Make accessible learning the default – because who are we to decide?

In this Insights post, eLaHub explores how assumptions about disability can shape learning design and why accessible learning should be the default for everyone.

Early on in our consultancy work at eLaHub, we were working with a client and had a conversation about a particular access need and how we could include it in the learning content we were working on together. The client’s response to the scenario was one that we’d heard many times before in our advocacy work.

“But someone with that disability wouldn’t be able to do this job.”

We knew these statements needed to be challenged, but we hadn’t yet developed a confident way to address them. We wanted to respect the client’s knowledge of their organisation whilst also helping them recognise where audience analysis could be influenced by unsupported assumptions and biases.

That conversation led us to develop our eLaHub Access Without Assumptions Case Study using the real-life experience of our Creative Director, Tim Miller. It allowed us to explore the difference between genuine role requirements, reasonable adjustments and assumptions about what disabled people can and can’t do. It also influenced the development of our eLaHub Access Needs Mapping activity, which we explore in our Digital access needs – challenging assumptions Insights post. This activity helps practitioners connect accessibility with real people and recognise how easily access needs can be non-visible, overlapping or misunderstood.

Together, the two activities help teams move away from deciding in advance who is likely to need accessible learning and towards a more useful question:

“How can we make sure everyone who needs the learning has a fair opportunity to participate and demonstrate what they can do?”

When assumptions about the audience narrow the learning experience

Understanding the intended audience is a fundamental part of learning design. But problems arise when assumptions about people’s capabilities begin to influence who the learning is designed for and which accessibility requirements are considered necessary.

A person’s disability or access need doesn’t tell us everything about:

what they can do
how they complete a task
what technology they use
which reasonable adjustments are available
whether the perceived barrier is essential to the role or simply part of how the role has traditionally been carried out

When inaccessible learning is justified by the belief that a disabled person could not do the job, those assumptions can become embedded in the design. The learning itself may then prevent someone from developing or demonstrating the required capability, excluding them before they have even had an opportunity to participate.

Building the case study around a genuine role requirement

We decided that the most effective way to challenge this issue was through a case study showing how assumptions can restrict both learning and opportunity. Our earlier accessibility work had already taught us the value of grounding technical discussions in a human story, so we turned to the real-life experience of our Creative Director, Tim Miller.

As a child, Tim desperately wanted to become a pilot in the Royal Air Force. During a routine colour vision test at school, however, he discovered that he had colour vision deficiency, commonly known as colour blindness. His result meant he couldn’t follow his dream of becoming an RAF pilot because RAF pilots were required to meet a specified colour-perception standard as part of the medical and safety requirements for the role.

This gave us an important starting point for the case study. Tim’s colour blindness genuinely affected his eligibility for that particular safety-critical role. A learning team designing training exclusively for RAF pilots at that time might then reasonably have concluded that colour blindness would not be present within the intended audience because every learner would already have met the relevant entry standard.

Crucially, that conclusion would have been based on an evidenced occupational and medical requirement. It wouldn’t have been based on a learning practitioner’s assumptions about what someone with colour blindness could or could not do.

Why evidence must shape the learning audience

Tim’s experience also revealed another important distinction. His school’s careers adviser explained that, although he could not follow his dream of becoming an RAF pilot, he might still be able to become a commercial pilot. This was because civil aviation applied a different assessment process. This meant that some people who were colour blind could still meet the medical requirements for commercial flying if they passed the relevant tests.

That distinction still applies today. Applicants for an initial UK Class 1 medical certificate, which is required for professional flying, take an Ishihara colour vision test. Someone who does not pass that initial test can be referred for further colour-perception testing under UK Civil Aviation Authority guidance.

Being colour blind does not therefore automatically exclude every person from every pilot role. Eligibility depends on the requirements of the role and an individual professional assessment. Applied to learning, a team creating training for commercial pilots could not assume that colour blindness would be absent from the audience. Some learners may be colour blind while still being fully eligible for the role. From a learning design point of view, this means that essential information should never be communicated through colour alone.

The key point is that decisions about who can perform a role must be based on evidence, professional assessment and genuine role requirements. They should not be made by a learning team based on a broad disability assumption about what someone with a particular condition can do.

The graphic designer people might assume could not do the job

The third and final part of the case study focuses on Tim’s career as a graphic designer. For many years, he chose not to share that he was colour blind because he didn’t want other people’s assumptions to limit the opportunities available to him.

Later in his career, particularly as an agency director, he became much more confident about discussing his access need and how he works with it in practice. He understands which colours he can find difficult to distinguish and has developed effective ways of working around this, including checking decisions with colleagues where needed. Being colour blind has never prevented him from building a successful creative career spanning more than 35 years.

Yet this is exactly the kind of situation where someone might say:

“But someone with that disability wouldn’t be able to do this job.”

An organisation could have made that assumption about Tim before giving him the opportunity to demonstrate what he could do. A learning team could also have assumed that a graphic design course would never need to include someone who was colour blind. In doing so, they might have created learning that communicated essential information through colour alone and excluded someone who was fully capable of succeeding in the role.

