Skip to content
Accessibility at the UW

Ensuring accessibility of digital textbooks in UW courses

Recommendations for June 2025

Prepared by the Course Content Working Group on Etextbook Accessibility:

  • Shannon Garcia (Lead), Program Manager, Disability Resources for Students
  • Nicole Hoover, Associate Teaching Professor, Engineering & Mathematics, UW Bothell
  • Chris Laws, Teaching Professor, Astronomy
  • Chris Lott, Learning Designer, Office of Digital Learning, UW Tacoma
  • Beth Lytle, Senior Computer Specialist, Learning Technologies
  • Jeff Nachtigal, Instructional Designer, Continuum College
  • Randy Orwin, Associate Director of Program Operations, Information School
  • Lauren Ray, Associate Librarian, Learning Services & Social Sciences, Libraries
  • Aiden Sizemore, Lead Instructional Designer, College of Education
  • Chris Zempel, Chief of Campus Operations, University Book Store

Table of Contents

Summary of Recommendations

Our working group discovered that etextbook accessibility represents an organizational infrastructure challenge rather than a technical compliance problem. UW Tacoma has an existing hub for systematic coordination through their third party vendor. UW Seattle and UW Bothell do not leverage their vendor to the same extent.

Currently, the focus of textbook coordination for Seattle and Bothell is external to UW itself. The University Book Store is a fully independent business entity, separate from UW institutional structure. This means the store operates without university funding, oversight, or operational control despite the physical proximity and shared community focus.

Essential principles for sustainable solutions:

  • Timely information flow to make all other coordination possible
  • Infrastructure investment to enable compliance (vs. just mandating individual effort)
  • Central support to reduce faculty burden while improving student outcomes
  • Leveraging existing successful models (Tacoma example, UW Book Store partnerships, exemplary departmental course coordination)

Three strategic infrastructure investments:

  1. Information Architecture: 6-week textbook information submission timeline requirement. This enabling foundation makes all other digital accessibility pathways possible. UW Book Store requires a minimum of 6 weeks for textbook ordering, and Disability Resources for Students (DRS) currently requires 4-5 weeks to review and remediate content.
  2. Coordination Architecture: Textbook service owner designation with oversight and delegated authority. This transforms decentralized and siloed efforts into coordinated support.
  3. Decision Architecture: Pre-screened accessible textbook database. Creation of a self-serve resource maintains academic freedom while providing clear pathways to accessible options.

Background

In 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued new standards that require the University’s web content, including academic course content, to be accessible by April 24, 2026. To address this need, the University created a task force and multiple action teams. The Course Content Accessibility Action Team met to identify and prioritize key areas to address in course content. One of those areas is digital textbooks (etextbooks).

Objective

The Etextbook working group is charged with the following:

  1. Validate the current state of etextbook accessibility (documented below).
  2. Provide additional data and analytics to reveal the extent of the issue.
  3. Brainstorm multiple options for ways UW can address the issue by:
    1. a. Using existing support structures and workflows in new or different ways.
    2. b. Creating new support structures and workflows, if needed.

This group was not required to assess the viability of the options or recommendation specific solutions. However, the working group has included some recommended approaches in this report, in addition to the menu of policy and other options.

Explanation of Issues

The University’s current approach to digital accessibility in courses is individual and retroactive, which will not allow UW to comply with the law. We know the future approach will need to be multi-pronged and provide support for faculty, and encourage incremental progress. The DOJ’s ruling requires enterprise-wide and local unit efforts to ensure content complies with the technical standards. This proactive approach means UW will:

  1. Create course content that is accessible to all students from the first day of class.
  2. Remediate inaccessible existing course content that will be used in courses after April 24, 2026.
  3. Archive inaccessible course content that will not be used after April 24, 2026.

Scope Definition: Etextbooks

For the purposes of this report, “etextbooks” refers specifically to born-digital or publisher-digitized static textbook content used in UW courses. This includes:

  • Publisher-sourced digital textbooks distributed as EPUB files or accessed through platforms like VitalSource, Cengage, or direct publisher websites.
  • UW Libraries-licensed ebooks used as required course materials, whether linked through Canvas or assigned via course syllabus.
  • Open Educational Resources (OER) in digital formats, such as materials from OpenStax, OER Commons, or department-authored content.

