Skip to content
Accessibility at the UW

Proposal for Making Course Content Accessible

For consideration by UW Leadership
Spring 2025

Table of Contents

Preface

This is an evolving document that will be finalized in summer quarter 2025. As working groups tasked by the Course Content Action Team submit their findings, this document will update to incorporate additional recommendations. The proposed actions listed here are for consideration by UW leadership and have yet to be approved.

Executive Summary

The University’s current approach to digital accessibility in courses is individual and retroactive, relying on students requesting accommodations and faculty working with Disability Resources for Students (DRS) to remediate materials. The Course Content Action Team tasked working groups with focusing on types of digital content (e.g., PDF, audio/video recordings, e-textbooks, images, other documents like Word and PowerPoint, Canvas interactive learning tools (LTI)), and with a careful review of the current state of workflows, policies, and tools. Based on this current state analysis, the working groups laid out options for what the Action Team might consider in its recommendations. Their work is available in detailed reports linked in the relevant sections of this document.

Based on this information, the Action Team deliberated and arrived at the following recommendations for ensuring UW students have access to course materials on day one. This proposed future approach is multi-pronged and minimizes the burden on faculty; it involves a combination of enterprise-wide, local unit, and individual instructor efforts to ensure students have equitable access to digital course content.

This proposal includes an overall strategy and approach as well as specific recommendations for each of the file types our working groups addressed. As the Action Team receives working group reports and makes recommendations, this proposal will be updated. A complete proposal is expected in July 2025.

Strategy & Approach

The strategy taken by the Action Team sits within the University’s three-year roadmap for a response to the new ADA rules overall. Details on the roadmap are forthcoming from the ADA office.

Strategy

The Course Content Action Team favors actions that:

  • Prioritize actionable steps toward substantial compliance.
  • Minimize burden on faculty.
  • Empower student-centered teaching practices.
  • Leverage existing tools and services, wherever possible.
  • Invest in scalable, long-term solutions.

Approach

The Action Team’s overall approach focuses not just on meeting the updated technical standards starting in April 2026 but on sustainable digital accessibility in the long term. This proposal favors a division of labor in which:

  • instructors take responsibility for actions that are high-frequency and technically straightforward, while
  • central support units handle lower-frequency but more technically complex issues.

This approach will help the University shift from a reactive approach focused on remediation to a proactive creation of materials that are accessible from the beginning.

This approach encourages faculty to learn how to fix or replace inaccessible course materials in the near-term and create born-accessible content going forward. It also empowers Disability Resources for Students (DRS) and Accessible Technology Services (ATS) to work more efficiently and lend their expertise where it is most needed.

The following principles guide the Action Team’s recommendations for actions that support this approach:

Leverage/invest in tools

  • Leverage existing technologies.
  • Encourage vendors to further improve accessibility.
  • Invest in new technologies where clear value is evident.

Improve workflows

  • Leverage and modify existing workflows (e.g., for central support).
  • Create and pilot new workflows, as needed.
  • Scale successful pilots, as needed.

Set clear expectations

  • Define a minimum level of accessibility standards that UW expects of instructors to be indemnified. For example, we recommend that if instructors use the UW approved and supported tools (e.g. Canvas, Panopto, MS Office or UW-IT approved alternatives) and make a good faith effort to create accessible materials based on UW guidance, if there is a lawsuit, the UW will defend their work.
  • Set actionable and realistic goals for instructors to reach those standards.
  • Provide clarity on the support central units can provide and what should be supported locally.
  • Affirm that faculty have agency for making pedagogical decisions and choices about course content and that meeting standards help make those choices accessible.

Gather data on needs before scaling up personnel

The Action Team does not recommend scaling up personnel in units that currently provide remediation until we have better information on how other actions, such as new policies or tools will impact demand for those services. Instead of frontloading resource allocation, we propose a more targeted and fiscally responsible approach. As we enact the recommendations in this proposal, we will assess workflows and better determine areas of need. We anticipate additional personnel and resources will be required, once needs are identified, and encourage leadership to expect additional funding requests.

