HomeBlogPublishing SoTL Accessibility Extends Beyond Compliance by Sophie Grabiec June 2, 2026 Share: Section NavigationSkip section navigationIn this sectionBlog Home AI and Engaged Learning Assessment of Learning Capstone Experiences CEL News CEL Retrospectives CEL Reviews Collaborative Projects and Assignments Community-Based Learning Data Literacy Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity ePortfolio Feedback First-Year Experiences Global Learning Health Sciences High Impact Practices Immersive Learning Internships Learning Communities Mentoring Relationships Online Education Place-Based Learning Professional and Continuing Education Publishing SoTL Reflection and Metacognition Relationships Residential Learning Communities Service-Learning Signature Work Student Leadership Student-Faculty Partnership Studying EL Supporting Neurodivergent and Physically Disabled Students Undergraduate Research Work-Integrated Learning Writing Transfer in and beyond the University Style Guide for Posts to the Center for Engaged Learning Blog In earlier posts in this series, we explored how readers manage cognitive load, how they navigate texts non-linearly, and how visuals shape interpretation and argument. Underneath all of these conversations is another foundational issue: accessibility. Accessibility influences whether readers can meaningfully engage with scholarship in the first place. In many contexts, accessibility is discussed primarily in terms of compliance. Authors and designers may think about accessibility only when they are prompted to add alt-text, check color contrast, or satisfy a platform requirement. These practices matter, and legal compliance is important. But accessibility is also much larger than compliance alone. It is an intellectual and ethical approach to communication that asks whether readers can successfully perceive, navigate, understand, and use the ideas we present. For Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), this question matters deeply because the field is built around improving learning. If scholarship is difficult to access or navigate, then even strong ideas may fail to reach readers in ways that support teaching practice, institutional change, or further inquiry. Accessibility is therefore not separate from scholarly communication; it is part of how scholarly communication works. Accessibility and Universal Design for Learning One useful (and popular) framework for thinking about accessibility in educational contexts is Universal Design for Learning (UDL). UDL emphasizes designing learning environments and materials that anticipate variability among learners rather than retrofitting accommodations after barriers appear (Rose et al. 2006). Although UDL is often discussed in relation to classrooms and curricula, many of its principles apply directly to communication design, as well. Readers encounter SoTL scholarship with different experiences, reading habits, disciplinary knowledge, language backgrounds, physical abilities, neurocognitive differences, and technological contexts. Some may read carefully from beginning to end. Others may skim between meetings, listen to a screen reader while commuting, enlarge text on a mobile device, or rely on captions and transcripts. Accessibility practices help support this range of engagement (Liu 2005). Importantly, accessibility choices often improve communication for everyone, not only for readers with formally identified disabilities. Clear headings help screen-reader navigation, but they also support scanning and selective reading. Captions support deaf and hard-of-hearing readers, but they also help multilingual audiences and people in noisy environments. Strong contrast improves readability for visually impaired readers while also making content easier to process quickly for all readers. This overlap is important because it frames accessibility as a form of rhetorical effectiveness rather than a secondary technical concern. Accessibility and Communication Design Accessibility is closely tied to the design choices we make as communicators. The structure of a page, the organization of information, the readability of a figure, and the clarity of a heading all shape whether readers can move through a text successfully. In practical terms, accessible scholarly communication often involves relatively simple but meaningful choices: Using descriptive headings that clearly identify sections Writing meaningful alt-text for charts, diagrams, and images Maintaining sufficient color contrast (use WebAIM’s color contrast tool to be sure you’re using accessible color combinations! Avoiding overly dense paragraphs or cluttered layouts Using readable font sizes and spacing Providing captions or transcripts for multimedia content Designing tables and visuals with logical structure Using hyperlinks with descriptive text instead of generic phrases like “click here” These practices reduce barriers to navigation and interpretation. They also reduce unnecessary cognitive effort, connecting accessibility directly to the earlier discussions in this series about cognitive load and nonlinear reading. Accessibility also extends beyond technical formatting into language itself. Scholarly writing sometimes relies heavily on jargon, compressed phrasing, or disciplinary assumptions that can exclude readers unfamiliar with a field’s conventions. Precision and complexity are often necessary in research communication, but accessibility encourages writers to think carefully about where complexity is genuinely needed and where clarity can be improved. This does not mean oversimplifying scholarship. Instead, it means recognizing that readers should spend their effort engaging with ideas rather than deciphering avoidable barriers of presentation or wording. Note: many of the practical “how-to” hyperlinks throughout this post