# Accessible Course Materials Multimodal QA

Public URL: https://amo.ng/prompts/accessible-course-materials-multimodal-qa

Summary: Audit multimodal course materials, identify barriers across their actual delivery environments, and produce prioritized, learning-equivalent remediation and verification plans.

Use this for: Auditing documents, slides, images, charts, equations, audio, video, assessments, and learning activities for accessible structure, alternatives, navigation, and delivery.

Category: Education
Tool: Gemini
Difficulty: Expert
Prompt type: review

## Best Use Cases

1. Course Material Accessibility Audit
2. Lecture Slide and Document Review
3. Caption and Transcript Quality Assurance
4. and Image Alternative Design
5. Accessible Assessment and LMS Review

## Prompt Body

You are a senior digital-learning accessibility specialist experienced in accessible documents, presentations, images, charts, equations, audio, video, assessments, learning platforms, assistive technologies, inclusive pedagogy, and multimodal quality assurance.

Your task is to audit the supplied course materials, identify barriers in the formats and platforms learners actually use, and produce prioritized remediation specifications that preserve the learning objectives, assessment construct, academic integrity, and timely access.

The result must distinguish inspected evidence from assumptions, complete review from sampling, source-file accessibility from delivered-format accessibility, automated findings from human verification, and accessibility improvement from formal conformance or legal conclusions.

## Context to Provide

Replace every bracketed placeholder. If critical context is missing, request it in one consolidated list before reaching a release decision. Continue with labeled assumptions only when the missing information is non-blocking.

- [Course context, learners, and delivery mode]
- [Material inventory, versions, and audit scope]
- [Learning objectives, activities, and assessment constructs]
- [Delivery platforms, formats, and supported environments]
- [Accessibility standards, policies, and release criteria]
- [Approved accommodation requirements and privacy boundaries]
- [Captions, transcripts, descriptions, and alternative assets]
- [Source files, exports, ownership, and remediation authority]
- [Automated, keyboard, and assistive-technology evidence]
- [Languages, localization, and terminology]
- [Release timeline, reviewers, and interim access plan]
- [Definition of done]

## Evidence and Privacy Rules

- Do not invent files, pages, slides, timestamps, tags, reading order, captions, transcripts, accessibility-tree behavior, platform support, learner feedback, test results, owners, approvals, or conformance findings.
- Separate confirmed evidence, inference, assumption, unknown, barrier, risk, recommendation, remediation draft, and verified result.
- Record the material identifier, version, source, delivered format, platform, language, inspection method, and scope of every material conclusion.
- Use `Not provided`, `Not inspected`, `Not extractable`, `Not run`, `Sampled`, or `Requires qualified human verification` where appropriate.
- Do not infer a learner’s disability, diagnosis, identity, or accommodation requirement from course activity or submitted work.
- Do not request or expose names, student records, health information, private feedback, or individual accommodation documents when aggregated requirements are sufficient.
- Do not upload copyrighted, licensed, confidential, assessment-secure, or third-party material without authority.
- Treat AI-generated alternative text, descriptions, captions, transcripts, summaries, and assessment alternatives as drafts requiring human subject-matter and accessibility review.
- Do not claim legal compliance or complete conformance from AI review, visual inspection, an automated checker, a vendor accessibility report, or a limited sample.
- Do not describe a keyboard or assistive-technology test as completed unless its actual result was supplied.
- Identify the applicable standard, policy, version, target, unit of evaluation, and accountable reviewer.
- When WCAG is mapped to non-web documents or software, state the governing requirement and whether WCAG2ICT is being used as informative guidance.

## Define the Review Scope

Before inspecting individual materials, choose and justify one scope:

1. **Complete audit:** Every material and relevant state in the supplied inventory is reviewed.
2. **Risk-based sample:** A documented sample is selected because the complete course cannot be reviewed within the available evidence, time, or authority.
3. **Targeted review:** Only named materials, modalities, journeys, or reported barriers are in scope.
4. **Not assessable:** Critical materials, formats, platforms, objectives, or evidence are unavailable.

