It’s just intelligent thinking about your design and just making sure that you’ve considered factors . . . all the needs people will have.

—Wendy Chisholm

 WHY USE STUDENT-CENTERED DESIGN?

Some faculty look on universal design for learning as just another set of technical chores they have to do to stay out of trouble with instructional designers and the administration. This is no surprise when so many technical training sessions push compliance with laws. Indeed, equal access is mandated by laws, grounded in the hope that people actually will have equal access. A few years ago, Coombs (2010) pointed out that not providing equal access to course materials violates civil rights. The US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights (2016) has brought home this reality with a number of suits, investigations, and settlements reached with colleges and universities (University of Washington: Accessible Technology). In fact, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires equal access to electronic information sources, Section 504 requires equal opportunity to participate in programs, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act affirms these civil rights and prohibits discrimination in state and local government services (HHS.gov: What is section 504?; HHS.gov, Section 508; ADA).

Compliance, however, is hardly the most noble motive for student-centered design. Most faculty would not want to create barriers for their students to the course content, communication, and activities. We want our students with physical, sensory, or cognitive disabilities to be able to access the same quality of content and learning experiences. We know that technology itself does not present inherent barriers, but our choices for the use of this technology, particularly in online courses, might (Wentz, Jaeger, & Lazar, 2011). In this context, we cannot make informed choices without knowing how our best intentions and course materials can create barriers. For this reason, this chapter provides the needed guidelines and tools.

Students who do not have disabilities often need or want the same kinds of support as accessibility laws require for students who do have them (Bozarth, 2015). More accessible course materials also facilitate mobile learning. Features that help all students include striking color contrasts, clean and easy-to-read font styles, meaningful headings, well-organized narratives, and descriptive links to websites. Many people are not blind but simply have low vision or trouble distinguishing colors, often seeing a color as gray, yellow, or beige. Others juggle tasks such as reading e-mail on a laptop while making supper in the kitchen, replying to a discussion or e-mail while riding a bus, working under fluorescent lighting that causes jumpy text-on-screen, listening to a podcast while walking across campus or in a noisy space, or studying during a gym workout (Chisholm & May, 2008; Stachowiak, 2009). Besides hearing, visual, or physical limits on their abilities to access materials, some students have dyslexia or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and course formatting can hinder or help how well they can comprehend your course content.

In this chapter, we think of students’ variations in abilities more like Wendy Chisholm@wendyabc: “Stairs make a building inaccessible, not the wheelchair.” Similarly, a singular print format, not a student’s blindness, makes a textbook inaccessible; an audio podcast without a transcript, not the loss of hearing, makes the content inaccessible; a synchronous conference that requires real-time conversation, not the speech impediment, makes the learning inaccessible. Clark (2002b, Chapter 4, ¶4) puts it this way: “A deaf person cannot stop being deaf . . . a blind person cannot stop being blind . . . a learning disabled person cannot reset the functions of the brain . . . [and] a person with a mobility impairment cannot suddenly be able to move.” When we design courses to be accessible, we really will walk the talk of a fundamental principle of undergraduate education: respecting diverse ways and talents for learning (Chickering & Ehrmann, 1996; Chickering & Gamson, 1987).

Earlier chapters in this book provided the starting point for making your courses accessible: (1) coherence of course design (chapter 3), (2) principles of learning from cognitive science (chapter 4), (3) motivation strategies (chapter 5), and (4) interaction design (chapter 6). The guidelines in these chapters support the three major principles for universal design (CAST, 2008; Dell, Dell, & Blackwell, 2015; National Center on Universal Design for Learning; Ralabate, 2011; UDL Guidelines—Version 2.0):

1. Provide multiple ways to acquire the course content.
2. Provide multiple ways to assess what students learn.
3. Provide multiple motivations to learn and multiple opportunities for engagement, interaction, and challenge.