point to guidance from WebAIM, a widely used resource for web accessibility best practices. Accessibility as an Ethical Practice Accessibility is also an ethical commitment about who scholarship is for. Design decisions communicate assumptions about audiences, participation, and belonging. When accessibility is treated as optional or secondary, some readers are implicitly expected to adapt themselves to the text rather than the text adapting thoughtfully to readers. This is especially significant in SoTL because we frequently emphasize inclusion, student-centered learning, and equitable participation. Those values should extend to the way scholarship itself is communicated. A publication that advocates for inclusive teaching while remaining difficult to access creates a disconnect between its ideas and its form. Thinking about accessibility early in the writing and design process encourages a more expansive understanding of audience. It asks scholars to imagine not only the ideal reader sitting quietly with unlimited time and attention, but also readers working across different contexts, technologies, and abilities. In this sense, accessibility becomes part of scholarly hospitality. It signals care for readers and respect for their time, attention, and varied ways of engaging with knowledge. Practical Starting Points Accessibility can feel overwhelming, particularly for scholars working without dedicated design or publishing support. But accessible communication does not require perfection all at once. Small choices can make a substantial difference. Here are a few starting points for SoTL writers and presenters: Before Publishing or Sharing Work Review heading structure for clarity and hierarchy Check whether figures and tables remain understandable without color alone (see Figure 1below) Add alt-text to visuals/photos Test readability on both desktop and mobile devices Use descriptive hyperlinks and labels When Designing Presentations or Workshops Avoid overcrowded slides Provide verbal descriptions of visuals Use captions whenever possible Share materials in advance if appropriate Maintain readable font sizes and contrast When Revising Writing Break long sections into manageable chunks Clarify transitions and signposting Reduce unnecessary jargon Consider whether readers can quickly identify key takeaways An Example To expand on the point above about ensuring figures and tables remain understandable without relying on color alone, Option 2 in Figure 1 demonstrates how distinct colors, shapes, and direct labels improve clarity and make the data easier to interpret for all users. Importantly, these kinds of redundant visual cues reduce dependency on any single mode of perception, making the information more resilient across different reading contexts and assistive technologies. These design decisions point toward a broader question of how accessibility not only improves comprehension but also shapes how scholarly work is experienced and trusted. Figure 1. Comparison of less accessible and more accessible line graph design choices. The revised version improves readability through distinct colors, shape markers, direct labeling, and clearer visual differentiation between data series, making the information easier to interpret for a wider range of readers. Adapted from accessibility guidance published by Minnesota IT Services Office of Accessibility. Takeaways Accessibility is not separate from good scholarly communication. It is one of the conditions that makes meaningful engagement possible. In SoTL especially, where scholarship often aims to influence teaching practice and educational environments, accessibility supports whether ideas can actually move into use. When accessibility is approached only as compliance, it risks becoming reactive and minimal. But when it is treated as an intellectual and ethical practice, it reshapes how we think about audience, design, and scholarly responsibility. Accessibility becomes part of how scholarship invites participation, supports understanding, and extends its reach. Thoughtful design choices help readers encounter ideas with fewer unnecessary barriers. In that sense, accessibility is not simply about access to information. It is about access to meaning. In the final post in this series, we turn to credibility and trust. Before readers fully engage with an argument, they are already interpreting signals about professionalism, coherence, and authority. We’ll explore how design shapes those perceptions and why presentation influences not only readability, but also the credibility of scholarly work itself. References Liu, Ziming. 2005. “Reading Behavior in the Digital Environment: Changes in Reading Behavior Over the Past Ten Years.” Journal of Documentation 61 (6): 700–712. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510632040. Rose, D. H., W. S. Harbour, C. S. Johnston, S. G. Daley, and L. Abarbanell. 2006. “Universal Design for Learning in Postsecondary Education: Reflections on Principles and Their Application.” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 19 (2): 135–51. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ855027.pdf. Seale, Jane. 2013. E-learning and Disability in Higher Education: Accessibility Research and Practice. Routledge. About the Author Sophie Grabiec is the Center for Engaged Learning’s Managing Editor, where she oversees the production of CEL’s books, open access resources, and blog. Before joining Elon University, she lived and worked in Washington, DC at Georgetown University, where she earned her M.A. in English and taught first-year writing. How to Cite This Post Grabiec, Sophie. 2026. “Accessibility Extends Beyond Compliance.” Center for Engaged Learning (blog), Elon University. Month Day, 2026. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/accessibility-extends-beyond-compliance.