Prioritize effective teaching practices

Also, it is important as this work progresses that it does not inadvertently discourage effective teaching practices, create an expectation that instructors become accessibility experts, or place cost burden on students.

Focus on high-value actions first, then continuous improvement

This approach recognizes that digital accessibility is incremental and iterative. This proposal is focused on near-term actions that, once achieved, should be updated to focus on higher levels of digital accessibility as understanding of accessibility improves and as new workflows and technology tools evolve. We recognize this work will take time and focused effort beyond the April 2026 deadline. While some may feel these recommendations do not go far enough, this incremental approach will allow the UW to achieve desired levels of accessibility in a sustainable way in the long term.

Form an implementation team

The Action Team has defined the need for an implementation team that is responsible for executing these recommendations. The implementation team will begin working as recommendations come in and work on a rolling basis.

An implementation team could research and address multiple aspects, including:

  • Defining and evaluating the workflows that best support the recommendations (new or existing).
  • Ensuring the recommended tools are procured and implemented, and that there is appropriate tool documentation.
  • Identifying areas for pilots and metrics to track progress.
  • Envisioning what an appropriate central services support model might look like (e.g., hub and spokes, centralized, networked).

Recommendations

The Action Team considered the findings of working groups focused on PDFs, audio/visual content, eTextbooks, images, other documents such as Word and PowerPoint, Canvas LTI tools (third-party educational tools that integrate with Canvas), and less common edge cases. Recommendations here are the outcomes of that consideration and focus on efforts that bring value in the first year of the University’s three-year plan. Full reports from each working group are available further in this report. They include supporting details that provide more complete rationales for these recommendations.

Overarching

A number of recommendations apply to more than one type of digital file and can support digital accessibility broadly if adopted. Multiple working groups mentioned these options.

Commit to using Canvas & other centrally approved tools/platforms

  • Recommend that digital course content be universally hosted in Canvas because it is designed to be accessible, responsive, and adaptable by people with disabilities. Widespread adoption would enable better data on accessibility and allow central services to provide outreach where needed.
  • Ideally, this change would be achieved through an update to Scholastic Regulations supporting the use of centrally provided learning technologies. It could also be encouraged in the near-term by linking Canvas use to indemnification.
  • Policies will need to take into account that Canvas does not fit the needs of all departments or disciplines and should include a process under which they can request an exemption under certain conditions.
  • Encourage UW-IT’s Student & Educational Technology Services to continue to work with Instructure, and with vendors of third-party tools that integrate with Canvas, to improve features that support accessibility.
  • Encourage ATS to publish a list for instructors of centrally provided tools and platforms, of unit-specific tools and platforms vetted by UW-IT for accessibility, and tools and platforms that are insufficiently accessible and not approved.

Encourage curation of course materials

Ask instructors to regularly select and remove digital course materials to ensure accessibility checkers are only assessing active materials.

  • Delete outdated digital course materials when copying course materials from a past quarter to a future course.
  • Run course materials through accessibility checkers.

Explore setting up a central repository of remediated course materials for future use

Explore a partnership between central accessibility support services and UW Libraries to create a central repository of remediated course materials. Currently, materials made accessible through the accommodations process reside with the student and are not available to instructors due to copyright laws. A searchable, central home that makes such content available in the future would reduce duplication of effort. More discovery is needed to understand policy or legal implications, feasibility, and potential costs.

Set a target of 80% Ally accessibility checker score in Canvas by April 2026

Provide clear guidance for instructors on what is meant by “substantial compliance” by setting a measurable target and clarify what that target means. This target can be updated to a higher level, either once it is met or for the following year. We recommend setting a target for courses in Canvas to achieve a minimum 80% score in the Ally accessibility checker by April 24, 2026. In Autumn25 and Winter26 quarters, we can monitor this target and increase to a higher percentage if it proves too modest and continue to increase the minimum score expected as we move forward in the University’s three-year plan.