This scope specifically excludes materials addressed by other working groups:

  • Faculty-scanned PDFs of physical books (covered by PDF Accessibility group).
  • Multimedia textbook alternatives that include interactive elements like embedded audio or video (covered by Multimedia group).
  • Integrated courseware platforms that combine web-based textbook content with assignments and assessments (covered by Third-Party Tools group).

The distinction centers on content portability and format control: etextbooks are static, downloadable files where accessibility depends on the file format itself (even if delivered through a platform like VitalSource). If instructional content is provided by the author/publisher and can be downloaded as a self-contained file (EPUB, accessible PDF, OER package) and accessed offline, accessibility challenges can be addressed through file format standards and vendor selection processes. If content exists entirely within a web-based platform and requires active internet connectivity to function, accessibility depends on platform configuration rather than file format — placing it outside this working group’s scope.

Key Vulnerabilities:

  1. Applications and files created by vendors or external parties may not meet accessibility standards.
  2. Late submissions to the UW Bookstore can delay delivery of textbooks or coursepacks to students.
  3. Faculty under-report their course materials to the U Book Store (current reporting is around 36%), likely because of misunderstandings regarding the need to report and lack of time. Under-reporting means that entities who may help with compliance are unable to do so.
  4. Some instructors may not assess etextbooks for accessibility because they don’t believe they have the skills or time.
  5. Sharing direct book purchase links (to Amazon or elsewhere) bypasses the Bookstore and their ability to search for the book through a vendor who is making accessibility a priority.
  6. The cost of textbooks is a big concern for students; however, when instructors attempt to address textbook affordability by providing free scans, they are often not accessible. Extensive scans of books also frequently violate fair use copyright laws if compiled without formal course pack assistance.
  7. Instructors also utilize etextbooks provided via the UW Libraries, through licensing agreements with ebook vendors, many of whom follow accessibility guidelines but come with restrictive licenses that don’t work in larger classes in which the textbook is required reading. Because textbook information provided to the U Book Store is incomplete and often just says “library book” the UW Libraries is unable to check for accessibility issues, license restrictions and advocate for changes.
  8. Instructors may also be choosing to use Open Educational Resources, however a lack of reporting data to the U Book Store (faculty may only indicate “OER” or not provide information at all) prevents us from knowing how many OER used in UW courses are accessible. UW Libraries OER program does consistently steer faculty towards accessible choices when available.

University of Washington and UW Book Store: Independent Partners

The University Book Store holds an unusual position in higher education — it is an independent business entity, founded by UW students in 1900, that is operationally interwoven with UW and tightly focused on serving students, while operating with complete business autonomy. While this independence is strategically valuable, it has created systematic misconceptions among all classes of stakeholders (students, faculty, and staff) about textbook authority, accountability, and coordination processes.

Historical Independence

The University Book Store incorporated as an independent entity in 1932 during the Great Depression, establishing a corporate trust structure with UW students, faculty, and staff as beneficiaries. This legal framework preserved the store’s student-serving mission, and enabled business flexibility and financial independence. The trust arrangement means the store operates without university funding, oversight, or operational control despite the physical proximity and shared community focus.

Current Operational Reality

This unique partnership model creates both strategic flexibility and structural tensions. The bookstore absorbs operational risk and fulfills a critical role in UW’s course ecosystem by handling all aspects of textbook coordination — collecting faculty submissions, enabling and maintaining Time Schedule data flow, interfacing with Libraries and DRS, and managing student and faculty expectations — but does not have any oversight or policy authority. Since campus operations resumed after the COVID remote period, the textbook division has not been able to reliably cover costs, highlighting the need to reevaluate current expectations and intentionally co-create a sustainable business model.

For textbook coordination specifically, the University Book Store serves as the primary information aggregator/distribution channel and system of record for UW Seattle and Bothell campuses, but depends entirely on voluntary interactions and instructor goodwill rather than institutional authority to successfully coordinate textbook information. The bookstore initiates the process of textbook data collection each quarter by contacting course instructors of record; faculty then submit textbook information to the external entity. UW Book Store compiles and maintains this data in a company-owned database, which is then shared back into the university Time Schedule system. This creates a circular information flow that is functional but obscures the actual authority boundaries.