 SOURCES OF OBSTACLES

Many students formerly taught in separate spaces, such as those with sensory disabilities or whose behaviors fall on the autism spectrum, now learn in the same classroom and online spaces as everyone else (Ralabate, 2011; Simpson, 2013). They often experience unreliable and inconsistent access to online materials (Coombs, 2010), even when they use the extra assistive technology designed to make content accessible. Obstacles sometimes reside in the learning management system (LMS). However, Blackboard and Angel have passed basic requirements of accessibility (Accessibility at Blackboard; Angel Learning; National Center on Disability and Access to Education Tips and Tools). Moodle continues to increase accessibility, and Desire2Learn is “committed to accessibility in education” (D2L, ¶1). Recently, WebAIM.org certified that Canvas substantially meets web accessibility guidelines (WebAIM Canvas Certification, 2015).

In spite of the viability of such platforms, instructors often block access when they prepare materials incorrectly (Lee, 2016). Ironically, the ease of using technology can contribute to such missteps. For example, instructors often reuse PowerPoint presentations from their brick-and-mortar classrooms for quick content uploads in their online courses. PowerPoint, however, was designed for large-group presentations, and while it may sometimes work for online learning, commonly used features actually block access for many students. Features like text boxes added over built-in slide design layouts, animations, slide transitions, and images without alternative text descriptions get in the way of readability, and assistive technologies typically cannot follow the structure and content of add-on treatments. So why do instructors use PowerPoints in this way for online learning? Most likely they expect the added ornamentation to increase engagement, they know how to use the add-in features, and they trust their reliability without realizing the fallout of their choices.

Formats of test items also can create stumbling blocks, especially when the student must use a screen reader to read the test information aloud. Screen readers can handle multiple-choice and short-answer items fairly well. But students struggle with making sense of matching questions even if they have no discernable disabilities. Other stumbling blocks include not receiving information on what you are testing ahead of time (such as a rubric) and getting tests in only one format when a student needs it in another (Simpson, 2013).

In addition, instructors may use italics or bold to emphasize a word or phrase in a Word document or insert a table with a visually appealing layout. But screen readers cannot read the emphasis or the table layout unless some underlying signals are added. Seeing what looks good, faculty may proceed with good intentions to upload the Word document as is or choose “Save As Adobe PDF” for a more attractive and easy-to-open format. This process takes little thought and time, and it works well enough for sighted students. Then one instructor may tell another, “Oh, it is easy. Just copy your Word file over to a PDF and post that in your course site. This will open faster and won’t kick the student out of the course,” which is true, but this does not provide enough access. Thus, the problem may grow like wildfire over the landscape of multiple course sites. However, both the Word document and the “Save As Adobe PDF” shortcut fail to provide the needed signals to a screen reader to transform text to audio.

 OVERCOMING OBSTACLES

Legal complaints against universities are on the rise, including a few against online learning (Dolhansky & Paire, 2016; O’Rourke, 2013; Public Affairs, UC Berkeley, 2016; US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2016; University of Washington, 2016). The main consequence of such complaints is the creation of vigorous campus-driven accessibility initiatives and settlement agreements (Resolution Agreement, University of Phoenix, 2015; Settlement between Penn State University and National Federation of the Blind, n.d.). However, other complaints have broader consequences. For example, the University of California at Berkeley will remove its existing educational content (PDFs, video, and audio) from public access and “invest in developing new online content with necessary accessibility features” rather than trying to retrofit materials (Cielo24, 2017; “Campus Announces Restriction of Public Access to Educational Content,” 2017, ¶2).

Universities and colleges now face a backlog of inaccessible files (University Business, 2016). The efforts to undo the variety of compound barriers usually exceed those of building online courses to provide equal access from the start (Wentz et al., 2011). The costs of “undoing” go beyond high legal costs and may include hiring an external company (Goetze, 2016; University Business, 2016). As for other costs, imagine what it takes to go into and fix all the course files on a campus—institutional costs caused by instructor disregard or ignorance of what works. Retrofitting always costs more and tends to meet only minimum legal requirements, falling short of the higher quality that comes from intentional planning (Clark, 2002a; Wentz et al., 2011). For the most part, preparing accessible materials is fairly easy, although some steps do take extra effort (Clark, 2002a). But why wouldn’t we make this commitment? When we care about students and significant learning in our courses, can there be any other choice?

