**3.3 Participant recruitment**

We found the respondents with the help of associations that connect PWD and organized meetings with them. Both paper-based and online surveys were applied. Although the survey was anonymous, anyone wishing to participate in the live survey signed a consent form to participate in the survey. If the participant was aged 18 or lower, the consent was signed by the parents or guardians. All participants in the survey process had the opportunity to withdraw from the survey process at any time or terminate their cooperation.

### **Figure 9.**

*Handout for a student with Asperger's syndrome.*

The study was designed and implemented in line with the Declaration of Helsinki by the World Medical Association [57] and the Ethical Principles released by the American Psychological Association [58].

### **3.4 Measuring instrument**

We prepared a questionnaire for each of the three experimental groups of SWD, as the adapted handouts of e-learning material differ from each other. The exception was a group of blind people, as they cannot see the handouts of the e-learning material. For this group, we removed the handouts from the survey questionnaire and left only questions that did not contain pictorial material. Because of the removal of handouts, we adjusted the survey a bit so that, despite the different forms of the questionnaire, we obtained enough information about their opinion on e-learning materials. The design of the survey was adjusted to the needs and requirements of B&VI [51].

The questionnaire contained two sets, namely the capture of demographic data and the evaluation of e-learning materials. The survey questionnaire consisted of explaining its intentions, one open-ended question, and six to nine closed-ended questions (depending on the type of questionnaire). We used closed questions with answer choices between the given answers and open-ended questions (age – a year of birth). For some close-ended questions, we used the Likert scale to answer questions, which is one of the most used instruments for measuring variables, such as motivation and self-efficacy [59].

The second part of the questionnaire was intended to evaluate e-learning materials, which was conducted so that the respondents (blind people were excluded here) evaluated the two handouts of e-learning materials presented in the previous subchapter. We had a problem in determining evaluation questions on elimination, as most of the evaluation questionnaires (user interface satisfaction questionnaire – QUIS, perceived usability and ease of use – PUEU, attributes of Nielsen usability – NAU, Questionnaire on computer system usability – CSUQ, Practical Heuristics usability – PHUE, and similar according to Edutechwiki [60]) are composed of assessing the actual performance of either a website, program, mobile application, or PowerPoint presentation. We used only the PowerPoint presentation handout for evaluation. As a result, we had to use questions that related only to our handouts and were not standard (the information on the handout is understandable, the handout is transparent, etc.).

To evaluate the given handouts, we identified nine five-point Likert type [61, 62] statements, based on which the respondents expressed their chosen level of agreement, namely:


### **3.5 Procedure**

The survey was conducted so that the respondents first assessed the handout that was not adapted to their disability. Then, in the same way, they assessed the handout of the adapted e-learning material. The questions, claims, and grading scales were identical on both handouts, which allowed us to compare respondents' agreement with the claims on the two given handouts. This answered the research question: Does the form of the e-learning template affect the acceptance of the given content of e-learning materials and the understanding of this content among people with special needs?

To verify with certainty whether the form of the e-learning template influences the acceptance of the given content of e-learning materials and the understanding of this content among people with special needs, we prepared an additional closedended question on the previous two questions. We wanted to get the opinion from the respondents on the importance of certain elements in the e-learning material. For each experimental group of SWD, we used statements with different elements in the e-learning material, which the respondents then rated with the Likert agreement scale.

B&VI respondents were asked about the importance of the contrast between the text and the background, the enlarged text, the use of images and graphs, and the captions to images describing the image in the e-material. We asked blind respondents about the importance of the audio recording in the e-learning material, the caption to the pictures with the audio description of the pictures, and the recording of the whole text as it would be read by the lecturer and not just keywords. Respondents with ASD were asked about the importance of using images and graphs, additional information, navigation, and a dictionary in the e-learning material. D/HH participants were asked about the importance of writing the entire text, images and graphs, sign language interpreters, video, and captions/subtitles in e-learning material.

### **3.6 Results**

The D/HH survey results showed that, on average, respondents expressed neutral agreement with the unadjusted disability handout (3.0). In contrast, the adapted handout showed a higher acceptance rate, by as much as one level (1,1) to 4.1, which according to the five-point rating scale means that, on average, respondents from the group agree with the adapted template. An even significant difference was found in the handout boredom analysis, where the rate of agreement with the statement decreased from 3.7 to 2.0, representing a difference of 1.7 degrees. In this way, we substantiated that the adapted template for the D/HH group is much more interesting, which can affect the concentration and interest in the presented content (**Figure 10**).

