Accessible Learning Review

Find barriers in learning content before they become expensive rework or learner exclusion.

Who it is for

• L&D teams checking a course before launch rather than after a complaint
• Agencies verifying quality before handing work to a client
• Public sector, education and regulated employers whose procurement asks about accessibility
• Teams that inherited a course library of unknown condition
• Product and enablement teams whose learners include assistive technology users

Problems this solves

• Courses cannot be completed with a keyboard or read reliably by a screen reader
• Captions and transcripts are missing, auto-generated, or wrong on the terms that matter
• Contrast, text over images and small type make content unreadable for some learners
• Interactions rely on drag, hover or timing with no alternative route to completion
• Documents and downloads attached to the course were never checked at all
• No written standard exists, so every author applies a different interpretation
• A buyer or internal policy has asked for an accessibility position and the team has no evidence to give

What you get

• keyboard and navigation review
• focus and interaction review
• contrast and visual review
• text, headings, labels, and link review
• captions and transcript review
• image and alternative-text review
• responsive behavior review
• remediation priorities

How the work runs

The review supports accessibility improvement and alignment with agreed standards. It is not a legal certification, a conformance statement issued by an authority, or a guarantee against complaint.

1. Discover — Agree the standard to review against, the assets in scope, the sampling approach for large libraries, and the assistive technologies and browsers to be used.
2. Validate — Review structure and navigation, keyboard operation, screen reader behaviour, colour and contrast, media alternatives, interactions, assessments and attached documents.
3. Report — Record each finding with its location, the criterion it relates to, severity, and a specific recommended fix, ranked so the highest-impact barriers are addressed first.
4. Improve — Walk the team through the findings, advise on authoring practices that prevent the same issues recurring, and re-check the corrected items if a follow-up pass is agreed.

Remediation work is scoped separately. The review can be commissioned on its own and acted on by your own team or your existing supplier.

A good fit when

• A course is approaching launch, handover or renewal and there is still time to fix findings
• A standard can be agreed up front, or guidance is wanted on which standard applies
• Source files can be supplied alongside published output, so fixes can be made at the source
• There is budget or capacity to act on the findings once they are delivered
• An inherited library needs its condition established before decisions are made about it

Not a fit when

• A certificate, badge or legal guarantee of compliance is required — no such statement will be issued
• The report is intended to serve as a legal defence or as a marketing claim of conformance
• A pass result is expected and findings would not be welcome
• The scope is a website, product interface or mobile application rather than learning content
• The review is wanted but no one will be available or funded to make the corrections

Where this sits: Build — turn fragmented knowledge into complete learning systems · All services

Learning topic: Learning Accessibility