.png)
Inclusivity
Introduction
Inclusive design is based on the belief that systems should aim to serve the full range of individuals, regardless of their abilities, backgrounds, experiences, or circumstances. It is one that resonates with me quite deeply. In UX and learning environments, this means identifying barriers, designing with flexibility, and building pathways that meet the needs of a diverse user base. Throughout my projects, I have applied research-based decision-making, accessibility-focused design features, and system-level thinking to how learners and the public engage with digital spaces. My experience in developing inclusive training programs, public information systems, and learning technologies is illustrated in the examples below. Each example illustrates a different aspect of designing for equity and accessibility.
Through the PATH project, university faculty will be able to develop professional development programs that will help them produce more accessible digital course materials. Our goal was to design support that reduced the barriers faculty were actually facing, rather than assuming faculty understood accessibility standards. During our interviews with instructors, instructional designers, and staff from the Disability Resource Center and the Teaching and Learning Center, we learned that faculty confidence, prior knowledge, availability of time, and comfort with accessibility tools varies widely. Although many valued accessibility, they felt uncertain about applying these standards to their own course content. Based on these insights, an inclusive learning design approach was developed centered on: (1) Developing concise microlearning modules to reduce cognitive load, (2) Modeling accessibility throughout the training, (3) Integrating guidance into instructional workflows, and (4) Using authentic examples tied to faculty contexts. This training design supports users at different levels of expertise and capacity, demonstrating how inclusive UX and instructional design can facilitate more accessible learning environments.
In redesigning the Missouri State Archives website, my team and I worked to support a wide range of public users, regardless of their cultural background, age, digital literacy level, or accessibility requirements. As part of our inclusive efforts, we reduced barriers to information access and improved the navigation and understanding of archival content. By applying Gestalt principles such as figure-ground and similarity, we improved contrast between elements, grouped and labeled elements consistently, and simplified the interface for novices and experienced users alike. The screen reader support was also retained, and new features were introduced to enhance accessibility: (1) easy translation options for multilingual users; (2) integrated spell checking in search to facilitate the use of unfamiliar terminology, spelling differences, and second-language learners; (3) font size controls to enhance the readability of users with visual impairments. This redesign aimed to create an archival interface that would accommodate diverse users and make historical information easier to find and use.
As part of my Systems comprehensive exam, I devised Pavlov's Reader, a reading environment that reduced cognitive barriers and supported sustained attention in undergraduate students with and without ADHD. In designing the system, I focused on making course texts more manageable, engaging, and accessible in light of the reading and writing demands of a large Modern Psychology class. For the design, I integrated three theoretical frameworks: Cognitive Load Theory, Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning, and Barkley's Executive Function Theory of ADHD. As a result, key inclusive decisions were made, such as segmenting long readings, pairing text with synchronized text-to-speech, highlighting essential concepts, providing just-in-time explanations, and incorporating motivational tools like goal setting and progress tracking. Using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach, the accompanying evaluation plan examined the differences between ADHD and non-ADHD learners. The measures included comprehension outcomes, executive function (BRIEF2-A), cognitive load, usability, engagement behaviors, and qualitative reflections.