Not only do college and university students need accessible content, but some may need certain accommodations, typically arranged through your campus disabilities services. Such accommodations include alternate exam formats, more exam time, support from readers or note takers, or sign language interpreters. They would never require a change in your course or learning outcomes.

All disabilities services units require documentation of a student’s disability, but as many as two-thirds of students with disabilities simply do not report them (Grasgreen, 2014). As a result, they risk not getting the tools they need to succeed, particularly in the first year of college. Students often fly under the radar because they want to be independent and treated the same as other students (Rodgers, 2015). They may also fear the negative assumptions and perceptions faculty and staff may have about disabilities (Grasgreen, 2014).

Just as with other aspects of teaching online, communicating an instructor’s personal support matters as much as the technology support—for example, saying in the syllabus something like, “Let me know in advance if you think you will need an accommodation for the exam or other activities in this course.” Instructors can also list common tools that all students may use, such as browser settings, along with information about the available assistive technology for students who have disabilities (Stachowiak, 2009). Disabilities services can recommend protocols.

Adam Dircksen illustrates the value of the human touch in his Media Criticism and Analysis class at Purdue University Fort Wayne. A student notified him that although she could recognize colors, she was legally blind and wanted to know if the course requirements would accommodate her. Dircksen informed her that the readings and the Blackboard-based course site were accessible, and while the video lectures clearly used imagery, everything was verbally or orally explained. However, some of the assignment requirements would need modification to meet her needs, especially an assignment that called for students to pick a film and analyze the production techniques being used to help create meaning. These techniques typically encompass camera movements, angles, focus, lighting techniques, editing techniques, and so on. For her paper, she was able to complete the requirements by focusing on her chosen film’s musical score, sound effects, and other post-dubbed sound such as voice-overs, and on how the filmmakers’ color choices affected mood and correlated with the sound she analyzed. Dircksen reports that the student’s paper was excellent and she did very well in the course (A. Dircksen, personal communication, September 15, 2016).

Because of the need for confidentiality, faculty and staff must take care in guiding nondisclosing students to the kinds of support they need. You can start out by listing in your syllabus and on your course site the academic support and disabilities services on campus and any handbook for students with disabilities. Later you can direct specific students toward these services. Whatever your strategy, do not call out a student as having a disability or decide on your own what the student needs. The job of diagnosis resides in the hands of those with expertise and official responsibility.

Working with partners on your campus is one of the best ways to advance greater access in online courses—your office of disability services, instructional design specialists, other faculty who design online courses, information technology specialists, and, if you are fortunate to have the opportunity, students who have disabilities and face challenges in online learning (Simpson, 2013). Regardless of ability or differences in abilities, “the goal for equal access is to make it accessible from the beginning” (Ingeno, 2013, ¶9, citing Denise Wallace, vice president of legal affairs and general counsel at Dillard University). Fortunately, this is generally easy to do.

 GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR DESIGNING ACCESSIBILITY

Students, faculty, and institutions all benefit when we design accessibility from the start. Some basic accessibility guidelines mirror our course design recommendations in chapters 2, 3, and 4, including these (Leavitt & Schneiderman, 2006):

• Start with statements of your learning outcomes or goals for students.
• Understand and meet students’ needs.
• Provide usable content.
• Build with consistency of structure.
• Provide feedback when needed.
• Evaluate your course components for effectiveness.
• Design for human limitations on working memory.
• Create a positive first impression for the home page by ensuring it looks like a home page and includes all the major course components.

Let’s first gauge your accessibility knowledge with a few true-or-false questions posed by Vasquez and Johnson (2016, frame 13).

T or F: “All online materials must be made accessible before being posted online.” False: Just-in-time accommodations are acceptable to balance the load, but they require planning and communication.

T or F: “In the absence of a student with a disability, I don’t need to make my course accessible.” False: The emphasis is on advance preparation.

T or F: “Accessibility in online education is primarily a faculty issue.” We hope you know this one is false. While you do need to make the content materials accessible, accommodations for your students may involve many units: your information technology support system, the student disabilities office, your professional development unit, and the library.

