Accessibility in higher education is a cornerstone of inclusive learning. As institutions strive to meet the needs of all learners, automated accessibility checkers—whether built into Learning Management Systems (LMS) like Canvas and Blackboard or provided by a third-party tool add-in—have become popular for evaluating the accessibility of educational content. While these tools are valuable, they are not infallible. Relying solely on them can lead to misconceptions about the accessibility of resources, including those from McGraw Hill.

In this blog post, we’ll explore the benefits and limitations of automated accessibility checkers, explain how they work, and offer guidance on how to use them effectively as part of a broader accessibility strategy.

What Are Automated Accessibility Checkers?

Automated accessibility checkers are software tools designed to scan digital content for compliance with accessibility standards, such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). They analyze elements like color contrast, alt text for images, keyboard navigation, and more.

Examples include:

  • Third-party tools: WAVE by WebAIM, Axe by Deque Systems, and Siteimprove Accessibility Checker.
  • Built-in LMS tools: Canvas Accessibility Checker and Blackboard Ally.

These tools provide quick insights into potential accessibility issues, making them a valuable starting point for identifying areas of improvement.

The Benefits of Automated Accessibility Checkers

  1. Efficiency: Automated tools can scan large amounts of content in seconds, saving time compared to manual reviews.
  2. Standardized Feedback: They provide consistent results based on predefined criteria, ensuring a baseline level of accessibility evaluation.
  3. Educational Value: These tools can help educators and content creators learn about accessibility principles, such as proper use of headings, alt text, and color contrast.

The Limitations of Automated Accessibility Checkers

While automated checkers are useful, they have inherent limitations:

  1. Limited Scope: They primarily evaluate technical compliance with WCAG standards but cannot assess usability or the real-world experience of users with disabilities. For example, they cannot evaluate whether alt text meaningfully describes an image in context.
  2. False Positives and Negatives: Automated tools may flag issues that are not actual barriers or overlook problems that require human judgment; for example, math content being flagged as an untagged object, or font size too small in the copyright language of the footer of a PowerPoint.
  3. Context Blindness: Accessibility is not just about meeting technical standards—it’s about ensuring content is usable and meaningful for all learners. Automated tools cannot account for the nuances of context, pedagogy, or learner needs.

Why Accessibility Checkers Shouldn’t Be the Sole Authority

Many educators and institutions rely heavily on automated accessibility checkers, sometimes rejecting resources that don’t achieve a perfect score. However, this approach can be misleading.

For example, McGraw Hill resources are designed with accessibility and usability in mind, often going beyond technical compliance to prioritize learner experience. A resource flagged by an automated checker may still be fully accessible and effective for students.

Accessibility is a multifaceted process that requires human expertise. Tools like WAVE or Blackboard Ally are best used as part of a broader strategy that includes:

  • Manual Reviews: Conducting hands-on evaluations to assess usability and context-specific accessibility.
  • User Testing: Gathering feedback from students with disabilities to understand their experience.
  • Collaboration: Working with accessibility experts to ensure content meets both technical and practical standards.

How to Use Automated Accessibility Checkers Effectively

To maximize the value of these tools while avoiding their pitfalls:

  1. Use Them as a Starting Point: Treat automated checkers as a first step in identifying potential issues, not the final word.
  2. Combine Tools: Use multiple checkers to get a broader perspective, as different tools may flag different issues.
  3. Verify Results: Manually review flagged issues to determine their actual impact on accessibility.
  4. Focus on Usability: Go beyond technical compliance to ensure content is meaningful and usable for all learners.

Automated accessibility checkers are a powerful resource for identifying potential barriers in higher education content, but they are not infallible. Educators and institutions should use them as part of a comprehensive accessibility strategy that includes manual reviews, user testing, and collaboration with experts.

At McGraw Hill, we are committed to creating accessible and inclusive learning experiences that go beyond technical compliance to meet the real-world needs of all learners. By understanding the strengths and limitations of automated tools, we can work together to ensure accessibility is achieved in a meaningful and impactful way.