Methodology
The methodology was based on a master’s dissertation about developing heuristics in the context of education (Silva, 2017) and divided into four stages: exploration, analysis, synthesis and verification.
This stage presents the verification interviews, the detailed explanations of each recommendation, and the final results of the exploration.
Verification interviews
After the propositional synthesis of the set of recommendations for visual accessibility in educational materials was completed in the previous stage, the methodology called for data to be collected from specialists through interviews at the verification stage.
The authors’ first action was to begin drawing up an instrument for the interviews, so that participants could provide information about: the alignment of the proposed recommendations with accessibility standards and practices; the coherence of the examples given for each recommendation with those standards and practices; whether the word "heuristic" adequately expressed the idea being presented; the effective implementation of the recommendations in the learning process; and the importance of teacher–student communication.
The interviews were arranged between March and May 2024 between the authors and eleven specialists, identified here as teachers on the Design programme and in other fields of education, undergraduate students with visual impairments, and technical and administrative staff who advance the inclusion of people with disabilities at UTFPR, as well as accessibility specialists and other professionals and people connected with the subject. They are presented in Table 14 under pseudonyms, to protect their integrity, alongside a description of their expertise. Contact was made by personal email, setting a date and time convenient to both parties so as not to disrupt any task (domestic or professional) and to avoid interference from meetings, clients, phone calls and the like.
| # | Pseudonym | Expertise |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Adriano | Student with a visual impairment at the Federal University of Technology – Paraná (UTFPR) |
| 2 | Bruna | Teaching assistant to a student with a visual impairment at the Federal University of Technology – Paraná (UTFPR) |
| 3 | Camila | Educationalist specialising in visual impairment and inclusive education, and lecturer at the Federal University of Technology – Paraná (UTFPR) |
| 4 | Daniel | Educationalist at the Pedagogical and Student Support Centre (NUAPE) of the Federal University of Technology – Paraná (UTFPR) |
| 5 | Emília | Director and educationalist at the Association of Parents and Friends of People with Visual Impairments (APADEV) |
| 6 | Fernanda | PhD in ergonomics and lecturer at the Federal University of Technology – Paraná (UTFPR) |
| 7 | Gabriela | Inclusive Design specialist at Grupo Boticário |
| 8 | Henrique | Product Designer at Grupo Boticário |
| 9 | Igor | Accessibility specialist and Design Ops Manager at Banco Carrefour |
| 10 | Jéssica | Graphic designer with a visual impairment |
| 11 | Kátia | Product Designer at Grupo Boticário |
Table description
Table 14, "List of specialists", lists the 11 participants in the project’s verification stage. The table omits real names, using "Pseudonyms" 1 to 11 paired with each individual’s "Expertise" to attest to the academic rigour and the level of knowledge in the sample. The group is made up of students with visual impairments, educationalists specialising in inclusive education, directors of associations, PhDs in ergonomics, and product and accessibility designers working in industry (at companies such as Grupo Boticário and Banco Carrefour).
The interviews were conducted on Google Meet, with the interview instrument presented on Miro. The duration was set at one hour, since participants might become tired, demotivated and less focused in their answers, which would impair the analysis of the data.
The interview instrument, presented in this work as Appendix A, carried the title of the present work, a brief explanation of the term "heuristic" and a description of how the interview would run. It also contained a form with the interviewee’s name, their expertise, the date of the interview and additional information. The names of the recommendations and their details were presented on cards in which the order of the topics covered was not fixed, so the interviewers framed the questions according to how the interview developed and the level of the participants’ answers.
The interviews were recorded to make a detailed analysis of their content possible and to identify aspects important to the study. The records were made manually, and all the interviews were analysed and exported into a standardised format proposed by the authors.
Final synthesis
After the interviews, an analysis was made of the main topics raised by each specialist, presented in the previous section. That analysis established the need to restructure the recommendations, along the lines the interviewees indicated for advancing instructional content from the perspective of visual accessibility in educational materials. Appendix C presents the transformation of those recommendations.