Stakeholder Misconception Patterns

Our analysis identifies widespread confusion among faculty, administrators, and students about the UWUW Book Store relationship. Common misconceptions include:

  • Assuming Time Schedule textbook data is collected and maintained by the Office of the University Registrar.
  • Believing the UW Book Store has a predatory for-profit relationship with UW.
  • Expecting that textbook information shared with department course coordinators or other UW roles will automatically flow to the bookstore database.
  • Assuming UW controls bookstore textbook policies and pricing.
  • Believing the bookstore data systems are managed as UW-IT infrastructure.

These misconceptions create unrealistic expectations and major operational gaps – stakeholders often expect coordination authority that doesn’t actually exist within UW’s current organizational structure.

Resolving misconceptions among faculty about the Book Store’s business model will also have a meaningful impact on course textbook (and etextbook) accessibility. Some faculty members have deliberately moved outside normal procurement channels to either instruct students to purchase books directly from various online sources, or to have other local bookstores order and stock textbooks for their courses. These instructors use their course syllabi to direct students to the alternate retailers in an effort to get students a lower price or “support a small local business”. In addition to weakening the relationship with the UW Book Store, this creates a shadow network of courses that do not have the typical accessible etextbook licensing framework available, are not providing textbook information to the system of record, and do not have that data flowing to the Time Schedule or to DRS.

Strategic Implications for Accessibility Coordination

The independent partnership model creates both opportunities and constraints for textbook accessibility initiatives. The UW Book Store demonstrates commitment to accessibility through VitalSource platform prioritization (95% of digital textbooks sold by UW Book Store are VitalSource format) and willingness to coordinate with DRS and UW Libraries. However, in the current ecosystem UW Book Store can only request instructors’ voluntary participation in textbook detail collection, and there does not appear to be any corresponding requirement within UW (in Time Schedule construction or elsewhere) for departments or instructors to provide this information. Like DRS, the UW Book Store cannot support a higher level of digital accessibility if course textbook information is simply unavailable in a timely manner each quarter.

Coordination Infrastructure Requirements

UW’s historical reliance on this external textbook coordination has created a gap in capacity that has become unsustainable at our institutional scale; the federal accessibility requirements have simply exposed this structural vulnerability.

Currently, no single university entity owns textbook oversight responsibility, creating accountability gaps that external partnerships cannot fill. The current model places disproportionate operational responsibility and financial risk on external partners (without concomitant authority or policy frameworks) while leaving the institution with limited internal coordination capability to ensure compliance or support partner sustainability.

The independent partnership reality necessitates clear designation of authority (whether internal or delegated) to interface effectively with institutional stakeholders and external textbook partners. As the Book Store continues evolving as an independent business entity, UW’s need for a formal textbook service ownership role becomes more strategically essential to be an effective partner in this century-old relationship.

Current State of Textbook Accessibility

Analysis reveals systematic coordination challenges; faculty make textbook decisions in isolation with limited guidance, while UW Libraries, the UW Book Store, and DRS operate with incomplete information. This fragmentation means 60% of courses lack textbook details when the support units need them, creating delays that affect all students every quarter.

Textbook (and etextbook) accessibility mirrors these existing decentralized patterns: instructors select materials based on pedagogical priorities but often don’t have the knowledge to confidently evaluate the accessibility of their preferred sources; the UW Book Store coordinates purchasing logistics, including etextbook licenses, but can only do so when instructors choose to share textbook details; DRS remediates content reactively when accommodation requests arrive, but has no visibility into course content selection; UW-IT ATS has an Instruction Accessibility Specialist who can engage with academic departments, but does not have the capacity to support an increase in (e)textbook accessibility consultations.

