Disability, ICT and eLearning Platforms: Faculty-Facing Embedded Work Tools in Learning Management Systems
Sushil K. Oswal · 2019 · Proceedings of the 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS 2019) · doi:10.1145/3308561.3355620
Summary
This paper presents preliminary findings from a longitudinal study of the accessibility of the Canvas learning management system (LMS) for faculty with visual disabilities. What makes this study distinctive is its focus on the faculty-facing interface — nearly all prior research has examined LMS accessibility from the student perspective, overlooking the fact that disabled faculty also need to use these platforms to teach. The author, a blind faculty member at the University of Washington who uses JAWS screen reader, has been testing Canvas accessibility since 2012 when his university piloted the system. The study employs a paired testing methodology: the blind researcher performs tasks using a screen reader while a sighted expert user simultaneously performs the same tasks visually, allowing direct comparison of the experience. The paper documents three categories of accessibility barriers in Canvas: inconsistent page layout and structure that provides no orientation cues for screen reader users, lack of helpful guidance for blind instructors navigating the many options available to sighted users, and poorly executed or entirely missing access to certain Canvas tools. The author draws on philosopher Michael Polanyi’s concept of tacit knowledge to argue that disabled users possess valuable embodied expertise about how they interact with technology — knowledge that designers should actively seek out rather than ignore.
Key findings
The study’s blunt answer to its first research question — "Is the faculty interface accessible to a blind user?" — is a straight "NO." Canvas has structural problems that make it a marginally accessible system at best. Specific issues include: Canvas pages are confusing heaps of links, text fields, and content segments with no consistent structure to orient screen reader users; the grading interface (SpeedGrader) forces blind faculty to constantly track their location on the page rather than focusing on student work; quiz grading does not allow entry of individual question grades; Canvas uses custom keyboard commands that violate WCAG 2.1 and Section 508 by conflicting with screen reader commands, imposing additional cognitive load; comment boxes in SpeedGrader do not alert screen reader users when students have entered content; and automatic rolling updates frequently break existing accessibility without notice. The author notes that Canvas does not enforce any level of content accessibility for materials instructors upload, meaning disabled students may face compounded barriers. The paper recommends both immediate fixes (replacing custom keyboard commands with Windows standards, adding skip navigation, following WCAG heading standards) and structural changes (participatory redesign with disabled Canvas instructors, consistent page structure across tools, ARIA roles for dynamic content notifications).
Relevance
This paper challenges a significant blind spot in educational technology: the assumption that LMS accessibility is only a student concern. Disabled faculty are rarely considered in accessibility discussions, yet they face the same — or worse — barriers when trying to perform their professional duties. The finding that Canvas is fundamentally inaccessible to a blind instructor, despite being marketed as accessible, has implications for employment discrimination and academic inclusion. The author’s observation that universities commonly offer blind faculty a sighted reader rather than demanding accessible tools from vendors reveals how institutional accommodations can mask systemic design failures. For accessibility practitioners and procurement officers, this study demonstrates why accessibility evaluations must include the full range of user roles, not just the most common ones. The call for participatory design with disabled faculty — not just as test subjects but as design partners with valuable tacit knowledge — aligns with broader movements toward disability justice in technology development.
Tags: learning management systems · higher education · screen readers · visual impairment · faculty accessibility · Canvas LMS · participatory design · ableism · workplace accessibility
Standards referenced: WCAG 2.1 · Section 508