Introduction
This report outlines the development of accessible guidelines for the embroidery software used in our workshop, with a particular focus on supporting neurodivergent students—especially those with dyslexia. The resource is available to view on a previous post; https://sreynolds.myblog.arts.ac.uk/2025/06/27/intervention/.
The guideline uses various accessibility guideline advice from numerous sources (also linked in the previous post). Although we have been meaning to change the guidelines for a while to be less text heavy, the PG-Cert has allowed the time for reflection and time on how to go about making some accessible adjustments to them.
Positionality
As a dyslexic workshop technician (and in fact, all three of us technicians in the workshop are dyslexic), I bring lived experience that directly informs this resource. My own educational journey has shown me the barriers that arise when instructions are dense, unclear, or overly reliant on text-heavy formats. I know first-hand how quickly confidence can be undermined when learning materials do not take diverse ways of processing information into account. As I was diagnosed at 19, I feel that my experience through previous school education had lowered my confidence in things such as reading. As a concequence I didn’t think I even liked reading, until only 5 years back. So the lasting effects can be long felt. Additionally, shared positionality within our team means we constantly see the same barriers our students face reflected in our own working practices. Because of this, we are more attuned to recognising where things break down — whether that’s confusing software menus, inconsistent instructions, or a lack of visual aids. Our experiences remind us daily that these obstacles are not due to any lack of ability, but rather a mismatch between the learner’s needs and how information is presented.
Being dyslexic myself means I approach teaching and resource design from the perspective of someone who has had to find alternative ways to navigate written instructions. I instinctively look for visual strategies, clear structure, and ways to reduce unnecessary cognitive load. This positionality shapes my commitment to accessible design, because I know that what supports dyslexic and neurodivergent learners often benefits everyone, including students whose first language is not English, students balancing study with caring responsibilities, or students who prefer to learn independently at their own pace.
What I want to change and why
I developed these new guidelines because I have seen firsthand how our current approach in the workshop relies too heavily on one-to-one verbal explanations during workshop inductions. With growing student numbers and limited technician time, this is becoming increasingly unsustainable, and it risks leaving some students behind, particularly those who need more time to process information or revisit instructions independently.
The increase in student numbers, not only at our university but across the UK and globally, is well documented in numerous studies and reports. Figure 1, a graph from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), clearly illustrates this trend. Showing that the number of students obtaining higher education degrees has risen by over 50,000 between the 2014/15 and 2023/24 academic years. This significant growth highlights a critical challenge that must be addressed by rethinking and adapting our teaching approaches.
Fig 1. Academic years 2014/15 to 2023/24, HSEA
The impact of increasing student numbers on staff workload is also noted by Dineen and Collins (2005), who emphasize that creativity flourishes in environments of trust, openness, and tolerance for ambiguity. However, growing student populations and mounting pressures across various areas make it increasingly difficult to build supportive relationships, let alone accommodate individual student needs.
Students with dyslexia, other forms of neurodivergence, often face additional challenges when instructions are dense, text-heavy, or delivered only verbally. Research by Grant and French (2017) highlights that many dyslexic learners are strong visual thinkers, so text-only instructions can be a barrier rather than a support. Mortimore and Crozier (2006) and Bacon and Bennett (2012) further show that repeated struggles with traditional written or spoken instruction can undermine confidence and motivation, compounding the problem over time.
I want to move away from an approach that depends on students disclosing a specific need. Figures, including statistics at UAL (Fig. 2), show that home students are more likely to disclose a disability than international students. Most recently in 2024/25 the gap of home to international students declaring a disability is 22%. So by default, some students remain unsupported. Instead, I aim to create guidance that is useful for everyone from the start.
Fig 2: Percentage of students declared disabled by fee status
To address this, I am changing the guidelines to be clearer, more visual, and available in multiple formats, that include online, printed copies, and easy to adapt for translation tools. This supports students with different language backgrounds, those who miss time due to caring responsibilities or faith commitments, and those who prefer or need to work independently.
By doing this, I hope to reduce barriers for all students, not just those who disclose a need. In line with universal design and inclusive education principles, the goal is to empower every student to access the technical skills they need without anxiety about keeping up, asking for repeated help, or feeling excluded by inaccessible instructions.
How this can be beneficial more broadly
Although this intervention was originally developed with neurodivergent students in mind, I believe its benefits will extend far beyond that group. As mentioned, figures suggest that home students are much more likely to disclose a disability than international students. Barriers to disclosure could be a mulitdude of factors including facing cultural, linguistic, or visa-related barriers. By designing guidance for the workshop that is clear, visual, and easy to use for everyone, by default, I hope to ensure that support does not depend on a student needing to self-identify or request adjustments.