Current Data

  1. In the 2023–2024 academic year, DRS charged the budget $2 million for accommodation services they provided (not specific to PDF).
  2. What is the volume of etextbooks used at UW? Source: interview with Chris Zempel, Chief of Campus Operations, UW Book Store.
    1. a. Out of 6,971 textbook submissions to the bookstore, 42% had digital options in the 2023 – 2024 academic year.
    2. b. The Inclusive Access (IA) program is digital. Texts are provided via VitalSource, which is committed to accessibility. IA is still a pilot, however, and comprises less than 10% of the bookstore’s purchasing, in general.
    3. c. A high percentage of book orders are only digital (around 50%), but not all of these are submitted via the bookstore.
  3. Sourcing methods for digital texts:
    1. a. Instructors are instructed to notify the bookstore which course materials they are using. The UW Book Store provides that information to the UW Libraries.
    2. b. 95% of the UW Bookstore’s digital books are licensed through the vendor VitalSource. The other digital vendor is Campus eBookstore.
    3. c. Some instructors do not notify the UW Book Store of their course materials at all, and instead post a link to students to purchase from a retail/wholesale vendor. Accessibility depends on publisher.
    4. d. Cost is a factor in how (and whether) students procure required textbooks. A UW Tacoma survey on how students obtain textbooks found that 61% of students surveyed find a free (likely pirated) copy of the required textbook online. 53% of students surveyed obtain the textbooks from the library.
    5. Open Educational Resources (OER):
      1. i. Open Educational Resources are materials that are free for students and that come with an open license that allows other instructors to reuse, remix, and adapt those materials for their own courses. A scan of a textbook is not an OER, though some instructors may be utilizing this as an option as a way to alleviate cost for students. Many instructors may be creating scans of textbooks without seeking copyright permission and making these copies available via Canvas for their courses. While these do help address textbook costs, they frequently introduce accessibility issues.
      2. ii. The UW Book Store gets notified of only a small number of classes in which faculty report using “OER”, though faculty may misuse this term to describe a PDF scan of a textbook that they are providing to students without cost. Presumably, the number is higher but the bookstore doesn’t get notified.
      3. iii. Presumably, UW faculty are turning to either vetted OER that meet disciplinary standards and have had some amount of review for accessibility compliance, or they are attempting to address affordability concerns by providing inaccessible copies of textbooks available in digital formats.
      4. iv. Because current reporting to the U Book Store is around 36%, and a small percentage of instructors indicate using “OER” or free textbooks, we have limited data on the scope of use of these materials at the UW. Better reporting to the U Book Store with more complete information about what faculty report as “OER”, “library resources” or “no textbook required” would improve processes for ensuring accessibility. In current reporting, instructors/depts provide incomplete and write-in responses regarding free or libraries-licensed materials. More comprehensive information regarding textbooks will allow UW Libraries to check for accessibility compliance, advocate with library vendors for more inclusive license, suggest alternative OER, and communicate with instructors regarding their choices.
      5. v. The UW Libraries has provided guidance for instructors at our three campuses on finding OER in their discipline, promoting sources that steer towards more accessible and peer-reviewed OER.
      6. vi. The UW Libraries also provides access to the Pressbooks platform, which allows UW instructors to author and publish OER for their courses. Instructors are steered towards making accessible textbooks via consultations and workshops. In the process of developing a plan to assess currently published books on the platform using DubBot and a forthcoming Pressbooks accessibility checker.
    6. e. UW Libraries-licensed digital textbooks:
      1. i. UW Libraries-licensed ebooks provided via major library vendors (Ebscohost, ProQuest, and Elsevier) tend to be more accessible than those licensed by smaller vendors. The Libraries anticipates that the EU accessibility act will likely impact greater accessibility compliance from all Libraries ebook vendors. We are involved in ongoing work to hold library vendors accountable for the accessibility of their materials (including ebooks, digital articles, and streaming video).
      2. ii. UW Libraries-licensed ebooks provide an important textbook alternative for students from an affordability perspective. However, even when these digital texts are fully accessible, they often come with license restrictions (ex: 1-user access at a time only) which means they cannot be depended on as the only option for students in larger classes in which the textbook is required reading.
      3. iii. Faculty use UW-Libraries-licensed ebooks as required course material (linking to the ebook within Canvas or sharing a link in the course syllabus) in a selection of UW courses. However, this information is rarely communicated to the U Book Store or UW Libraries. A lack of reporting prevents the UW Libraries staff from communicating with instructors to address potential accessibility issues in these digital texts. It also prevents Libraries staff from being able to check license restrictions early on and investigate possibilities for less restrictive licenses. Better data via reporting would improve the Libraries ability to assess and address accessibility in eBooks in our digital collection.

Current Approaches

The University’s current approach to textbook coordination is individual and retroactive. Because there is no clear service owner for textbooks in general, let alone for digital textbooks specifically, there is no ongoing coordination regarding etextbook accessibility. Several previous committees and working groups have gathered and analyzed data on adjacent topics, but the vacuum persists.

