Accessible and Inclusive Credentials: the Basics
Small design choices that decide who can earn, read and use a credential.
This course is for four groups of people who shape or run credentials:
- Learning designers and teaching staff.
- L&D and corporate academy leads.
- Education IT and credential operations staff.
- Professional bodies and sector associations.
You do not need any prior knowledge. The course follows the ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF), skill INCL "Inclusion and accessibility" (VRITE pillar: Experience), level L1 "Contribute", stage K "Knowledge". At this level you explain accessibility and inclusion basics for credentials and spot common barriers.
Learning outcomes. When you finish, you can:
- Identify common barriers in badge images, credential pages, claim flows and assessment.
- Apply basic accessibility rules: text alternatives, contrast, plain language, keyboard access.
- Explain how recognition of non-formal learning can widen or narrow access.
- Name the accessibility requirements that apply to digital services in the EU.
Workload. The self-paced part takes about 1.5 hours. Facilitator notes in each module describe optional live or workshop elements.
Assessment. You complete a knowledge check of 10 questions and a checklist review of one sample credential.
Badge. "Accessible and Inclusive Credentials: the Basics (Knowledge, L1)", alignment code ICSF-INCL-L1-K. The badge evidence is a passed knowledge check and a completed checklist. The badge records that you showed knowledge of the topic. It does not prove that you are competent in a job role.
| Outcome | Module | How it is assessed |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Identify common barriers in badge images, credential pages, claim flows and assessment | Who gets left out and why | Module quiz, knowledge check, checklist review |
| 1. Identify common barriers (claim flows) | Inclusive claim and share flows | Module quiz, knowledge check, checklist review |
| 2. Apply basic accessibility rules: text alternatives, contrast, plain language, keyboard access | Accessible badge images and pages | Module quiz, knowledge check, checklist review |
| 2. Apply basic accessibility rules (plain language) | Plain language in criteria | Module quiz, knowledge check, checklist review |
| 3. Explain how recognition of non-formal learning can widen or narrow access | Who gets left out and why | Module quiz, knowledge check |
| 4. Name the accessibility requirements that apply to digital services in the EU | Rules and standards | Module quiz, knowledge check |
Welcome to this course on accessible and inclusive credentials. Take your time with each module, and try the practice activities.
Who gets left out and why
What a barrier is
A barrier is anything in a credential journey that makes it harder, or impossible, for some people to take part. The journey has four main places where barriers appear:
- The badge image: the picture people see and share.
- The credential page: where the criteria, evidence and issuer details are shown.
- The claim flow: the steps an earner follows to accept and share the credential.
- The assessment: how learning is checked.
Barriers affect many people. Some have a permanent disability, such as blindness or limited use of the hands. Some have a temporary condition, such as a broken arm. Some face a situational limit, such as a bright screen outdoors or a noisy room. Others read in a second language, use an older phone or have a slow connection. A design that works for these people usually works better for everyone.
The graphic below shows an earner journey with barrier markers. Each marker is numbered and labelled, so you do not need colour to read it.
Barriers in assessment and recognition of non-formal learning
Assessment can exclude people before they ever reach the badge. Common examples are:
- A strict time limit with no option for extra time.
- Only one format, such as a written essay, where a spoken answer would show the same knowledge.
- Evidence that must be uploaded as a large video file by someone with a poor connection.
- Test questions that depend on idioms or cultural references unrelated to the skill.
Recognition of non-formal learning is learning gained outside a formal course, for example at work, through volunteering or through self-study. Recognition can widen access. A person with a long work history but no formal qualification can show what they know and receive a credential for it.
Recognition can also narrow access. This happens when:
- The evidence required is costly, such as paid portfolio reviews.
- The process is hard to find or explain.
- Only certain kinds of evidence count, such as letters from large employers, which people in small or informal workplaces cannot get.
- The language of the process assumes insider knowledge.
The aim is to design recognition so that the route is visible, fair and possible for people with different backgrounds and abilities.
Worked example: The corporate academy and the long-serving technician
Context: a corporate academy or HR department. The numbers are illustrative.
A corporate academy offers a credential for "Equipment maintenance". The only route is a two-day course in a city office. Rahul, a technician with 18 years of experience, works at a remote site and cares for his mother. He cannot attend. The academy's L&D lead, Ana, reviews who earns the credential and sees that only 5 of 120 holders come from remote sites (illustrative). She adds a second route: Rahul submits a workplace log and a short recorded demonstration, assessed against the same criteria as the course. Ana publishes the criteria and both routes on one page. The standard stays the same. Only the way of showing it widens.
Practice activity: Find the barrier
Think of a credential you know, for example a course certificate from your own organisation. Write down one possible barrier at each of the four places: image, credential page, claim flow and assessment. For each barrier, note one group of people who could be affected. Then note whether your organisation offers a route for non-formal learning, and one thing that might narrow access to it.
An image-only button gives no text for screen readers and can fail when images are blocked. A text link or a button with a text label solves this. The other options are not barriers by themselves.
A rigid time limit and a single format can exclude people for reasons unrelated to the skill being assessed. Offering extra time or another format keeps the standard while widening access.
Recognition widens access when routes are visible, affordable and flexible. It narrows access when evidence is costly, hard to find or limited to kinds that only some groups can provide.
Accessibility helps people with permanent, temporary and situational limits, and also people reading in a second language or using older devices.