Guidance for instructors around how to approach using Ally include:

  • Note that an Ally score – even a good one – does not measure accessibility in all areas. That said, it will help you measure progress and find areas for improvement.
  • Focus first on making key materials accessible for courses taught in the next academic year, e.g., syllabus and content essential to meeting learning outcomes.
  • Aim for an Ally course score of ≥ 80% with the expectation that you will achieve higher percentages in future quarters.
  • If there is a DRS accommodation, take advantage of central services to resolve remaining accessibility issues.

Set expectations that materials are available in advance of the quarter

Since the minimum level of accessibility we will be asking instructors to provide may not be sufficient for those who request accommodations, we can still ensure courses are accessible by the first day of class if we improve processes and timelines that allow DRS staff to work efficiently. The following actions will help DRS staff save valuable time currently spent searching for information on course content:

  • Set an expectation, ideally through policy, that all courses have an accessible syllabus, specific information about required course readings, and instructor (or delegate) identified in a system of record 6 weeks in advance of the start of each quarter.
  • Develop a UW strategy on how to approach sharing information on assigned course content between the academic departments, bookstores, DRS, and librarians.

Improve workflows and explore a hub and spokes model for central support services

  • Map processes for common workflows in DRS, ATS and other units that support digital accessibility, such as the tri-campus Teaching@UW network and Learning Technologies so the Action Team and any subsequent implementing groups will better understand central support services.
  • Explore alternatives for improving central support models, such as moving toward a hub and spokes, centralized or networked model, to better support accessibility needs writ large.
  • Create a workflow and support structure for just-in-time support for digital content created mid-quarter.

Encourage instructors to take advantage of available resources and educational opportunities

At this time, the Action Team recommends ensuring that resources and educational opportunities are available in a variety of ways – self-access, webinars, workshops, office hours, etc. – to support instructors in meeting expectations.

This guidance should focus on reaching substantial compliance and not overwhelm instructors with options. Since materials already exist in disparate locations, this work likely involves more curation than creation and may require revamping of existing guidance. Ideally, this content would be accessible via a portal or hub and would be searchable.

These resources should be promoted heavily as the means to support student success and achieve ADA compliance.

PDFs and documents

The PDF Working Group was composed of subject-matter expert staff and faculty members who considered the various actions the University could take to tackle PDFs, the most frequent inaccessible file type.

The Action Team considered their findings and recommends the following:

Discourage the use of PDFs in favor of more accessible document types

Although PDFs are frequently inaccessible, we do not recommend banning the use of PDFs in course content. Rather, we suggest strongly discouraging their use going forward and providing guidance for faculty on how to create accessible alternative document types.

Provide detailed guidance to Instructors

Offer detailed, step-by-step guidance for instructors in the form of self-access web pages, training, and workshops that include information about:

  • How to create new documents that are born-accessible.
  • How to replace or remediate existing PDFs that will be used in future courses.
  • How to use accessibility checkers.
  • What is expected of instructors for high-frequency and technically straightforward accessibility issues.
  • How to work with central services when issues arise that are more complex.

Purchase site licenses for TidyUp and Cidilabs UDOIT

It is not advised to purchase a site license for Adobe Pro due to cost and the steep learning curve for users. Instead, we recommend purchasing site licenses for:

  • TidyUp, for deleting and archiving content in Canvas. $22,000/yr.
  • Cidilabs UDOIT, for converting inaccessible PDFs to editable Canvas pages. ~$44,000/ yr.

Remediation done locally

  • Instructors will evaluate whether PDF content is needed.
    • They can use TidyUp to identify unused course content in Canvas that may be ready for deletion. This will reduce the cost of remediating course content by eliminating unnecessary files.
  • Instructors will replace existing PDFs that will be used in future courses with HTML documents or source documents (e.g., Word, PowerPoint), where possible.
    • If the PDF is an article, find the HTML version through the libraries.
    • If an HTML or source document for the PDF is not available, upload the PDF file to Canvas and use the Cidilabs UDOIT tool to convert it to a Canvas page (HTML).
    • If the PDF was created from another document type and you have the original (e.g. Word, PowerPoint), post the original document after checking accessibility.
  • If unable to use HTML or source document file types, instructors will review PDFs for quality and accessibility.
  • DRS will provide remediations based on accommodations requests.