  1. Instructors are asked to provide course textbook information to the UW Book Store (including books for purchase/rent, Libraries-licensed eBooks, freely available digital copies, and Open Educational Resources) each quarter upon request (or to indicate if they are not using traditional textbooks).
  2. Departments can use a checklist to evaluate an OER for accessibility or look for a vendor that publishes a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT).
  3. If a textbook is not accessible, departments can ask the publisher if they can provide an accessible alternative for that textbook. If the publisher is able to do this, departments should be sure to understand any content differences between the two versions. Older editions of books are less likely to be available in accessible formats than current versions, so it is a best practice to select the newest edition of a book when possible.

Textbook Information Submission Process

Instructors are expected to report their course materials to the UW Book Store each quarter, but the current process is voluntary and unsupervised.

A summary of the workflow is below:

  1. Every quarter, the UW Book Store emails all instructors of record, requesting they submit their course material details through the web portal.
  2. Instructors submit textbook/content information to the bookstore online (via Verba Collect), in person, over the phone, or by email.
  3. Bookstore staff add the textbook adoptions to their ERP system (NetSuite), which populates the textbook section of the UW Book Store website.
  4. NetSuite data is automatically transferred to the UW Time Schedule.
    1. a. Book adoption information is shown on the time schedule beginning ten days before the adoption deadline, and is automatically updated as more adoptions are received from instructors.
    2. b. Textbook details flow to each individual SLN listing, and can be accessed through the Display Textbooks link on each page.
  5. After students register for classes, they can see course information and required textbooks in MyUW.
  6. Every week, the UW Bookstore sends the full textbook adoption list to UW librarians and DRS.

Current Central Support

  1. Course instructors can schedule a consultation with UW Libraries for guidance on identifying and selecting materials for their courses. Consultations are available with subject matter experts, as well as resource/”how-to” experts.
  2. UW Libraries purchases textbooks upon instructor request. Instructors may submit a Course Reserves request to support their students’ access to textbook content.
    • However, publishers often restrict or prohibit library ebook licensing for traditional textbooks, requiring Libraries to purchase physical copies for reserve or accept highly restrictive digital licenses (1-3 concurrent users) that create access bottlenecks for larger classes.
  3. Instructors can use UW Libraries’ Course Instruction Scanning Service to share limited amounts of book content with students. Requests must comply with copyright restrictions to be fulfilled. Scans provided by UW Libraries have optical character recognition (OCR) by default.
  4. Instructors can request Digital Accessibility Consulting through UW-IT Accessible Technology Services (ATS).
  5. UW faculty from all campuses can access the UW Tacoma Center for Digital Learning‘s various drop-in hours and workshops. Accessibility-related support is available during all drop-in hours.
  6. For individual students in a course with documented print disabilities, Disability Resources for Students (DRS) remediates textbooks (including etextbook content), course packs, and other required readings when necessary. Important: it can take up to 6 weeks to remediate course content.

Current Training/Education

  1. The tri-campus Teaching@UW site has extensive resources for course design (including textbook/content selection) and accessible strategies for readings and textbooks.
  2. UW Libraries has a robust Course Materials FAQ to help instructors source their preferred course materials.
  3. UW Libraries also has an extensive guide to sourcing and using Open Educational Resources (OER) as teaching materials.
  4. The UW Tacoma Center for Digital Learning offers a Hybrid and Online Teaching Certification program, which has an accessibility component.

Current Laws, Policies, and Recommendations

  1. The legal obligation for accessibility is on higher education institutions, rather than the vendor that provides the resource.
  2. Instructors are responsible for copyright compliance of their course materials.
  3. While there are some exceptions, publishers typically do not allow etextbooks to be purchased and circulated by libraries.
  4. Can I link to an ebook in Canvas if the library has it? Using e-books for a class is still a developing model. Some vendors allow the Libraries to license their books for an unlimited number of concurrent readers. E-books provided by Project MUSE, JSTOR, Wiley, ClinicalKey, AccessMedicine or AccessPharmacy allow an unlimited number of concurrent readers and work nicely for classes. Other vendors are more restrictive.
  5. Procurement policies & procedures.

Current Technology/Tools

Official textbook management:

Etextbook Platforms:

  • VitalSource: The primary digital textbook platform in the US, VitalSource has a comprehensive accessibility framework in place.
  • RedShelf: The other main etextbook licensing system offered by UW Book Store. RedShelf was acquired by VitalSource in April 2025.
  • Other: Many textbook publishers sell or rent etextbook licenses directly on their own websites. Accessibility of these varies widely.

