"Our Faculty Won't Learn New Tools"
"I'm considering removing all slide presentations and images from Canvas courses rather than jump through hoops."
Illustrative faculty concern, not a verified quotation
Faculty are overwhelmed. They won't adopt complex new accessibility tools. Here's how to automate much of the accessibility work so faculty don't need to change their workflow.
Automation figures are based on Aelira's internal estimates; actual results vary by content type and require human review.
Traditional Approach
Train 500 faculty on new accessibility tool 5% adoption rate Compliance fails
Aelira Approach
IT coordinates supported scans, human review, and follow-up on unresolved barriers
Why Faculty Resistance Kills Accessibility Projects
1. Faculty Are Already Overwhelmed
Average faculty member juggles: teaching 3-4 courses, research, committee work, student advising, grant writing. They have no bandwidth for new tools.
"There is no additional compensation for meeting the new guidelines. This is just more unpaid labor."
Illustrative faculty concern, not a verified quotation
2. Training Doesn't Work
Universities send 10-page PDFs on "How to Use YuJa Panorama." Faculty ignore them. Compliance fails.
- 2-hour training webinar 20% attendance
- Written documentation 5% read it
- Follow-up reminders Ignored
- Risk: adoption may stall without training and clear ownership
3. Workflow Disruption
Faculty have workflows built over 10-20 years:
- LaTeX for STEM notes
- PowerPoint for lectures
- PDF for readings
- Auto-captions for videos
Asking them to change = resistance, delay, compliance failure.
4. Unclear Requirements Can Create Backlash
Faculty feel blindsided by "sudden" compliance requirements. Instead of embracing accessibility, they:
- Delete all images from courses
- Remove PowerPoint slides
- Switch to text-only materials
- Blame administration for "bureaucracy"
Bottom Line: Faculty Buy-In Is Not Scalable
A large faculty rollout needs clear responsibilities, accessible support, and a way to track files that still need attention.
The Solution: Make Accessibility Invisible to Faculty
IT-Led Processing with Faculty Review
IT can coordinate supported file processing and human review around existing upload workflows. Test connector readiness and agree when faculty need to check content meaning.
Faculty uploads files (no change)
Faculty continues using existing workflow: upload PDFs, PowerPoint, LaTeX to LMS.
IT downloads course files (bulk)
IT exports all course files from Canvas/Blackboard using LMS API or manual download.
Aelira helps process supported files
Run the supported CLI batch workflow on a pilot corpus. Processing time varies; review generated output and record unresolved issues before publication.
IT publishes reviewed output after approval
Review the saved output, resolve outstanding issues, and obtain the agreed approval before replacing files. Tell faculty what changed and retain the original for rollback.
What Faculty Sees
- Use a coordinated review process
- Agree changes to the publication workflow
- Provide guidance for content review
- Review meaning and unresolved issues when needed
- Test saved output with appropriate assistive technology
Goal: reduce duplicated effort while keeping accountable human review
What IT Does
- 1. Export course files (bulk download)
- 2. Run Aelira CLI (one command)
- 3. Review saved output and record unresolved issues; measure time per course
- 4. Re-upload remediated files
- 5. Generate compliance reports
Time per course is not established; measure processing, review, and manual repair effort
Illustrative Implementation Scenarios
Note: These hypothetical planning examples are not customer results or performance forecasts. Weekly course counts are assumed targets to validate in a pilot; include review and manual repair before relying on a schedule.
Small Liberal Arts College (2,000 students, 150 faculty)
Approach
- 1 IT staff member assigned
- Process 5 courses per week
- 30 weeks to complete all 150 courses
- Scope reviewer and faculty guidance
Checks to Measure
- Check completion and unresolved issues against the measured schedule
- Collect faculty feedback on the review process
- Department subscription: $1,499/mo; add review labor and deployment costs
- Validate permissions, output, and publication approval before rollout
Large Public University (25,000 students, 1,500 faculty)
Approach
- 5 IT staff members (20 hrs/week each)
- Process 50 courses per week
- 30 weeks to complete 1,500 courses
- Optional faculty webinar (not required)
Checks to Measure
- Check completion and unresolved issues against the measured schedule
- Collect faculty feedback and resolve reported issues
- Agree the institutional deployment and allowance; include reviewer labor, manual repairs, and infrastructure in the quote
- Record acceptance criteria and pilot findings before a production decision
Validate Canvas Integration Before Rollout
Canvas LTI Integration
Test the Canvas connector and agree a review process before using it with faculty files. The maintainer reports integration testing; your institution must validate the full journey.
Faculty uploads PDF to Canvas
Aelira scans supported content; measure processing time in your environment
A person reviews partial fixes and approves the publication path
Faculty are told what was changed and what still needs review
D2L Brightspace is in beta; Blackboard and Moodle are experimental.
Stop Fighting Faculty Resistance
Coordinate supported processing, human review, and approved publication around faculty workflows.
Ask about a bounded pilot · Course scope agreed in writing
See IT-Driven Remediation Demo
Evaluate an IT-coordinated workflow, with defined faculty and accessibility review. Use a bounded pilot to measure preparation, corrections and unresolved work.