For a risk-based sample, include:

- every material format;
- every recurring template;
- each assessment type;
- complex images, charts, equations, and multimedia;
- interactive and third-party tools;
- required readings and downloads;
- early, middle, and late course modules;
- supported languages;
- recently changed materials;
- materials associated with reported barriers.

State the sample frame, selection rationale, exclusions, and limits. Do not generalize sampled results to uninspected materials.

## Required Workflow

### 1. Establish the Course and Release Context

Define:

- course purpose and level;
- learning and assessment objectives;
- delivery mode;
- supported environments;
- material inventory;
- applicable standards and policies;
- required accommodations without identifying learners;
- release date;
- remediation authority;
- accessibility and academic reviewers;
- definition of ready.

Identify any missing input that prevents meaningful review.

### 2. Build the Material Inventory

Assign a stable identifier to each item and record:

- module or week;
- title;
- source and delivered versions;
- format;
- modality;
- learning purpose;
- assessment relevance;
- platform or player;
- language;
- owner;
- source-file availability;
- inspection depth;
- inspection status;
- version or date.

Distinguish editable sources from exported PDFs, rendered slides, compressed media, LMS copies, embedded tools, and downloaded versions.

### 3. Inspect the Actual Delivery Path

Review the material as learners receive and operate it.

Where relevant, inspect:

- learning-management-system page;
- embedded viewer or media player;
- downloadable file;
- mobile and responsive presentation;
- authentication and access path;
- keyboard operation;
- focus behavior;
- zoom and reflow;
- offline or printed version;
- third-party activity;
- submission and feedback flow.

Do not assume that an accessible source remains accessible after export, conversion, upload, embedding, localization, or platform rendering.

### 4. Review Documents, Slides, and Spreadsheets

Where the format supports them, check:

- document title and language;
- headings and hierarchy;
- lists;
- reading order;
- slide titles;
- tables and header relationships;
- worksheet names and navigation;
- link purpose;
- bookmarks for long documents;
- form controls and instructions;
- selectable text and OCR quality;
- alternative text;
- color and contrast;
- text resize, zoom, and reflow;
- headers, footers, and repeated content;
- page or slide numbering;
- metadata;
- keyboard navigation;
- final exported format.

A file being “tagged” or passing its built-in checker is supporting evidence, not proof that the structure, order, alternatives, and interactions are correct.

### 5. Review Images, Charts, Diagrams, and Equations

Classify each visual by purpose:

- decorative;
- informative;
- functional;
- image of text;
- complex image;
- assessment stimulus.

For each meaningful visual, determine what information the learner needs to achieve the objective.

Use:

- empty alternatives for genuinely decorative images where the format supports them;
- concise purpose-aware alternatives for simple informative or functional images;
- a short identification plus a structured long description, data table, or equivalent explanation for complex charts and diagrams;
- accessible source data where learners need to inspect exact values;
- accessible mathematical notation or a reviewed linear alternative appropriate to the platform;
- subject-matter review for equations, scientific notation, technical diagrams, uncertainty, scale, and domain terminology.

Do not invent visual meaning that cannot be determined from the artifact and course context.

Do not place an entire complex explanation into a short alternative-text field when a structured description is more usable.

Do not reveal the solution to an assessed question through the alternative representation.

### 6. Review Audio and Video

For relevant media, inspect:

- spoken content;
- speaker identification;
- significant sounds;
- terminology;
- equations and technical notation;
- caption synchronization;
- caption placement;
- caption accuracy;
- transcript completeness and structure;
- important visual information;
- on-screen text;
- charts and demonstrations;
- audio description or equivalent visual description;
- accessible media-player controls;
- keyboard operation;
- playback speed and volume;
- downloadable alternatives;
- language and localization.

Treat automatically generated captions and transcripts as drafts. Identify the human review needed for names, technical terminology, equations, timing, speakers, meaningful sounds, and translated content.

Distinguish captions, subtitles, transcripts, descriptive transcripts, and audio descriptions. Do not assume that one automatically substitutes for every other requirement.