Previous Working Groups

Internal groups that have evaluated issues related to textbooks and accessible course content include, but are not limited to:

Analysis

UW’s etextbook accessibility challenge simply reflects the University’s highly decentralized organizational structure; the natural outcome is fragmented accountability for digital textbook compliance. Current approaches fail not due to individual inadequacies, but because no single entity owns institutional-level textbook coordination responsibility.

UW Seattle in particular currently lacks a natural textbook oversight role that would support accessibility compliance. The UW Bookstore functions as information aggregator through business partnership rather than institutional authority, while faculty make selection decisions in isolation from support services. This creates accountability gaps that no single policy can bridge.

Further analysis reveals systematic coordination failures: 60% of courses have no textbook information available when DRS and UW Libraries need it, forcing central support services to operate without the data required to fulfill their mandates effectively. Faculty report feeling overwhelmed by accessibility requirements they lack expertise to evaluate, and existing resources and guidance are spread across many different locations and underutilized.

Sustainable digital textbook compliance requires structural cohesion rather than individual policy proliferation. The scattered resources and procurement pathways documented above demonstrate why individual efforts cannot scale to meet the incoming accessibility requirements without additional coordination support. Closing these structural gaps will support a sustainable accessibility framework and reduce the resources spent on recurring crisis management.

Potential Approaches to Ensure Etextbook Accessibility in UW Courses

Information Architecture

Core approach: Establish 6-week textbook information submission timeline to enable all coordination pathways.

  • UW Bookstore already requires minimum 6 weeks for textbook ordering logistics, and Disability Resources for Students (DRS) currently needs 4-5 weeks for content review and remediation. The timeline creates consistent operational margin rather than new, unanticipated burdens.
  • Early information flow transforms reactive accommodation processes into proactive accessibility. When textbook details are available before quarter begins, Libraries can negotiate better ebook licenses, DRS can obtain or remediate content in advance, and faculty receive accessibility guidance during selection rather than after problems emerge.
  • Harmonize with existing processes: The 6-week timeline aligns with current academic planning cycles. Departments already need to coordinate course schedules, room assignments, and enrollment management on similar timelines. Textbook information becomes integrated into existing workflows rather than creating entirely new requirements.
  • Information submission enables navigation support – faculty receive guidance on selecting born-accessible textbook content, UW Libraries provides licensing alternatives, and DRS offers proactive remediation. The timeline creates additional space for coordination rather than putting a disproportionate compliance burden on any single individual.
  • Early textbook information functions as mise en place for the entire accessibility ecosystem – all support services can prepare resources before students begin rather than scrambling to meet requirements during active instruction.

Coordination Architecture

Core approach: Designate textbook “service owner” within UW institutional structure to transform scattered efforts into coordinated support.

  • Organizational repair: UW Seattle currently lacks (e)textbook coordination role. The service owner role would function as an institutional bridge between faculty autonomy and accessibility compliance requirements.
  • Alignment with existing partnerships: Rather than replacing UW Bookstore coordination, the service owner role creates internal institutional capacity to interface effectively with the Book Store, faculty who have existing publisher relationships, and external textbook partners. This enables policy implementation through coordination rather than mandate.
  • Optimization through hub-and-spoke model: Central coordination supports distributed faculty decision-making rather than centralizing all textbook authority. Faculty maintain selection autonomy while receiving navigation assistance for accessibility compliance.
  • Leverage dormant infrastructure: The Tri-Campus Digital Learning Alliance has an existing body of work that can be applied through Academic Strategy & Affairs or another suitable unit, rather than creating entirely new organizational capacity.
  • Navigation support for vendor relationships: Service owner coordinates with UW Bookstore, publisher accessibility programs, and library licensing to create systematic pathways rather than ad hoc individual negotiations.
  • Transform coordination burden into network support: Rather than isolated mandate compliance, faculty receive institutional backing for accessibility navigation while maintaining pedagogical authority over content selection.

Decision Architecture

Core approach: Establish pre-screened accessible textbook database to maintain academic freedom while providing clear pathways to accessible options.