Certain features support accessibility and deserve special attention in online courses: consistent design, striking color contrasts, accessible graphics, a modular course structure, a text equivalent for every nontext element, use of captions for multimedia presentations, careful use of color so that color alone does not convey meaning, use of tables only when they are really necessary, and well-written headings and subheadings that meaningfully signal the content to come. You will raise the accessibility value of your materials when you include such features in an organized structure with clearly written documents and apply styles to your text materials, including any tables that you feel are truly needed (Coombs, 2010).

Many institutions call for these specific accessibility requirements, which include Coombs’s features above (Bastedo, Sugar, Swenson, & Vargas, 2013; CAST, n.d.; Frey, Kearns, & King, 2012; GRCC Distance Learning Standards, 2015, section 8; IPFW Online Course Design Standards, 2016, Standard 7; Portland Community College, n.d.; Quality Matters, 2014; Quality Online Course Initiative, section 5; Quality Online Learning and Teaching (QOLT) instrument, section 8; Web Learning @ Penn State, standard 7):

• The campus accessibility policy statement in the syllabus
• An explanation of how the instructor supports diverse learning styles and abilities
• Guidance to students about how to obtain accommodations
• Ease of navigation within the course
• Formats that accommodate assistive technologies (such as electronic style names in documents)
• Meaningful links (embedding hyperlinks within the titles of the source and adding screen tips)
• Readable materials with a hierarchy of organized content and few, if any, distracting elements
• Readable fonts
• Multimodal course materials and multimedia content
• Information about accessibility of all technologies used in a course
• Links to software needed for course applications
• Text-equivalent language (alternative text descriptions) for nontext elements (images and graphs)
• Captioning for audio and multimedia
• Features in addition to color to signal emphasis (do not rely only on color)
• Information on time limits before a student begins an activity or test
• Appropriate style names identifying row and column headings when tables are used
• Accessible design for forms

These standards for accessibility align with the requirements in Section 508, 1194.22 Web-based intranet and Internet information and applications (Section508.gov, Quick reference; W3C® Web Accessibility Initiative, n.d.).

Another way of looking at standards and guidelines for accessibility begins with the barriers that students may face with online materials and the strategies that break down these barriers. As exhibit 7.1 shows, some of these strategies address multiple barriers.

 THE SPECIFIC HOW-TOs OF ENSURING ACCESSIBILITY

On the basic bedrock strategies we have just examined, we add three top priorities for building your online course materials: (1) make a clear path for access, (2) add useful signposts and tips within your files, and (3) use media wisely. We organize the specific ways to ensure accessibility around these goals.

 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES AND ADVICE

Dell et al. (2015, p. 175) provide the following steps toward universal design of online courses:

Presentation

• Create content first; then design.
• Provide simple and consistent navigation.
• Include an accommodation statement.
• Use color with care.
• Choose fonts carefully.

Action and Expression

• Model and teach good discussion board etiquette.

Engagement and Interaction

• Choose content management system (CMS) tools carefully.
• Provide accessible document formats.
• Convert PowerPoint to HTML.
• If the content is auditory; make it visual.
• If the content is visual; make it auditory.

Appendix B lists dozens of additional resources that you may wish to use or discuss with your technical support team.

Here are some ways to reduce your workload as you build your online course:

• Look for course materials among the electronic resources of your campus library. You probably will find resources in accessible formats and for which copyright issues have already been addressed for course use.
• Search for accessible open educational resources (OERs; see chapter 3) to use as course materials. Piña (2016) reports that using more OERs for online courses also improves learning—most likely because focusing on how well the OERs align with learning outcomes shifts the attention away from alignment with textbook chapters.
• Add scanned documents with correct settings for readability (OCR, optical character recognition). Otherwise the screen reader will “see” the text as an unreadable graphic and will not be able to read the text aloud to the student.
• Search for videos that already have the closed captioning (CC) feature.
• When preparing your own podcasts, voice-overs, or videos, write a script beforehand or as you go to save you time in writing a transcript later.
• Format for accessibility when initially developing documents and presentations.
• When selecting a textbook, look for one that is available in digital and print format because using print alone requires scanning all the pages for conversion to a readable format for a student who has low or no vision.