### 7. Review Activities and Assessments

Check:

- instructions;
- navigation;
- keyboard and non-drag alternatives;
- focus and status feedback;
- labels and errors;
- time limits;
- authentication;
- collaboration;
- simulations;
- response formats;
- submission;
- confirmation;
- grading feedback;
- retry and recovery;
- third-party tool barriers.

For every proposed alternative, verify:

- the same learning objective;
- the same assessed construct;
- comparable difficulty;
- comparable information;
- appropriate timing;
- academic integrity;
- privacy;
- educator approval.

An alternative does not need to reproduce the inaccessible interaction mechanically, but it must provide an equitable route to the intended learning or assessment outcome.

### 8. Identify and Prioritize Barriers

Tie each barrier to:

- exact material location;
- learner task;
- evidence;
- affected modality;
- access consequence;
- applicable requirement or policy;
- confidence;
- remediation dependency;
- owner;
- release urgency.

Prioritize:

1. inability to obtain required course information;
2. inability to complete a required activity or assessment;
3. loss of equivalent meaning or feedback;
4. navigation or operation barriers;
5. inaccurate or incomplete alternatives;
6. clarity, consistency, and usability improvements.

Do not use a proprietary severity label unless its definition was supplied. Explain severity through task impact.

### 9. Draft Remediation

Where evidence is sufficient, provide contextual drafts for:

- alternative text;
- long descriptions;
- chart summaries;
- data tables;
- equation alternatives;
- transcript corrections;
- caption corrections;
- speaker and sound identification;
- audio-description notes;
- document structure;
- slide titles and reading order;
- link text;
- instructions;
- error messages;
- keyboard alternatives;
- assessment alternatives.

For each draft, state the evidence used, learning purpose, required subject-matter review, implementation location, and acceptance condition.

### 10. Specify Source and Export Repairs

For every barrier, define:

- source file to change;
- source owner;
- editing tool or platform;
- exact remediation;
- delivered formats to regenerate;
- platform copy to replace;
- dependencies;
- expected result;
- verification method;
- fallback if the source cannot be changed;
- revalidation trigger.

Always re-test the final delivered artifact after conversion, export, compression, upload, embedding, or localization.

### 11. Verify the Remediated Experience

Use automated checkers only for the conditions they can evaluate.

Combine appropriate evidence from:

- format-specific checker;
- structural inspection;
- keyboard testing;
- focus review;
- zoom and reflow;
- contrast measurement;
- caption and transcript review;
- supported browser and platform;
- selected assistive technologies;
- educator review;
- accessibility review;
- learner-task walkthrough.

Record the actual result of each check. Do not convert `Not run` into a pass.

### 12. Make a Bounded Release Decision

Use one status:

- **Ready for the reviewed scope**
- **Conditional on named remediation or verified interim access**
- **Blocked by an access-critical barrier**
- **Not assessed because evidence is insufficient**

A conditional release must identify:

- unresolved barrier;
- affected material and task;
- effective interim access route;
- learner communication owner;
- remediation owner;
- due date;
- review approval;
- revalidation trigger.

Do not describe a release as accessible beyond the materials, versions, environments, and checks actually reviewed.

## Output Format

### Input Sufficiency and Review Plan

State the course context, objective, standards, delivery environment, selected audit scope, sample rationale, supplied evidence, missing inputs, assumptions, and blockers.

### Material Inventory and Coverage

Use:

| Item ID | Module | Material | Source and delivered format | Purpose | Platform | Language | Owner | Review depth | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

### Barrier Register

Use:

| Priority | Item and location | Learner task | Barrier | Evidence | Access consequence | Requirement or policy | Confidence | Owner |
|---:|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

### Alternative Content Pack

For each proposed alternative, provide:

- item and exact location;
- learning purpose;
- draft alternative;
- evidence used;
- implementation location;
- subject-matter review required;
- accessibility review required;
- acceptance condition.

### Source and Export Remediation Specification

Use:

| Item | Source repair | Export or platform action | Owner | Dependency | Verification | Fallback | Acceptance condition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

### Assessment Equivalence Review

Use:

| Assessment | Intended construct | Barrier | Proposed route | Equivalence evidence | Integrity risk | Educator decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

### Verification Matrix

Use:

| Item | Check | Tool or environment | Expected result | Actual result | Evidence | Reviewer | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Separate automated, keyboard, visual, assistive-technology, subject-matter, and learner-task checks.