Faculty empowerment through textbook adoption support: Rather than requiring individual accessibility expertise, faculty would have official resources to make informed textbook selection decisions. The database would function as flexible decision support – creating a streamlined pathway for proven accessible content, with individual assessment available for unlisted books, or specialized materials that require subject matter (or subject medium) expertise.

Three-tier accessibility framework:

  1. Express lane for proven publishers: Pre-approved categories include comprehensive accessibility frameworks (OpenStax), established accessible platforms (VitalSource – already 95% of UW Bookstore digital content), and UW Libraries unlimited-access vendors (like JSTOR, Project MUSE, Wiley). Faculty selecting from pre-approved categories receive immediate confirmation of accessibility compliance.
  2. Conditional approval for evolving publishers: Time-based approvals recognize publisher accessibility improvements – “all [Publisher] books published after [Date]” based on documented accessibility evolution. This incentivizes publisher progress while providing faculty access to newer, more accessible editions of established texts.
  3. Individual assessment for specialized content: Academic freedom preservation through case-by-case review for small press, out-of-print, language instruction texts, and discipline-specific resources. Timeline coordination ensures assessment requests receive timely response without delaying course planning.

Highlights:

  • Integration with existing resources: The database would leverage current UW expertise rather than duplicating efforts. While the recommended service owner role might be the most logical position to oversee this new resource, screening could be done by several parties: Accessible Technology Services (ATS) technical assessment, UW Libraries vendor expertise, and UW Bookstore platform knowledge are all strong possibilities, enabling rapid development of a large pre-approved content pool.
  • Rapid scaling: Initial development timeline could be shortened significantly by concentrating screening and approval efforts at the publisher/platform level rather than simply reviewing individual titles. This would even make it possible to develop a prototype during summer 2025 for initial pilot in early autumn 2025.
  • Cost consideration support: The database would include OER alternatives and Libraries-licensed options to address faculty affordability concerns through accessible pathways. While student cost burden remains unchanged, accessibility compliance improves through systematic institutional support rather than individual technical evaluation requirements. This would also create the opportunity for motivated instructors to filter for accessible content that minimizes student-facing costs. This could also create the additional benefit of reducing PDF remediation load, if more faculty select low-cost etextbook options rather than scanning large amounts of content for students.
  • Maintenance coordination: Periodic database updates would incorporate publisher accessibility improvements, new vendor assessment, and faculty feedback on specialized content needs. The service owner would coordinate between assessment expertise (ATS, Libraries) and faculty decision support without centralizing all authority in a single unit.

Implementation Framework

The working group identified multiple implementation pathways to address the organizational infrastructure gaps documented above. We recognize that implementation must be multi-faceted and leverage both existing resources and strategic new investments. The options below represent a menu of possibilities generated through stakeholder consultation and cross-institutional analysis. These are not mutually exclusive — indeed, the most effective approach will likely combine elements from multiple categories to create a comprehensive support ecosystem. The working group particularly emphasizes options that transform coordination burdens into institutional support structures, enabling rather than mandating compliance while preserving faculty autonomy and academic freedom.

Options for Support

Textbook service owner: As discussed above, designate a textbook service owner at the tri-campus level, or an equivalent point person on each campus.

Course materials coordinators: Identify and/or appoint course materials liaisons within departments. Similar roles already exist in many schools and programs, leveraging existing expertise while giving them policy and process support to help faculty stay accountable.

Options for Training/Education

Accessible textbook landing page: In addition to existing resources hosted in various locations, instructors would benefit from additional scaffolding for the textbook adoption process, with outbound links to resources throughout the institution. The textbook page of the Teaching@UW site is a natural location for this.

Options for Technology/Tools

Pre-screened accessible textbook database

  • Systematic publisher/platform accessibility assessment coordinated by service owner role.
  • Three-tier approval framework: blanket approval for proven accessible platforms (VitalSource, OpenStax), conditional approval for publishers with documented accessibility improvements, individual assessment queue for specialized content.
  • Integration with existing UW expertise through ATS technical assessment, UW Libraries vendor relationships, and UW Bookstore platform knowledge.
  • Rapid development potential through publisher-level screening rather than individual title review.
  • Cost: Development and maintenance coordination through existing staff expertise; potential database hosting/interface costs.

Canvas integration for textbook information tracking

  • Structured textbook data collection within Canvas course setup to enable systematic accessibility monitoring.
  • Integration with Simple Syllabus or similar tools to maintain textbook details in searchable format.
  • API connectivity with UW Bookstore systems to streamline information flow.
  • Cost: Canvas customization and API development; potential third-party tool licensing.