 REFERENCES

1. 2004 MathSpeak Initiative. (n.d.). [website]. Retrieved from http://www.gh-mathspeak.com/
2. Accessibility at Blackboard. (n.d.). [website]. Retrieved from http://www.blackboard.com/accessibility.aspx
3. ADA: What is the Americans with Disabilities Act? (n.d.). [website]. Retrieved from https://adata.org/learn-about-ada
4. Angel Learning. [website]. Retrieved from http://www.angellearning.com/products/lms/accessibility.html
5. Bastedo, K., Sugar, A., Swenson, N., & Vargas, J. (2013). Programmatic, systematic, automatic: An online course accessibility support model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(3), 87–102. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1018300.pdf
6. Bozarth, J. (2015, July 7). Nuts and bolts: It’s not just about “compliance”: Accessibility in learning. Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/1737/nuts-and-bolts-its-not-just-about -compliance-accessibility-in-elearning
7. Calix, L. P., Prusko, P. T., & Thompson, J. (2015). Building community through synchronous sessions. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from https://dtlconference.wisc.edu/wp -content/uploads/2015/08/Proceedings-2015.pdf
8. Campus announces restriction of public access to educational content. (2017, March 2). Daily Californian. Retrieved from http://www.dailycal.org/2017/03/02/campus-announces-restriction-public-access-educational-content/
9. CAST. (2008). Universal design for learning: Version 1.0. Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.uvm.edu/~cdci/universaldesign/about-us/events/images/udlpdf/UDL_Guidelines_v1.0.pdf
10. CAST. (n.d.). Accessibility and policy. Retrieved from http://udloncampus.cast.org/page/policy_landing
11. Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin, 49(2), 3–7. Retrieved from https://www.aahea.org/articles/sevenprinciples.htm
12. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987, March). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3–7.
13. Chisholm, W., & May, M. (2008, September 17). Universal design for web applications. Web 2.0 Expo. Retrieved from http://cdn.oreillystatic.com/en/assets/1/event/16/Universal%20Design%20for%20Web%20Applications%20Presentation.pdf
14. Cielo24. (2017). UC Berkeley will remove public access to online content—and replace it with new accessible content. Retrieved from https://cielo24.com/2017/03/uc-berkeley-will-remove-public-access-to-online-content/
15. Clark, J. (2002a). Why bother? Building accessible websites. Retrieved from http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization /Chapter02.html
16. Clark, J. (2002b). What is media access? Building accessible websites. Retrieved from http://joeclark.org/book/sashay /serialization/Chapter04.html
17. Clark, J. (2002c). The image problem. Building accessible websites. Retrieved from http://joeclark.org/book/sashay /serialization/Chapter06.html
18. Clark, J. (2002d). The image problem. Building accessible websites. Retrieved from http://joeclark.org/book/sashay /serialization/Chapter09.html
19. Color blind: Which are your blind colors? (2009). [website]. Retrieved from http://www.color-blindness.com/2009/03/15 /color-blind-which-are-your-blind-colors/
20. Coombs, N. (2010). Making online teaching accessible: Inclusive course design for students with disabilities. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
21. D2L. (n.d.). [website]. Retrieved from https://www.d2l.com/accessibility/
22. Dell, C. A., Dell, T. F., & Blackwell, T. L. (2015). Applying universal design for learning in online courses: Pedagogical and practical considerations. Journal of Educators Online-JEO, 13(2), 166–192.
23. Design Science: How science communicates. (2016). [website]. Retrieved from https://www.dessci.com/en/
24. Dircksen, A. (2010). General description of online courses taught and descriptions of the innovative online teaching approaches utilized. Retrieved from https://www.ipfw.edu/dotAsset/13702cb7-dba0-48b3-b006-3ae90392a523.pdf
25. Dolhansky . B., & Paire, P. (2016, November). A journey to accessibility—How Temple University is implementing an accessible information and technology initiative university wide. Lecture given at the 19th Annual Conference on Accessing Higher Ground: Accessible Media, Web, and Technology. Westminster, CO. Retrieved from http://accessinghigherground.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/A-journey-to-accessibility-Final.pptx
26. Frey, B. A., Kearns, L. R., & King, D. K. (2012). Quality Matters: Template for an accessibility policy for online courses. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/accessibility-policy-template/download/QM%20Accessibility%20Policy%20Final.pdf