Encode guidance in policy

Set expectations through policy that all courses:

  • Have an accessible syllabus, specific information on any required course readings, and instructor of record identified in a system of record 6 weeks in advance of the start of each quarter.
  • Commit to using Canvas.
  • For Canvas courses, achieve 80% accessibility scores in Ally by April 24, 2026.

Provide clear criteria and process for exceptions to these expectations and under what conditions.

Audio / Video

The Audio/Video Recordings Working Group was composed of subject-matter expert staff and faculty members. who considered the various actions the University could take to tackle inaccessible recordings.

We learned from the working group that there is no single elegant solution to ensuring course recordings are accessible. All the policies, tools, and approaches explored by this committee came with tradeoffs and caveats, and none of them provided easy and affordable answers. That said, we are optimistic about the potential for meaningful improvements to available tools in the next year, primarily through integration of artificial intelligence (AI).

In the near-term, recommendations center on leveraging existing tools with auto-captioning and transcription, and relying on central services for help with recordings where the quality of captions or transcription is important.

After considering the working group’s findings, the Action Team recommends the following:

Always auto-caption video

Commonly used video recording tools (Panopto, Zoom, YouTube, Vimeo) have the ability to provide auto-captioning. In some cases (Panopto, Zoom) this can be set as a default so there is no effort needed by the instructor to provide captions. In these tools, the auto-captions become transcripts available to screen readers.

Auto-captions and the resulting transcripts are not perfect but greatly improve accessibility, have the benefit of speed, and will, in most cases, be sufficient to understand the content. For situations in which auto-captions are not sufficient, instructors and departments can work with central services to provide higher-quality captioning.

Provide detailed guidance to instructors

We recommend providing detailed guidance to instructors that includes the following information:

  • Turn on auto-captioning in Panopto and Zoom and ensure recordings preserve captions when shared with students. Panopto and Zoom are the most accessibility rich tools for pre-recording and for live recording. Both create decent auto-captions in the moment and transcriptions to read after the fact.
    • If the academic unit has a preferred alternative that has been vetted with UW-IT to ensure it is similarly accessible, then instructors should use the alternative.
    • For pre-existing videos without captions that instructors are not sure they will use again in the future, we recommend instructors leave them, as is, for now. If they end up being used and there is an accommodation request, DRS will help remediate recordings based on the incoming student’s needs.
  • Be thoughtful about when to record. Whether to record or not is a pedagogical question and will depend on the course. Many recordings on UW platforms have never been watched, and many requests by students for recording are for reasons other than accessibility.
    • Review the number of views for past recordings related to the course. Looking for recordings with zero views will help instructors decide which types of recordings to make in the future. The working group found over 100,000 Panopto recordings at UW that had never been viewed, for example.
  • Learn best practices for narration. When recording, instructors should follow best practices to achieve the highest sound quality possible. This includes:
    • Following best practices to achieve the highest sound quality possible when pre-recording or recording class sessions. This involves microphone placement and settings, where to stand in relation to a fixed mic, and repeating questions that students ask so they are captured on the mic.
    • When recording, verbally describing the images shared. This practice helps blind/low vision students and reduces the need for manually adding audio description to a transcript after the fact.
  • Rely on DRS for students with accommodations. Since needs for high quality audio/video vary, it is preferable to meet them through the accommodation process. The same is true for pre-existing recordings without captions.
  • Request help for pre-recorded video or audio course content that is intended for re-use or has highly specialized language. Instructors or departments can request higher quality captioning from ATS. ATS can provide this service or connect the department with a vendor who can provide it for a fee.

Leverage existing tools and vendors

In addition to auto-captioning, UW has preferred vendors that provide higher quality captions that rely on the best available captioning software, AI and/or humans. They also provide audio descriptions of visual content. These options vary in cost and can be expensive but are often necessary in certain circumstances: as accommodations for blind/low-vision students, when the speaker has a strong accent, when audio quality is too low for successful auto-captioning, and when the content involves highly specialized vocabulary not recognized by the auto-captioning tool. We propose using these vendors only in these needed circumstances in the near-term while auto-captioning technology evolves. There is an expectation that AI-enabled captioning will be added to auto-captioning features in existing tools in the not-too-distant future and will improve the quality of all recordings without additional cost and effort.