A striking feature of the readjustment process was the inconsistency of patterns identified across the sets analysed. Some recommendations from different sets could be associated in full with one of the categories defined. Others, however, had to be broken up and associated with several categories. New categories were also created to accommodate new recommendations. One such action can be seen in Table 15, below.
| Name | Version | Wording |
|---|---|---|
| Consistency | Version I | It is important to ensure that the different pieces of information and materials are consistent in format and structure for each student with a visual impairment. |
| Understanding | Version I | It is important to develop and present the educational content clearly and concisely, ensuring that it is easily assimilated and understood by the student with a visual impairment. This includes fostering the relationship between theory and practice, using codes and names that reduce memory and workload, providing direct, rapid access to the relevant information. |
| Cohesion of the content | Version II | It is important to develop and present the educational content clearly and concisely, ensuring that the different pieces of information and materials are consistent in format and structure, and that it is easily assimilated and understood by the student, including the student with a visual impairment. |
| Cohesion of the content | Version III | It is recommended to develop and present all teaching content with clarity, coherence and cohesion of language, format and structure, across the different pieces of information and resources, so as to favour access and understanding for every student, including those with a visual impairment. |
| Cohesion of the content | Version IV | It is recommended to make available to every student, including those with a visual impairment, all teaching content with clarity, coherence and cohesion of language, format and structure, across the different pieces of information and resources, guaranteeing access and understanding with autonomy. |
Table description
Table 15 illustrates how the proposals unfolded and evolved in the Final Synthesis phase. It takes "Recommendation 08" (Consistency) as an example, showing its textual transition. The table displays "Version I" separated from the earlier guidelines (Consistency and Understanding), "Version II" merging them into "Cohesion of the content", then "Version III" of semantic refinement, through to "Version IV", the clear, concise and final text that makes up the canonical table of visual accessibility guidelines.
A significant issue that arose during the process was the change of the term "heuristic", which, being widely unfamiliar, needed explaining whenever it was mentioned and caused puzzlement among the interviewees. To resolve this, a new terminology had to be adopted. The authors decided that "recommendation" would be more appropriate for this work, since that was the term most often mentioned by the interviewees. Choosing that terminology then ensured that every participant understood this work clearly.
Another important matter at this stage was the need to include an explicit mention of "[...] every student, including those with a visual impairment [...]", ensuring that the recommendations covered all students, in keeping with the meaning of universal design. That concept is centred on the human being and respects the different degrees of difficulty people face when using a product, service or environment. By incorporating this perspective, the recommendations were made inclusive and accessible, advancing equity and consideration of all students’ needs and abilities, regardless of their visual condition.
It was therefore unavoidable to adjust the recommendations in the set in order to standardise the systematic table produced and to make it easier to interpret and more consistent. Those changes included ordering each recommendation into five components: opening, verb, audience, recommendation and ability. This new format helped to clarify the structure of the recommendations, making them more accessible and understandable to everyone involved. One such restructuring is illustrated in Table 16, below.
| Opening | Verb | Audience | Recommendation | Ability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| It is recommended | to make available to | every student, including those with a visual impairment, | all information, training, resources or conditions that guarantee participation in every space and activity of the Higher Education Institution – HEI | with autonomy. |
Table description
Table 16, "Systematic table of the recommendations", divides the grammatical structure of the final recommendations into five columns, exemplifying the logic applied to their wording. The "Opening" column sets the imperative "It is recommended"; the "Verb" indicates the action "to make available to"; the "Audience" specifies "every student, including those with a visual impairment"; the "Recommendation" states "all information, training, resources or conditions that guarantee participation in every space and activity of the Higher Education Institution – HEI"; and the "Ability" closes the guideline with "with autonomy".
The interviews also raised various questions about the recommendations, such as who would be responsible for applying them and how they would be implemented. The strategy the authors adopted during the conversion was to propose four levels of information for expressing their recommendations: name, responsible party, recommendation and opportunity. The first level corresponds to the title of each recommendation, expressed generically so as to cover as many situations as possible. In the second level, called "responsible party", those involved in implementing the recommendation were identified. The third level describes the recommendation itself. And in the fourth and final level, called "opportunities", practical examples and more detailed explanations of each recommendation were included.
In a final refinement of the project, a careful review of the wording was carried out, together with a strategic regrouping of the guidelines. In this way, the 12 final recommendations were organised by similarity into three central axes of action and responsibility: the Higher Education Institution (HEI), the Teacher, and the Resource.
After these rigorous validation steps, the set of recommendations consolidated into a robust and coherent basis, capable of dealing with the complexity of educational inclusion and accessibility. The final result of this methodological process forms the core of this site and is translated into practical tools and guidelines, ready to consult.