27. Gautreau, C., Glaeser, B. C., Renold, L. C., Ahmed, S., Lee, J., Carter-Wells, J., . . . Schools, J. (2012). Video conferencing guidelines for faculty and students in graduate online courses. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(4). Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol8no4/gautreau_1212.htm
28. Goetze, L. (2016). Legal costs can be big to defend inaccessible web content in postsecondary education. Retrieved from http://www.ncdae.org/resources/articles/legalcosts.php
29. Goodson, L., & Surface, K. (2016a). Jumpstart syllabus session for new faculty at Purdue University Fort Wayne.
30. Goodson, L., & Surface, K. (2016b). Learner-centered design: Best practices. Retrieved from http://guides.library.ipfw.edu/learnercentered
31. Grasgreen, A. (2014, April 2). Dropping the ball on disabilities. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/04/02/students-disabilities-frustrated-ignorance-and-lack-services
32. GRCC Distance Learning Standards. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.grcc.edu/sites/default/files/attachments /GRCCDLStandards.pdf
33. HHS.gov: Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. (n.d.). [website]. Retrieved from https://www.section508.gov /section-508-of-the-rehabilitation-act
34. HHS.gov: What is section 504 and how does it relate to section 508? (n.d.). [website]. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/web/section-508/what-is-section-504/
35. Ingeno, L. (2013, June 24). Online accessibility a faculty duty. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/06/24/faculty-responsible-making-online-materials-accessible-disabled-students
36. IPFW Online Course Design Standards. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.ipfw.edu/dotAsset/d405f15e-760b -46bb-b7a6-b2c9eb5fbbb8.pdf
37. Karlen Communications. (2013). Accessible PDF documents. (n.d.). [website]. Retrieved from http://www.karlencommunications.com/AccessiblePDF.html
38. Leavitt, N. O., & Schneiderman, B. (2006). Research-based web design and usability guidelines. US Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Retrieved from https://www.usability.gov/sites/default/files/documents/guidelines_book.pdf
39. Lee, I. (2016). Winning in college: A guide for students with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.edsmart.org/students -with-disabilities-college-guide/
40. Linder, K. (2016, November). How does closed caption use impact student learning? Session given at the 41st Annual Conference of the Professional and Organizational Development Network, Louisville, KY.
41. Microsoft Office compatibility pack for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint file formats. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=3
42. Moodle: Accessibility. (n.d.). [website]. Retrieved from https://docs.moodle.org/28/en/Accessibility
43. National Center for Accessible Media. (2009). Effective practices for description of science content within digital talking books. Retrieved from http://ncam.wgbh.org/experience_learn/educational_media/stemdx/intro
44. National Center on Disability and Access to Education. (2016). Tips and tools: Content management systems and accessibility. [website]. Retrieved from http://ncdae.org/resources/factsheets/cms.php
45. National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2014). The three principles of UDL. [website]. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl/3principles
46. O’Rourke, T. (2013). Access to technology ADA compliance. Retrieved from http://www.temple.edu/cfo/resources /documents/ADApresentation1-21-13.pdf
47. Portland Community College. (n.d.). Who’s responsible for accessibility of online courses? [website] Retrieved from https://www.pcc.edu/resources/instructional-support/access/documents/a11y-responsibilites-final-web.pdf
48. Piña, A. (2016, October). Effects of open education resources on students, faculty, and instructional designers. Presentation at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology International Convention, Las Vegas, NV.
49. Public Affairs, UC Berkeley. (2016, September 13). A statement on online course content and accessibility. Retrieved from http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/09/13/a-statement-on-online-course-content-and-accessibility/
50. Quality Matters. (2014). Rubric standards 2011–2013 edition with assigned point values. Retrieved from http://www.elo.iastate.edu/files/2014/03/Quality_Matters_Rubric.pdf
51. Quality Online Course Initiative: Complete rubric. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ion.uillinois.edu/initiatives /qoci/docs/QOCIRubric.rtf
