Martin Compton (KCL) and Ben Watson (UCL) have been working on a project to develop a self-assessment tool for anyone working in education to determine their own digital accessibility readiness and practice. The resource will invite educators, professional services staff and students to consider their own understanding and practices according to a number of statements aligned with the ‘POUR ‘ framework. The POUR acronym stands for Perceivable, Operable, Understandable and Robust.
It’s a set of principles that guide the creation of accessible and inclusive digital content and interface. The ‘ladder’ will be aimed at anyone involved in education and training and we are developing an interactive online tool that users can engage with to give an insight into individual levels of digital accessibility maturity and areas to focus on for further development. Recognising that everyone is on a journey with digital accessibility awareness we are hopeful that the self-assessment can be undertaken at different times of year and yield different signposts to development opportunities depending on the individual’s progress. It is also built around the relevant criteria from the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) that can be applied more broadly to learning, teaching and research resources.
Set out below is the broad accessibility readiness measure followed by some indicative self assessment statements which, in the final interactive model, will generate tailored feedback, recommendations and link to targeted resources. The statements themselves are designed to indicate critical, minimal, baseline behaviours.
Accessibility Readiness
| Level | Accessibility Readiness | Characteristics and indicative practices |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Champion | Activists/ innovators who work with students to understand and design more accessible approaches and resources. Potential contributors to institutional policy and strategy. |
| 4 | Ally | Connected to wider pedagogical values; allies are vocal on behalf of students. Role model or provide case studies/ templates for others in their departments. |
| 3 | Ready and willing | Awareness of accessibility design principles; willingly adopting good basic levels of accessibility. |
| 2 | Ready to begin | Awareness of accessibility principles and drivers; only adopting bare minimum when encouraged. |
| 1 | Unready | Don’t know where to start and/or in need of direction, support, and prioritisation. |
| 0 | Unable | Context means that this is not prioritised in current working environment given competing commitments and pressures.Time is a key point of resistance. |
For each of the ‘I’ statements users will be invited to plot their confidence. For each statement you are able to choose from 0-5 as follows:
0. Not on my radar
1. Would if I knew how
2. Rarely or if required
3. Sometimes
4. Always
5. Yes! And support others
Until the interactive resource is ready, feel free to reflect on these statements and draw on the linked resources from both King’s and UCL at the end.
A. Perceivable Resources
1. “I ensure to provide text descriptions (Alternative text) for images I use.”
2. “I do not use size, shape, or colour as the sole means of conveying meaning.”
3. “I actively check and adjust colour contrasts to ensure readability.”
4. “I commit to providing captions or transcripts for all multimedia content.”
5. “I provide audio descriptions for videos.”
6. “I make sure that tables have clear headings and are easy to understand.”
B. Perceivable Presentation
1. “I utilise automatic speech recognition for live session captions.”
2. “I ensure that all visual content presented is coupled with a non-visual alternative.”
3. “I use digital tools to reformat resources, such as AI-generated summaries or audio.”
C. Operable (Easy to Use or User-Friendly)
1. “I organise documents with clear headings for easy navigation.”
2. “I use clear link descriptions instead of vague phrases like ‘click here’.”
3. “I am aware that some people navigate my content using different methods, like keyboard-only navigation.”
4. “I share electronic materials, such as slides, before teaching sessions.”
5. “I am cautious to avoid referring students to content that could trigger seizures or physical reactions.”
D. Understandable (Easy to Comprehend or Intuitive)
1. “I guide my students to tools and opportunities to translate or access resources in other languages.”
2. “I inform students about available assistive technologies and other means of support.”
3. “I highlight ways in which new technologies can assist students to reformat content for themselves or study more effectively.”
4. “I make it a point to explain acronyms, pronunciation, and jargon for clarity.”
5. “I offer materials in various formats (PDF, HTML, DOCX) or am aware of how I or my students can do this.”
6. “I provide and accept different ways of contributing to discussions, to help with error prevention and avoid shaming people.”
E. Robust (Consistently Accessible)
1. “I regularly check documents for accessibility before finalising them.”
2. “I prioritise accessibility in all stages of content creation.”
UCL
digitalaccessibility@ucl.ac.uk
Visit our webpages: www.ucl.ac.uk/accessibility
Instagram: @UCLDigitalAccessibility
Twitter / X: @UCLDigiAccess
YouTube: @UCLDigitalAccessibility
KCL
diversity@kcl.ac.uk
HEducationist 