external content such as websites and videos, those must be accessibility-compliant too.

�This opening slide establishes the foundational frame for the presentation: accessibility is not an optional or individual concern, but a collective instructional responsibility. The updated Title II regulations serve as an important moment of clarification, making explicit what higher education institutions have long been expected to uphold—that all students must be able to access and engage with instructional content equitably. Importantly, this responsibility does not rest solely with disability services offices or technology teams. Instead, it is shared across faculty, staff, and instructional leaders who design learning experiences. Accessibility applies across instructional modalities, including face-to-face, hybrid, HyFlex, and fully online classes, reinforcing that it is not limited to digital-only environments. The slide also emphasizes that accessibility covers both materials faculty create themselves and materials they choose to include or link to from within their courses. By positioning accessibility as part of good teaching practice rather than a compliance burden, this framing helps reduce resistance and fear while encouraging proactive, thoughtful instructional decisions. The intent is to ground participants in a mindset shift: accessibility is an integral dimension of instructional quality, student success, and institutional responsibility. This perspective prepares the audience to understand why choices about tools, resources, and links matter, and why shared accountability and collaboration are necessary moving forward.

2 of 6

LINKS = CONTENT

Barrier: Inaccessible External Resources

Accessibility must be ensured for all linked materials: external websites, videos, publisher materials, etc.

Mindful Resource Selection

Critically evaluate external tools and content for accessibility before linking. (Aaron will discuss more about ways to do this.)

Workaround: Consider an Alternative Resource

An instructional designer and/or librarian might be able to assist with identifying alternative, compliant resources which meet the instructional need.

�This slide focuses on a critical but often overlooked reality of course design: anything linked within a Canvas course effectively becomes instructional content. When instructors include links to external websites, videos, or web-based tools, those resources are no longer peripheral or optional—they are part of the learning environment students are expected to navigate. From an accessibility standpoint, this distinction is essential. Students do not experience linked materials as separate from the course; they experience them as required components of instruction. Therefore, the accessibility of those materials directly impacts whether the course itself is accessible. The common assumption that responsibility ends with content an instructor personally created is challenged here. Even if a faculty member did not design or host a resource, choosing to link to it is an instructional decision with accessibility implications. This slide helps normalize that accessibility responsibility follows instructional intent, not authorship. By making this explicit, participants are encouraged to think more critically about the accessibility of external content and to recognize that linking is an active pedagogical choice. The goal is not to discourage the use of external resources, but to promote more mindful selection and evaluation practices that take student access into account.

3 of 6

THE HIDDEN RISKS OF “FREE” TOOLS

Barrier: Accessibility Challenges

Free tools not licensed by the college may have issues such as inconsistent keyboard navigation and unreliable screen-reader support.

Barrier: Changing Features

Accessibility features may change unexpectedly as platforms update, creating reliability issues for users.

Barrier: Limited Institutional Control

Non-licensed tools limit colleges’ ability to request fixes or hold vendors accountable for accessibility.

Workaround: Evaluation and Consideration of Options

Faculty should exercise caution and collaborate in evaluating free tools for accessibility compliance. A college-licensed tool may be a better approach.

�This slide highlights the particular challenges associated with using free, non-licensed web-based tools in instructional contexts. Tools such as Padlet, Quizlet, Mentimeter, and similar platforms are popular because they are easy to adopt and often appear to work smoothly for many users. However, these tools frequently carry hidden risks related to accessibility. Common issues include inconsistent keyboard navigation, incomplete or unreliable screen-reader support, and accessibility features that change without notice as platforms update their interfaces. Additionally, documentation about accessibility is often minimal, outdated, or difficult to interpret. Because these tools are not institutionally licensed, colleges typically have limited leverage to request fixes or hold vendors accountable. This slide reinforces a key message: apparent usability for an instructor does not equate to accessibility for all students. By surfacing these risks without diving into technical specifics, the slide sets the stage for why caution, consultation, and shared evaluation are necessary when selecting tools. The intent is to raise awareness, not to ban tools outright, and to help faculty recognize why “free” tools require extra scrutiny.