Tim’s experience demonstrates why assumptions about a condition cannot tell us whether someone can do a job. People may adapt how they work, use different tools or collaborate with colleagues to overcome particular challenges. The role of the learning team is to make sure the learning gives them a fair opportunity to develop and demonstrate their capability.

Who are we to decide?

During our early training work, eLaHub were privileged to deliver a session with Diane Elkins, a champion of accessibility and an award-winning instructional designer. A question she asked in that session not only made a huge impact on us but also helped shape our eLaHub Access Without Assumptions Case Study.

“Who are we, as instructional designers, to decide who can and cannot do a job, and therefore who should or should not have access to the learning?”

Tim’s story demonstrates exactly why that question is so important. There may be genuine medical, legal or safety requirements connected to a role, but establishing whether someone meets those requirements is not the responsibility of the learning designer. Our responsibility is to make sure the learning itself does not create unnecessary barriers or exclude someone because of an assumption about what they can do.

Why accessible learning should be the default

Trying to identify every disability and access need that may be present within a learning audience can be time-consuming and rarely provides the complete picture. People may choose not to disclose a condition, employees move between roles, and learning content is often reused with new audiences. Even with the best intentions, our decisions can also be shaped by assumptions and biases we may not be aware of.

Making accessible learning the default provides a much more reliable approach. Things like plain language, logical headings, accurate captions, keyboard access, clear instructions and flexible ways to take part reduce barriers without requiring learners to disclose their needs first. This also means we don’t have to decide in advance who might benefit from a particular accessibility feature. It’s already there for anyone who needs it.

Our Designing Accessible Learning Content Programme puts this principle into practice by building accessibility into the learning from the outset, rather than relying on learners to disclose an access need or request changes after they encounter a barrier. For more practical guidance on doing this in your own learning, our eLaHub ultimate guide to accessible and inclusive eLearning explores the design decisions that can help make accessibility part of everyday learning development.

What eLaHub’s case study shows us about accessibility by default

Tim’s colour blindness also gives us a practical example of what accessibility as the default can mean for learning design. Rather than trying to decide whether someone who is colour blind is likely to be in the audience, we can make straightforward design decisions that remove common barriers for all learners who are colour blind from the outset.

Use of colour

One of the most direct WCAG requirements for including people who are colour blind is WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 1.4.1 Use of Color. This means that colour should never be the only way information, meaning, or an instruction for an action is communicated. For example, a red overlay on an image should not be the only indication that an answer is incorrect. It should be supported by text, an icon or another clear visual cue. Similarly, a link within a paragraph can be difficult to identify when it is distinguished only by a subtle change in colour. Underlining the link provides a much clearer indication. These are both issues we frequently identify during our eLaHub accessibility audits.

Yet, knowing the standard and making some straightforward changes can remove barriers for a surprisingly large number of learners. Research shows that around 1 in 12 men and 1 in 200 women experience red-green colour blindness. In a large learning audience, that could represent a substantial number of people who may miss important information when colour is used on its own.

Colour contrast

Another accessibility requirement that benefits learners who are colour blind is colour contrast. Success Criterion 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) applies to text and images of text, helping make written content easier to read against its background. Success Criterion 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast applies to meaningful visual information, including controls, their different states and parts of graphics that people need to understand. But by meeting these colour contrast requirements, learning designers not only support learners who are colour blind.

Good colour contrast supports a much wider group than people who are colour blind. It is essential for many people with low vision and can become increasingly important as contrast sensitivity and colour perception change with age. Strong contrast also makes text, buttons, icons, form fields, focus indicators and meaningful graphics easier to identify and use. The benefits extend to anyone viewing learning in difficult conditions, such as bright sunlight, glare or on an older screen where colours are less distinct. In practice, sufficient text and non-text contrast makes learning easier to read, navigate and understand for everyone.

Changing the question changes the learning

The eLaHub Access Without Assumptions Case Study continues to be a valuable part of our accessibility toolkit. Tim’s story gives practitioners a relatable way to explore the difference between genuine role requirements, individual assessment, inclusive adjustments and unsupported assumptions. We now use it across our training, consultancy and auditing work to help teams challenge assumptions about who may need accessible learning. We’ve also found it’s a great way of helping them apply WCAG more consistently and focus on removing barriers from the outset.

By grounding the discussion in one real person and following his experience through very different roles, the case study turns an abstract principle into a practical question that can shape every learning project:

How can we make sure the learning itself does not decide what someone is capable of?

The answer?

Make accessible learning the default.

About this article

Written by: Susi Miller and the eLaHub team
Published: July 2026

For longer thought-leadership articles, in-depth practical guidance and strategic perspectives on accessible and inclusive learning, subscribe to our LinkedIn newsletter, the eLaHub Accessibility Briefing.

Each edition explores an important topic in greater depth, drawing on research, client experience and lived experience. You will find clear guidance, practical reflections and useful ideas to help you move accessibility forward across your organisation.

Subscribe to the eLaHub Accessibility Briefing