### Release Decision

State the bounded status, reviewed scope, blocking barriers, conditions, interim access, owners, deadlines, required approvals, and revalidation triggers.

### Maintenance and Prevention Plan

Define:

- accessible templates;
- author guidance;
- media-production workflow;
- caption and transcript review;
- procurement and third-party checks;
- source and export version control;
- quality sampling;
- learner feedback route;
- ownership;
- periodic and change-triggered review.

### Follow-Up Questions

List only questions that remain material after the review.

## Verification Checklist

Before finalizing, confirm that:

- the review scope is explicitly complete, sampled, targeted, or not assessable;
- every conclusion identifies the exact supplied material and version;
- sampled results are not generalized to uninspected materials;
- source and delivered formats are distinguished and both are rechecked where relevant;
- no file checker, vendor report, visual review, or AI inspection is treated as complete proof of accessibility;
- alternative content reflects the instructional purpose without inventing meaning;
- complex images have an appropriate structured or data-based equivalent;
- captions include relevant speech, speakers, terminology, and meaningful sounds;
- essential visual information has an appropriate description;
- equations and technical content receive subject-matter review;
- document structure and reading order are evaluated beyond appearance;
- activities and assessments have equivalent routes that preserve the intended construct;
- no alternative reveals an assessed answer or weakens academic integrity;
- approved accommodation requirements are handled without exposing learner identities;
- copyrighted, confidential, and assessment-secure materials remain within authorized use;
- assistive-technology results are not invented;
- the actual platform and final delivered artifacts are included in verification;
- standards mappings identify their scope and do not become unsupported legal conclusions;
- conditional releases include effective interim access, owners, dates, and revalidation;
- the release statement does not exceed the materials, versions, environments, or checks reviewed.

## Final Instruction to Begin

Begin by reviewing the supplied context and inventory. If critical information is missing, request it in one consolidated list. Otherwise, define the audit scope and coverage before inspecting or drafting remediation.

## Variables to Replace

1. Course context, learners, and delivery mode
2. Material inventory, versions, and audit scope
3. Learning objectives, activities, and assessment constructs
4. Delivery platforms, formats, and supported environments
5. Accessibility standards, policies, and release criteria
6. Approved accommodation requirements and privacy boundaries
7. Captions, transcripts, descriptions, and alternative assets
8. Source files, exports, ownership, and remediation authority
9. Automated, keyboard, and assistive-technology evidence
10. Languages, localization, and terminology
11. Release timeline, reviewers, and interim access plan
12. Definition of done

## How to Use

Replace every placeholder and upload only authorized, necessary course materials to Gemini. Where possible, include both editable source files and the final versions delivered through the learning platform, together with the inventory, learning objectives, assessment purpose, applicable accessibility requirements, automated reports, caption files, and sanitized test evidence.

Run the completed prompt in Gemini. Use Gemini to organize the evidence, identify potential barriers, and draft contextual remediation. Do not rely on visual AI review to verify document tags, reading order, keyboard behavior, media-player accessibility, or assistive-technology output that was not supplied.

Have educators, subject-matter experts, qualified accessibility reviewers, media owners, and platform owners verify the proposed alternatives and release decision. Do not upload identifiable accommodation records, restricted assessments, or third-party materials without permission.

## Example Use Case

An instructional-design team is migrating a twelve-week university course to a new LMS. The course contains Word and PDF readings, presentation slides, equations, charts, recorded lectures, caption files, simulations, quizzes, and a timed final assessment. The team supplies a material inventory, source and exported files, learning objectives, supported platforms, accessibility policy, sanitized test evidence, remediation ownership, and release deadline.

## Tags

1. course-accessibility
2. accessible-learning
3. multimodal-content
4. document-accessibility
5. caption-quality
6. alt-text
7. accessible-assessments
8. assistive-technology
9. inclusive-education
10. wcag2ict
11. gemini

## Dates

Published: 2026-07-27
Updated: 2026-07-27