4 of 6

SELF‑EVALUATION IS HARD

Limitations of Self-Evaluation

Individual instructors often face challenges evaluating accessibility due to complexity and limitations of tools like VPATs.

Role of Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates (VPATs)

VPATs provide a standardized starting point but may be outdated, incomplete, and/or challenging for a non-expert to interpret.

Collaborative Accessibility Evaluation

Accessibility evaluations work best when shared among faculty, accessibility specialists, and technologists.

This is Still Emergent!

Time and resource challenges are real. Collectively we need to develop our practices and reduce duplicative work.

�This slide addresses a common and understandable challenge: expecting individual instructors to independently evaluate the accessibility of digital tools is often unrealistic. Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates (VPATs) can play a useful role by identifying known accessibility features and gaps, and by offering a standardized starting point for assessment. However, VPATs have significant limitations. They are typically self-reported by vendors, may be outdated, and rarely capture the full lived experience of students using assistive technologies. They also do not account for usability barriers that emerge in real instructional contexts. This slide emphasizes that accessibility evaluation works best as a shared, collaborative process involving instructional designers, accessibility specialists, technologists, and, when possible, student perspectives. By acknowledging the limits of self-evaluation, the slide helps reduce guilt or defensiveness among faculty while reinforcing that asking for help is both appropriate and expected. The broader message is that accessibility is strengthened through collective expertise, not isolated individual assessment.

5 of 6

ACCESSIBILITY IS NOT THE ONLY COMPLIANCE ISSUE

Responsibility Beyond Accessibility

Instructors must consider privacy, data security, and legal compliance if using non-licensed educational tools.

Institutional Support Systems

ITS and procurement offices assist faculty in reviewing tools in these additional areas of compliance.

�While accessibility is a central concern, this slide expands the conversation to include additional responsibilities that arise when instructors use non-licensed tools. Free or externally hosted platforms often raise significant questions about student privacy, data security, and compliance with terms and conditions. Instructors may unintentionally require students to create accounts, share personal information, or consent to data practices that conflict with institutional standards or legal requirements. This slide reinforces that accessibility considerations cannot be separated from these broader institutional obligations. Importantly, it also highlights that support structures exist to help faculty navigate these issues. Information Technology Services (ITS) and purchasing or procurement offices can assist with reviewing tools and identifying risks. The key message is that these review processes are not bureaucratic obstacles, but protective measures designed to safeguard both students and instructors. By situating accessibility within this larger context of ethical and legal responsibility, the slide encourages more holistic decision-making around instructional technologies.

6 of 6

EXTERNAL VIDEOS: CAPTIONS MATTER

Barrier: Caption Accuracy

Captions are important to hearing-impaired folks AND many others. Videos often have auto-generated captions containing errors that can confuse or exclude anyone relying on them for understanding.

Accessibility Best Practices

Reviewing caption accuracy is a critical accessibility practice when linking to external videos.

Workaround: Practical Caption Improvement

Instructors can improve captions on videos using supported tools like Canvas Studio. The college also has resources for professional captioning of videos.

�This slide uses captioning as a concrete, relatable example of how accessibility issues often appear in everyday instructional choices. Many instructors link to videos hosted on platforms like YouTube, assuming that the presence of captions automatically makes the video accessible. However, auto-generated captions frequently contain errors, including incorrect terminology, missing punctuation, and mistakes that significantly alter meaning. For students who rely on captions, these errors can create confusion, misinterpretation, or exclusion from learning. This slide emphasizes that captions are instructional content in their own right, not a secondary feature. Reviewing caption accuracy when linking to external videos is therefore an essential accessibility practice. The intent here is not to suggest that every video must be perfect, but to help faculty recognize when captions are clearly inadequate and require action. This example grounds the broader accessibility conversation in a specific, familiar scenario that highlights why careful review matters.