This is particularly important because international students also face an awarding gap compared to their home student peers of up to 17% in 2025, as shown in the graph below (Fig 3). Creating clearer, more accessible guidance for technical processes like embroidery software could help tackle one small part of that structural inequality by removing unnecessary barriers to full participation.
Fig 3: Degree awarding by ethnicity
Beyond language and disability, this intervention can benefit students with faith commitments that require them to take time away from taught sessions, or students with caring responsibilities who may not always be able to attend every induction in person. Having flexible, easy-to-follow resources allows these students to work more independently, catch up on missed content, and engage with workshop processes more confidently.
By making inclusive design the standard, not the exception, this resource helps create a workshop culture where every student, regardless of their background, needs, or circumstances, has a fairer chance to succeed.
Feedback
As it is currently summer, there are few students or colleagues available to test the resources or provide feedback. As a result, I have not yet been able to conduct formal feedback. However, once the new term begins and I can access participants, I plan to gather feedback specifically from first-time users of Wilcom. My focus will be on the dyslexic students for whom the guides were primarily designed, while also seeking input from a broader group to gain a general consensus on accessibility and usability.
To encourage open and honest dialogue, I will invite students to share their feedback either verbally or informally via email. To guide the feedback process, I will use simple prompts such as:
- Were the guides clear and easy to follow?
- Did the images and illustrations help support the instructions?
- Is there anything you would change, remove, or add?
Anything I might have overlooked
- Some of the text within the images currently falls below the recommended minimum size of 14 pt. While this text is not intended to be read in detail — it serves mainly as a visual reference within the image — it would still be helpful to increase the overall image size to ensure better legibility. The main reason the images are smaller is to fit everything onto a single sheet, but from an accessibility perspective, this is an oversight that should be addressed.
- I am also aware that translating this embedded text may not be feasible in its current format. It may be worth exploring whether a plug-in or tool for Moodle or Padlet could support translation for students who need it. Some basic training for staff on how to better accommodate international students’ language needs could also be beneficial, alongside promoting digital apps that help with real-time translation.
- Another point to consider is that the instructions are designed specifically for the software setup in our workshop, where the necessary templates are pre-installed. In other workshops or computer labs, these templates may not be available, which could create confusion for students following the guidelines elsewhere. It may be worth clarifying this in the guidance or ensuring templates are made more widely accessible.
- The online versions of the guidelines will be housed on Moodle and Padlet, which are the main platforms our workshop uses to share information. However, we are aware from student feedback that these platforms can be challenging to navigate, particularly Moodle. To improve access, we could look at emailing the resources directly to students at the point of booking, so they have a clear, direct link without having to search multiple platforms.
Evaluation
While this intervention was shaped by my own lived experience of dyslexia, I recognise that no single solution can meet the needs of all learners. Dyslexia, and neurodivergence more broadly, encompasses a wide range of experiences, challanges and what supports one student may not work for another. In addition, factors such as language background, cultural context, prior learning experiences, and confidence with technology all intersect to shape how students engage with resources.
That said, this project marks a step toward building a more inclusive workshop environment and one where accessible design is embedded from the outset rather than added in response to individual requests.
Figures:
Fig.1: Higher Education Statistics Agency (2025). Higher Education Student Statistics: UK, 2023/24. [online] HESA. Available at: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/20-03-2025/sb271-higher-education-student-statistics [Accessed 28 Jul. 2025].
Fig. 2: UAL (2022/23). Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Annual report 2022.23. [Online] University of the Arts London. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/432141/SPCB23435-EDI-report-2022-23.pdf [Accessed: 15 Jul. 2025].
Fig. 3: UAL (2022/23). Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Annual report 2022.23. [Online] University of the Arts London. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/432141/SPCB23435-EDI-report-2022-23.pdf [Accessed: 15 Jul. 2025].
References:
Bacon, A.M. and Bennett, S. (2012). Dyslexia in Higher Education: the decision to study art. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(1), pp.19–32. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2012.742748.
Dineen, R. and Collins, E. (2005). Killing the Goose: Conflicts between Pedagogy and Politics in the Delivery of a Creative Education. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 24(1), pp.43–52. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2005.00422.x.
Grant, D. (2017). That’s the Way I Think. Routledge. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315647005.
Mortimore, T. and Crozier, W.R. (2006). Dyslexia and difficulties with study skills in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp.235–251. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572173.