The relative accuracy of third party AI-enabled captioning is not known. We recommend ATS compare the auto-captioning in Panopto to the AI enhanced captioning for 3Play media and Echo Labs to determine which option will work best for most standard recordings in the near-term. In the long-term, ATS should play the role of comparing evolving captioning and transcription technologies to advise on best tools for quality and cost.

The cost for tools is therefore the cost per minute of third-party vendor remediation for those recordings prioritized for highest quality captioning, transcription and/or audio description.

Pricing Comparison for 2 million minutes of video content

The following table compares costs for automatic speech recognition (ASR), artificial intelligence (which uses ASR as a starting point), and human intervention.

Vendor ASR captioning AI description Human captioning Human description standard Human description extended
3Play Media $200,000 $2 million (standard)
$3 million (extended)		 $3.7 million $14.7 million $22 million
Echo Labs $900,000 (includes human captioning) $4 million (includes human description) Included in ASR price Included in AI price Included in AI price
Panopto free N/A $2 million N/A N/A
Zoom free N/A N/A N/A N/A

We do not recommend the use of the BigBlueButton tool in Canvas. If possible, it would be ideal to turn off this feature.

Improve classroom technology for A/V

To improve the sound quality of recordings, and therefore the quality of auto-captioning, we recommend prioritizing improvements to classroom technology for A/V. Ideally, consistent annual funding would be provided to speed up this transition. If no such funding is available, updates can be made with existing classroom renovation funding over a longer period of time.

Leverage central services when auto-captioning is insufficient

For circumstances in which auto-captioning is insufficient, we recommend the following:

  • For students with accommodations that require high-quality transcription, captioning or audio descriptions of visuals, rely on the DRS accommodation process to:
    • Provide AI or manual captioning to achieve quality to meet student needs (3Play).
    • Provide audio description scribes for the infrequent requests, since each individual has different needs for type of description.
  • When more than auto-captioning is needed for pre-recorded A/V, work in advance with central services who will, in turn, contract with vendors for high-quality transcription, captioning or audio descriptions of visuals.
    • Prioritized content remediation will be paid for centrally for courses with:
      • frequent use of specialized language not captured by auto-captioning.
      • instructors with accents that are not captured well by auto-captioning.
      • A/V content that will be public-facing or re-used across sections/quarters.
    • Non-prioritized content would be paid for locally.

DRS already has available funds for accommodations that can be leveraged. In addition, we recommend earmarking additional funds for central services to proactively provide higher quality captions, transcriptions and audio descriptions in advance for recordings outside of the accommodations. These funds can be used to provide service to departments and to test vendor tools as they add new features.

  • Autumn 2025 – Winter 2026: Allocate $5,000 to provide vendor solutions. This equates to over 800 hours of ASR captioning.
  • Winter 2026: Assess usage patterns to determine future resource requests.

Track progress toward compliance & delete unused content

Given the current limitations of data analytics for monitoring captions and audio descriptions of recordings, the Action Team recommends that UW-IT develop a dashboard with data from the admittedly limited available sources (e.g., Canvas, vendors, Ally, YouTube, Panopto). As the technology evolves, UW’s reporting needs will likely also evolve, and UW-IT can work with vendors to provide more and better data for reporting.

In addition, we recommend UW-IT revisit retention policies to help eliminate old, unused recordings. Deletion of old recordings would facilitate accuracy in reporting and reduce demands on various UW platforms.

Coming Soon…

Working groups formed to address the following file types have presented their findings, which are currently under review. The Action Team is deliberating and will share updates to its recommendations on this web page, once finalized. Information on all areas will be available for instructors before the start of autumn quarter.

Images – Still in DRAFT mode

The Images Working Group was composed of subject-matter expert staff and faculty members. who considered the various actions the University could take to tackle inaccessible images used in documents and slides.