When analyzing the importance of the participation of elements in e-learning materials, we also substantiated that all the proposed elements in e-learning materials are desirable, as at least 68% of respondents agreed with the presence of the given elements (use of whole sentences and captions/subtitles when using video), followed by using a video with an interpreter (84%) and the graphic elements (92%).

The next studied group were B&VI respondents. Because of the different abilities to perceive content (the difference between poor eyesight and blindness), we prepared two different questionnaires for this group. We did not include visual aids *Improving Accessibility of e-Learning Templates for Students with Disabilities DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101931*

**Figure 10.** *Summary data of adapted handout assessment.*

for the blind. The results for the visually impaired are described first, followed by the results for the blind.

In the visually impaired group of respondents, the results showed that the studied group agreed with the statements related to the unadjusted handicap of disability on average with a value of 3.3, which expresses neutrality. Compared to the neutral, the agreement with the adjusted handout increased on average by only 0.6 points to 3.9. We proved that the adapted proposal seems better to the mentioned group, but we did not achieve a significant difference.

The same applies to the claim related to the monotonous nature of the proposal, where the rate fell from 3.4 to 2.6, which also showed that although the adjusted yield was less tedious, it did not prove to be to a lesser extent reduce the boredom of the handout.

A minor degree of improvement can also be attributed to the results of claims related to the presence of elements in the e-learning material, where it was shown that for certain respondents some elements in the e-learning material were even undesirable. This was significantly evident in connection with the added visual materials, where 13% of respondents found it irrelevant to include graphic elements in the e-learning material, which can consequently be attributed to differences in the level of visual impairment, as it also depends on the ability to perceive such content. Despite the above, most respondents agreed with the given elements, namely 63% using images and graphs, 69% attributing information to them, and 86% with high contrast between text and background and increased text in e-learning material.

In the questionnaire, blind respondents assessed only the importance of the elements in the e-learning material. The results showed that the most important thing for this group is that the e-learning material contains a textual description and the pictorial material (76%), followed by the fact that the e-learning material contains the entire text and not just keywords (63%). However, a more significant difference is observed in the participation of the audio recording, where it turns out that 28% consider this option necessary. This result can be attributed to data on the use of screen readers, where the use of it was confirmed by 88% of blind people. As a result, we can conclude that they do not need audio content in e-learning materials, as they have already overcome this barrier by using a screen reader.

The last of the groups studied were respondents with ASD. Of all the groups studied, this group showed the most significant difference between the assessment of unadjusted and adjusted disability benefits. Respondents rated the unadjusted handout with an average level of 2.7, while they rated the adjusted handout with a grade of 4.2, representing a difference higher than 1.5 grade. This can also be attributed to the importance of visual elements in the materials for the mentioned group.

A similarly high difference was also shown in the analysis of the statement "Handout is boring," where the rate between handouts decreased from 4.2 by 2.5 to 1.7. It can be concluded that for respondents with ASD the adjusted handout proved to be much more appropriate than neutral.

ASD respondents also confirmed with a high degree the presence of the proposed building blocks in the e-learning material, namely two of the options (the use of graphic elements and the presence of definitions and a dictionary of words used) were 100% selected as an essential element. The possibility of asking for additional information seemed vital to 91% of respondents. The discrepancy was shown only in the case of the presence of navigation in the e-material, where this element was chosen as necessary by only 58% of respondents. We can conclude that of all the proposed elements, this one seems to be the least important.

## **3.7 Discussion and guidelines**

In our study, we found that SWD face several problems when using e-learning materials, although they provide access to information and more opportunities to interact. There are quite some accessibility-related barriers in printed educational materials, which can be overcome by using e-learning materials. It is essential that e-learning materials can be understood by everyone, so they can navigate, interact, and co-create.

We expected the results of our study would show that the form of the e-learning template affects the acceptance of the given e-learning material content also on understanding the content among selected groups of SWD. The results of the analysis of the experimental groups showed that the form of the proposal in the case of all groups affects the acceptance of e-learning materials, where the biggest difference was shown in the case of ASD and the smallest in the case of B&VI.

Regarding the D/HH group, we expected that the template, which contains a written form of providing information or video interpretation with sign language, would affect the acceptance and understanding of the content. Our expectations were justified, as D/HH respondents confirmed that the form of the e-learning materials template influenced their acceptance of the given content of the e-learning materials and their understanding of the content. The information on the adapted handout was more understandable, sensibly organized, and distributed to D/HH than the non-adapted handicap. Also, the adapted handout was more transparent, interesting, and provided them with more information. In the survey questionnaire, D/HH respondents also confirmed that the video with sign language interpretation and the sharing of captions/subtitles are vital in the e-learning materials. Also important is the inclusion of graphic elements and entire sentences as if read by the lecturer and not just the keywords.