Course materials coordination platform

  • Centralized system for faculty textbook submission, accessibility review, and approval tracking.
  • Integration with existing UW Bookstore submission workflows.
  • Libraries licensing alternative suggestion capability.
  • DRS accommodation request coordination to enable proactive remediation.
  • Timeline management to support 6-week submission requirements.
  • Cost: Platform development or vendor solution; integration with existing systems.

Options for Requirements and Guidelines

Our group agrees that policy solutions should be part of a coordinated strategy to eliminate accountability and coordination gaps. Ideally, university policies provide faculty and staff with a list of clear and realistic requirements, along with the resources needed to fulfill their obligations. Here are some examples of requirements that we believe could meaningfully improve textbook accessibility, while being realistic for most faculty to implement:

  • Requiring textbook information to be submitted 6 weeks before the first day of the quarter: As discussed above, because so many support processes depend on having access to textbook and course content data in a timely manner, making this a formal requirement rather than an informal expectation will close this significant gap as well as signaling to departments and instructors that course content is a load-bearing part of course infrastructure, just like Time Schedule entries and classroom locations.
    • ○ This policy will be more effective if instructors also have a way to report alternative content frameworks such as placing all readings on Canvas, using OERs only, only assigning optional readings, etc. The UW Bookstore textbook adoption tool already has scaffolding for this.
  • Limit textbook options for courses missing submission deadline: Courses with late or missing info that do not have an etextbook option are very difficult to bring into compliance with digital accessibility requirements, so this would help address that key vulnerability at scale. This would mainly be disruptive to courses operating outside the current Book Store ecosystem, since longer lead time is already needed to stock hard copy textbooks in a timely manner.
  • Require good-faith effort to choose accessible digital options when available: While this would be difficult to monitor at scale, it would set a clear expectation for instructors, and is realistic and practical when combined with a resource like the pre-approved textbook database.

Policies to avoid

We do NOT recommend the following policies, which would be difficult to implement and would be likely to create negative second-order effects that would hinder other accessibility efforts.

  • Mandating Inclusive Access/Day 1 Access: While this is a very promising and beneficial program, it is not suitable for all courses. A requirement like this would unnecessarily restrict student-centered teaching practices by creating a limited field of qualifying content.
  • Requiring all etextbook purchases to be made through approved vendors only: This would be unenforceable, and is mostly unnecessary (95% of Book Store licenses are VitalSource already).
  • Requiring Open Educational Resources to be vetted for accessibility before they can be used as required course content: While OER quality varies widely, these materials should not be subject to a different process than other digital textbooks. It would be more effective to have a consistent approach for all etextbooks.

Options for Tracking and Reporting

Tracking progress in this area would mainly be accomplished by comparing the UW Bookstore database content against the Time Schedule content to monitor for null values (missing entries).

An additional monitoring option could be to provide students with a straightforward way to report when required course materials are not accessible, similar to the current barrier report. This could be effective if thoughtfully structured for collaborative improvement, since it could incentivize all students to participate, if inaccessible course content is removed from assignment requirements (possibly lowering course workload). However, this would require expert review of cases to ensure students do not simply report assignments they don’t want to complete.

Conclusions

There is no single elegant solution to ensuring course etextbooks are accessible. The organizational infrastructure challenges explored by this working group reveal coordination gaps and accountability voids that cannot be addressed through individual policies alone. Part of this stems from UW’s highly decentralized textbook coordination model, and part of it comes from the breadth of procurement pathways and stakeholder relationships, some of which involve long-standing partnerships formed to support students.

As the Action Team considers the options in this report, we advise leveraging the same focus that guided our analysis: investing in infrastructure that enables accessibility compliance rather than mandating individual faculty expertise, and building on existing successful coordination models rather than creating entirely new organizational capacity. Whatever combination of solutions the university implements, we recommend communicating explicitly about this approach and how each element will support systematic coordination while preserving academic freedom.

While this report documents complex organizational challenges, the working group remains optimistic about the potential for rapid, scalable progress on textbook accessibility. By taking a thoughtful, pragmatic approach to this complex work, the university will be able to meaningfully improve the accessibility of materials across every course in our institution.