Identify Accessibility Barriers in Digital Course Materials

Required inputs

Have these details available before following the usage instructions.

• Learning objectives, target learners, course level, and instructional context
• Course artifacts such as source documents, exported PDFs, slides, images, audio, video, captions, transcripts, and assessments
• LMS or delivery-platform context, including navigation, interaction, timing, and access conditions
• Known learner needs, approved accommodations, institutional standards, and applicable accessibility requirements
• Authoring constraints, available source files, remediation capacity, deadlines, and content owners
• Existing accessibility test results, learner feedback, or assistive-technology observations when available

How to use this Skill

When to use:
- Reviewing a course module, lesson package, or online program for accessibility barriers
- Checking slides, PDFs, documents, images, captions, transcripts, audio, video, assessments, or LMS presentation together
- Prioritizing accessibility remediation before publishing or revising course materials
- Preparing materials for accessibility, disability-services, instructional-design, educator, or platform review

When not to use:
- Certifying legal compliance or claiming conformance from a static automated review
- Diagnosing an individual learner or deciding accommodations without authorized educators and accessibility professionals
- Reviewing only visual appearance when source files, content structure, transcripts, or delivery context are unavailable
- Automatically modifying or publishing course materials without content-owner review

Instructions:
1. Use AMO-P-000269 as the multimodal audit guide. Supply representative artifacts in their actual formats, the learning objectives, delivery environment, and applicable standards; use the resulting analysis as a review and remediation brief, not as an automated compliance certificate.
2. Inventory artifacts and delivery contexts before judging accessibility. Note whether each item was inspected as an editable source, export, screenshot, transcript, or description and state what cannot be verified.
3. Assess barriers by modality and interaction: document structure, reading order, headings, tables, links, contrast, text scaling, keyboard access, focus order, labels, alternative text, captions, transcripts, audio description, timing, motion, and assessment response methods where relevant.
4. Connect each finding to concrete evidence and its likely learner impact. Distinguish directly observed barriers from suspected barriers that require platform, assistive-technology, or accessibility-reviewer testing.
5. Check whether proposed alternatives communicate the same instructional purpose rather than merely describing appearance. Preserve essential learning objectives while identifying avoidable format barriers.
6. Prioritize remediation by severity, learner impact, prevalence, prerequisite status, effort, and availability of an accessible alternative. Identify quick repairs separately from structural redesign.
7. For each recommendation, specify the responsible artifact, proposed change, content owner or editor, required source file or dependency, and verification method.
8. Label supplied facts, assumptions, inferences, missing information, and uncertainty. Avoid inferring disability, preference, or accommodation needs from limited learner evidence.
9. Require content-owner and qualified accessibility-reviewer sign-off before publication or formal conformance claims. Route legal interpretation to the legal reviewer and decisions affecting individual accommodations to authorized educators and accessibility professionals.

Expected output:
An accessibility audit containing an artifact inventory, evidence-linked barrier register, learner-impact analysis, prioritized remediation backlog, learning-equivalent alternative recommendations, platform and assistive-technology test plan, ownership and dependency notes, unresolved questions, and publication review gates.

Constraints and boundaries:
- Do not claim WCAG, legal, institutional, or procurement conformance based only on automated review.
- Do not treat automated checks, screenshots, or visual inspection as substitutes for source-structure, keyboard, platform, and assistive-technology testing.
- Minimize learner data and do not expose disability, accommodation, assessment, or other sensitive educational information.
- Do not lower or alter essential learning outcomes merely to avoid remediating inaccessible delivery.
- Use applicable standards as review criteria while reserving formal accessibility interpretation for a qualified accessibility reviewer and legal interpretation for the legal reviewer.
- Recommendations must remain tied to supplied artifacts and identified delivery conditions.

Powered by an Amo.ng Prompt

Accessible Course Materials Multimodal QA

Open the linked prompt to use the instructions that power this Skill.

Completion criteria

Complete when:
- Every barrier identifies the artifact, location or element, observed evidence, affected access mode, and likely learning impact.
- Observed barriers are clearly separated from suspected issues requiring additional testing.
- Each remediation preserves or explicitly reconciles the associated learning objective.
- The plan covers relevant document, visual, audio, video, interaction, assessment, and LMS dimensions rather than relying on one modality.
- Each priority item has a content owner or editor, dependency, acceptance check, and appropriate verification method.
- The final status states which artifacts were inspected, which tests remain unperformed, and what requires accessibility-reviewer, legal-reviewer, educator, or content-owner approval before publication or a formal claim.