We learned from the working group that images are one of the most challenging and complex types of digital content to make accessible. While simple images can be made accessible by instructors, handling more complex images requires specialized skills – those of an accessibility specialist who knows how to remediate images and, in many cases, a content expert who can help explain the meaning of the image. The sheer volume of images in some disciplines also adds a layer of complexity. The common task of asking students to interpret images as part of class discussion or assessment raises issues of fairness if students can read alt text descriptions for the answer. Finally, some disciplines, such as Architecture and Art History, are so dense in complex images that remediation may not be feasible.

In the near-term, recommendations focus on instructors handling simple images directly and rely on the accommodations process for complex image remediation while central services pilot service models for addressing proactive image remediation in the long term.

After considering the working group’s findings, the Action Team recommends the following:

Provide detailed guidance to instructors

As with other types of digital content, we recommend providing detailed guidance to instructors that includes the following advice:

  • Use accessibility checkers to identify issues with images in your course materials.
  • Be judicious with your use of images.
  • Use alt text to mark as “decorative” that are for visual interest only and do not include substantive information, or consider removing such images if they’re not needed. Do not mark substantive images as decorative.
  • Add image description – either using alt text or captions – to substantive images where it’s simple and straightforward to do so.
    • Use alt text for images that can be described in the word limit of the alt text feature in the tool.
    • Add captions near the image in the document or slide when the description exceeds the word limit of alt text.
    • For images taken from textbooks, check if the publisher’s digital version of the text has alt text already that you can include.
    • If interpreting the image is part of a task or assignment for students and image description would give away the answer, you do not need to add alt text or a caption.
    • Note: If you take pictures of your whiteboard at the end of class and share them with students as digital files, you will need to make them accessible with alt text or captions. Alternatively, students can take and share their own pictures.
  • For complex images, we recommend leaving them as is for now and working with DRS on any specific accommodations requests related to images. Student needs and preferences for image description vary and the University is still working to ramp up central support for proactively handling complex file types. In the interim, we are prioritizing areas of identified need to ensure access.
  • Design new images with accessibility in mind. Choice of layout, colors, font size, etc. can impact the accessibility of images.

We recommend providing instructors with a decision tree for when to address issues and how and when to ask for help. We also suggest providing examples of well-written and poorly written alt text and captions for guidance.

Complex image remediation done centrally, or through a hub and spokes model

In the long-term, we recommend central digital accessibility service groups support remediation of complex images to reach compliance. We are aware of the current limited bandwidth of such units and the need to triage remediation requests. As a result, we recommend the following near-term actions:

  • Pilot complex image remediation in select academic units. The pilot should focus on addressing issues in areas that would help the University reach compliance more quickly – large classes or course sequences that use complex images consistently and that have an historically high number of accommodations requests. Piloting this service would allow the University to develop and refine service models and workflows before making them available more broadly.
  • Further discussion of how to provide just-in-time remediation services for instructors who teach courses that don’t fit the criteria of the pilot and/or who create images mid-quarter to share with their students.
  • Consider exceptions in image-dense disciplines that are difficult to remediate. Given the complexity of disciplines such as Architecture, we recommend the ADA Coordinator hold direct conversations with groups to discuss solutions or possible exceptions.

Further develop recommendations around images and neurodiversity

The recommendations for addressing image accessibility have so far focused primarily on the needs of blind and low vision students. However, for neurodiverse and other students image accessibility may be less about describing existing images and more about creating images differently. Images that can trigger seizures, for example, are of particular concern.

We recommend that the Innovation and Research Action Team consider this population and develop guidance for instructors related to images for neurodiverse students and/or students for whom images may cause seizures.

Vet AI alt text generators and develop a plan

The quality of AI tools that automatically suggest alt text for images is an area for exploration since it offers the potential to support image remediation at scale. We recommend UW-IT vet the quality of available vendor options, all of which all seem to be free, and learn more about similar tools peers are building (e.g., ASU). Based on findings, develop a proposal that includes a 2-3 year plan.

eTextbooks – May 2025

LTI: Third-Party Tools Integrated Into Canvas – June 2025

Edge Cases – July 2025