Changing the Accessible eLearning Perception

We understand the need for “alternative versions” of courses when their purpose is addressing different learning styles or assisting those with particular disabilities. However, creating an “alternative version” of a course for the sole purpose of achieving ADA/Section 508 compliance just doesn’t make sense to us. At the very best, it’s a duplication of effort. At the very worst, it wastes money and produces a flat, monotone course of questionable equivalence to the original.
That is, in our opinion, what an “alternative version” of a course often is – one or more .pdf’s or a vanilla html version with no interactions, videos or knowledge checks. Compared to, for instance, the Flash-based course used by the majority of folks, these “alternative versions” are legal (maybe) – yet boring – substitutes.
We’ve observed that developers often create “alternative versions” of courses for two reasons:
1. Often, “alternative versions” are created because the developer has a comfort level with an authoring tool that simply cannot produce accessible eLearning. Frequently, developers are unaware that the way their authoring tool “achieves compliance” is by “having the developer create an alternative version.” Unbelievable, yet true.
2. Another common reason eLearning developers don’t create a single accessible course: a pre-existing preference for an instructional design that makes producing accessible content difficult.
For example: in one case a developer insisted on using a drag and drop interaction in an assessment. Making drag and drop accessible is possible but was beyond the developer’s know-how; therefore by including this one interaction the entire course was rendered non-compliant. This mandated the creation of the “alternative version” of the course that was ADA/Section 508 compliant.
Two courses were created and maintained when only one was needed. Most companies struggle with keeping one course up to date, let alone two versions of a single course. Is drag and drop really that important?
The good news for fellow accessible eLearning advocates is that the two reasons discussed above are not worth clinging to. They’re based on perception, and most people are glad to change a misguided perception when presented with clear, true alternatives.
That’s what we’re trying to do at CourseAvenue. We’re showing eLearning developers that a course can be interactive and engaging using a single platform that ensures the course is useable for all. We’ve seen firsthand that when provided with instructional design, technical know-how, and an authoring tool that embraces accessibility, developers are open to having one course for all.
We’ve all got to focus on making accessibility so understandable that developers would need a good reason not to create only one course. We need to encourage a paradigm shift within the industry.