52. Quality Online Learning and Teaching (QOLT) instrument. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file /d/0BxN4M6qCVbDPOEl0d1dKWmFXOEk/view
53. Ralabate, P. K. (2011). Universal design for learning: Meeting the needs of all students. ASHA Leader, 16, 14–17.
54. Resolution Agreement, University of Phoenix. (2015). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr /docs/investigations/more/08152040-b.pdf
55. Rodgers, B. (2015, April 28). Hidden disabilities diagnoses up but some students remain unreported at Iowa colleges, universities. Iowa Watch.org. Retrieved from http://iowawatch.org/2015/04/28/hidden-disabilities-diagnoses-up-but-some -students-still-go-unreported-at-iowa-colleges-universities/
56. Section 508.gov. (n.d.). [website]. Retrieved from https://www.section508.gov
57. Section 508.gov. (n.d.). Quick reference guide to Section 508 requirements [website]. Retrieved from http://www.section508.gov/content/learn/standards/quick-reference-guide#1194.22
58. Settlement between Penn State University and National Federation of the Blind. (n.d.). [website]. Retrieved from http://accessibility.psu.edu/nfbpsusettlement/
59. Simpson, E. (2013, February 19). Clearing up accessibility for distance education administrators: Accommodating the new students. Evolllution. Retrieved from http://evolllution.com/opinions/clearing-up-accessibility-for-distance -education-administrators-accommodating-the-new-students/
60. Stachowiak, J. R. (2009). Technology tools for implementing universal design for learning in postsecondary settings. Accessibility in Action, 1(2). Retrieved from http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/Journals/spring2010 /universaldesignforlearning/
61. Sutton, J. (2002). A guide to making documents accessible to people who are blind or visually impaired. Retrieved from http://www.sabeusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/A-Guide-to-Making-Documents-Accessible-to-People-Who -are-Blind-or-Visually-Impaired.pdf
62. UDL guidelines—Version 2.0. [website]. Retrieved from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines
63. University Business. (2016, January). Web accessibility: A campuswide approach—Developing a comprehensive strategy to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Retrieved from https://www.universitybusiness.com/article/web-accessibility -campuswide-approach
64. University of Surrey. (n.d.). Chapter 2 tables and charts. [website]. Retrieved from http://libweb.surrey.ac.uk/library /skills/Working%20with%20charts%20and%20graphs%201/MU120_4M5_section5.html
65. University of Washington. (2016). Legal cases by issue [website]. Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu /accessibility/requirements/legal-cases-by-issue/
66. University of Washington: Accessible Technology. (n.d.). Resolution agreements and lawsuits. [website]. Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/accessibility/requirements/accessibility-cases-and-settlement-agreements/
67. US Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. (2016). Reading room. [website]. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/readingroom.html
68. US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. (2016, August 30). The United States’ findings and conclusions based on its investigation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of the University of California at Berkeley. (DJ No. 204-11-309). Retrieved from https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08-30-UC-Berkeley-LOF.pdf
69. Vasquez, L., & Johnson, J. (2016). Online education and accessibility for students with disabilities [PowerPoint presentation]. Retrieved from http://www.asccc.org/sites/default/files/2016%20Online%20Education%20and%20Accessibility %20for%20Students%20with%20Disabilities_0.ppt
70. W3C®Web Accessibility Initiative. (n.d.). [website]. Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/WAI/
71. WebAIM Canvas certification. (2015). [website]. Retrieved from http://webaim.org/services/certification /canvas?utm_content=buffer29dd7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=plus.google.com&utm_campaign=buffer
72. WebAIM Fonts WebAim. [website]. Retrieved from http://webaim.org/techniques/fonts/#blink
73. Web Learning @ Penn State: Penn State quality assurance e-learning standards. (2016). Retrieved from https://weblearning.psu.edu/resources/penn-state-online-resources/qualityassurance/
74. Wentz, B., Jaeger, P. T., & Lazar, J. (2011). Retrofitting accessibility: The legal inequality of after-the-fact online access for persons with disabilities in the United States. First Monday, 16(11). Retrieved from https://nfb.org/images/nfb /publications/bm/bm12/bm1205/bm120504.htm