In the group of B&VI, we checked whether the written form of providing information or verbal-auditory transformation of visual communication of e-learning materials affects the acceptance of the given content and its understanding. The survey results confirmed the research question, as the B&VI confirmed that the form of e-learning

### *Improving Accessibility of e-Learning Templates for Students with Disabilities DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101931*

templates influenced the acceptance of the given content and the understanding. Although the difference between the two handouts in this group was the most minor (0.6 degrees), (VI) respondents rated the adapted handout of e-learning material with a higher grade than the unadjusted handout of disability. The adapted handout was, in their view, more transparent, attractive, and provided them with more information. The information on the adapted handout was more understandable to them, sensibly organized, and arranged. With its help, we would also learn new things faster. In the survey questionnaire, 86% of VI confirmed the importance of text size and high contrast between text and background, 63% confirmed the importance of including graphic elements and 69% of their descriptions in e-learning material. The results indicate that the inclusion of graphic elements is not so important for the studied group. However, if they are present, it is vital that they contain an additional description.

Like the previous groups, in the group of ASD, we expected that the form of a template with a written form of providing information or visual communication with the help of multimedia media would affect the acceptance of the given content of e-learning materials and their understanding. Here, too, our expectations were justified, as the respondents with ASD confirmed that the form of the e-learning template influenced their acceptance of the given content of e-learning materials, as well as their understanding of this content. According to respondents with ASD, the adjusted handout was 1.5 degrees better than the unadjusted one in terms of transparency, interest, provision of information, number of interfering elements, meaningful layout, speed of memory, and comprehensibility and organization of information. Absolutely all respondents with ASD confirmed that the presence of definitions, vocabulary, and graphic elements in the e-learning material is essential. A total of 91% of respondents thought that they could ask for additional information at any time in the learning process, which indicates a tendency to use an avatar in e-learning material. However, just over half of them believe that navigation should be included in e-learning material.

### **4. Conclusion**

When conducting the study, we found no standardized e-learning templates for SWD, except a few e-learning templates and quite a few recommendations [9, 30, 51]. However, it is very important to adhere to the provisions of the ETSI standard when creating e-learning materials and to consider that a multidisciplinary approach is then needed in designing, developing, and providing learning environments, learning materials and in the use of tools and devices if the aim is to consider all specific requirements in SWD e-learning [5].

The legislation also does not define how e-learning materials for SWD should be conceptualized and designed. We have found in the legislation only directives for the accessibility of PWD to the Internet. On 3 December 2012, on the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, the European Union adopted a Directive on the accessibility of websites of public sector bodies that provide essential information and services to citizens. The Directive stipulates that the Member States must take the necessary measures to ensure that public sector websites for PWD are accessible. In creating the accessibility of e-learning materials for SWD, we should also follow the recommendations and guidelines for the accessibility of websites, as both fall under ICT (recommendations such as text size, use of colors, etc., are the same for both online and e-learning materials).

The findings and recommendations presented in this study can help a variety of people who are actively involved in the implementation of the education process, particularly those who encounter PWD. In addition, the findings can also be a vital resource for e-learning content creators, as the technology has great potential for bringing information and knowledge closer to PWD. Because of this potential, it is essential that, in the future, the technology is even more adapted to SWD and facilitates or even overcomes barriers to access e-learning materials, e-learning and other electronic environments. A vivid example was given by Lynch [63] who foresees that in the future, professors may transform learning into an interactive experience using personal artificial intelligence tutors, helping SWD access lectures at their own pace with personalized artificial intelligence help.

In conducting the research, we found that the elements used in the case of electronic materials do not differ from the elements on the website, as the way of accessing information is the same, for example, computer. For this reason, the results of our analysis can also serve as recommendations for designers of websites aimed at SWD.

We suggest replicating the study for other SWD, for example, students with intellectual disabilities, speech and language disorders, mobility impairments, etc. Our study can be upgraded, and e-learning material, not only selected handouts, can be produced (with authentic video material of sign language interpreters, audio material of written text…). Based on these findings, an experiment could be performed, where, in addition to the acceptance of e-learning material, a difference in the effectiveness of e-learning material based on acquired new knowledge could be observed.
