Due to the wide variety of programs and media used in Instructional Design, it would have been, if not impossible, impossibly complex to try and pack an entire technical training curriculum into one program. The training portion of this project had to accomplish certain goals that would teach users to identify issues and think creatively within the limits of their software about how to remedy them.
The e-learning course went on to inform revisions to our contractor style guide, which were supported by a new feedback and revision process that included an accessibility “Before You Publish” checklist. The result was a compliant product at the time of delivery and an estimated reduction in contractor hours of roughly 10 – 15%. A further benefit was to our contractors, who saw the process as educational towards their individual professional development.
Broadly speaking, the goal for the organization was to meet accessibility compliance requirements for digital content created for our leadership and mentor programs. The pre-existing system of development, feedback, and revision that was being employed by project managers required too much oversight and many products were slipping through the system that were not making the required AA WCAG rating. The amount of compliance failures was increasing our risk for exposure during content audits, which had the potential of impacting our State and federal funding.
As the volume of projects grew, we also needed to streamline the design cycle for new content. Head designers were being placed as project managers, and contractors were being utilized for development – which created a new variable, as different contractors brought their own strengths, but also skill gaps to the team. Because our contractors were hired on an as-needed basis, from many parts of the country, the program had to be a-synchronous. We needed training that could meet a diverse learning group at any given individual’s level.
Because many contractors were unfamiliar with accessibility, and the technical skillsets for the various technologies used cannot be taught within the scope of a single project. One goal of this program would be to create a primer that would serve as an entertaining review to those familiar with the content already, but as a vital source of relevant vocabulary for everyone else – so that they knew what to look for and when to ask for help.
Moreover, contract work was paid upon delivery of products, so there was an incentive to submit quickly. Since many developers had come to see accessibility as a general UX issue, rather than the particular set of technical standards that it is, we were having to spend time evaluating, returning, and waiting for revision of work. Beyond the core training, we had to be clear and upfront about our expectations, offer a rubric for success, and articulate a series of standards to be met prior to submission of any deliverables.
Adult learners tend to respond better to experiential content that creates personal connections to the curricula. So, we thought it would be instructive to show our designers what their content actually looks like to a visually impaired user. Using a system of layers and triggers, I was able to integrate an Ishihara color test and even simulate different forms of color blindness.
In this sample, I used interactive images that let users guess and then click to reveal examples of proper alternative text. I also included an activity that recreates an old-fashioned slide presentation format to serve as a brief knowledge check.
There is no reason for an assessment to be strictly summative. Feedback, individualized by response, can help users grow as they go. This assessment features that, as well as an accessibility theme created using Illustrator and Midjourney A.I.
Quizzes in this course took two forms: a conventional assessment that could be scored and tracked, and a gamified primer that used narrative and stakes to challenge learners and engage them at the beginning of each unit.