Facilitator notes
Optional 30-minute workshop. Ask participants to bring one real credential page. In pairs, they walk the earner journey from the graphic and mark barriers. Collect the barriers on a shared board and group them by place: image, page, claim flow, assessment. Discuss one example where recognition of non-formal learning could narrow access. Do not ask participants to disclose personal disabilities. Use hypothetical earners instead.Accessible badge images and pages
Text alternatives for badge images
A badge image is usually a picture. People who cannot see it, or who use a screen reader, need a text version of the information it carries. This is called a text alternative, often written as "alt text".
Good alternative text:
- States what the badge is and what it stands for, in a short sentence.
- Includes the badge title and the issuer when they appear in the image.
- Leaves out phrases such as "image of" because screen readers already announce an image.
- Does not repeat long criteria. Those belong in the page text.
Example: "Badge: Accessible and Inclusive Credentials: the Basics, issued by ICoBC."
If the badge is purely decorative on a page that already names it in text, the image can carry empty alternative text so that screen readers skip it. The credential page must still give the full information in real text.
AI-generated alternative text needs checking
Tools that use AI can suggest alternative text for images. This saves time, but the suggestions can be wrong. An AI tool may:
- Describe the shapes and colours but miss the badge title or the issuer.
- Misread small or stylised text in the image.
- Invent details that are not in the image.
- Write a description that is too long or too vague.
A person must read each suggestion and compare it with the badge. Check that it names the badge, names the issuer where shown, is short and is correct. The person who publishes the badge remains responsible for the final text.
Illustration of the check. An AI tool suggests: "A blue circle with an orange arc and some text." A reviewer replaces it with: "Badge: Data Handling Basics, issued by the training centre." The reviewer's text carries the information people need.
Contrast, text and keyboard access
Contrast is the difference in brightness between text and its background. Low contrast makes text hard to read for people with low vision, and for anyone in bright light. WCAG 2.2 sets minimum contrast ratios. For normal text at level AA the minimum is 4.5 to 1. For large text it is 3 to 1. Use a contrast checker to measure your colours.
The graphic below shows the same badge twice, with poor and good design. The labels say what is different, so colour is not the only clue.
Other rules for the credential page:
- Do not rely on colour alone. If a status is shown by a green or red dot, add a text label as well.
- Keyboard access. Everything that works with a mouse must also work with the keyboard alone. People who cannot use a mouse, and screen reader users, rely on the Tab and Enter keys. Check that every link and button can be reached, that the focus is visible and that the order of focus makes sense.
- Headings and structure. Use real headings in order, so screen reader users can move through the page.
- Resizing. Text should stay readable when the user zooms in.
Worked example: The college and the grey badge
Context: a college or training provider. Figures are illustrative.
A college issues a badge for "Workshop safety". Its designer, Mei, chose a pale grey title on white because it looked calm. A learner, Tomas, who has low vision, cannot read the title on his phone outside. The badge image also has the alternative text "image". Mei checks the colours with a contrast checker and sees a ratio far below 4.5 to 1. She changes the title to navy and rewrites the alternative text to "Badge: Workshop Safety, issued by the college." A colleague, Priya, tries the credential page with the Tab key only and finds that the share button cannot be reached. The web team fixes this. Three small changes remove three barriers.
Practice activity: Four-point check
Open any credential page you can access. Check four points and note the result for each:
- Does the badge image have a useful text alternative? (Use your browser's tools, or ask a colleague.)
- Is the text clearly readable against its background? (Try a contrast checker.)
- Can you reach every link and button with the Tab key and see where you are?
- Is any meaning shown by colour alone?
Write one improvement for each point that fails.
Good alternative text is short, names the badge and the issuer, and leaves long criteria to the page text. "Image" says nothing. Describing shapes adds little. The long sentence belongs in the page body.
AI suggestions can miss text in the image, invent details or be vague. A person must check and correct them. Removing alternative text creates a barrier.
Level AA asks for at least 4.5 to 1 for normal text and 3 to 1 for large text.
Keyboard access means all functions work without a mouse, in a sensible order, with a visible indication of focus. The page may still work with a mouse as well.
Facilitator notes
Optional 30-minute demonstration. Show a credential page with the mouse unplugged, or ask participants to put their mouse aside. Let them try Tab and Enter. If a screen reader is available, play the badge alternative text aloud. Show an AI-generated suggestion for a sample badge and ask the group to correct it. Keep the focus on the checking habit, not on any tool.Plain language in criteria
Why plain language matters
Criteria tell people what they must do or show to earn a credential. If the words are hard, some people stay away or fail for the wrong reason. Plain language helps people with a learning disability, people reading in a second language, people with little time and people new to the subject. It also helps assessors apply criteria in the same way.
Plain language does not mean lowering the standard. The standard says what the earner must show. Plain language makes that clear.
Rules for plain criteria
Use these basic rules:
- Short sentences. Aim for one idea per sentence.
- Common words. Use "use" instead of "utilise", and "show" instead of "demonstrate" where the meaning is the same.
- Active voice. Say "The learner submits a plan" instead of "A plan is to be submitted."
- Explain terms. If a technical term is needed, explain it the first time.
- Start with the action. Use clear verbs such as "write", "explain", "choose" and "compare".
- Say what counts as evidence. Tell earners what they can submit, and how it is judged.
- Use lists and headings. Break up long blocks of text.
- Avoid idioms. Phrases such as "hit the ground running" confuse readers in a second language.
The graphic below shows a criterion before and after a plain language edit. Both are labelled, so the meaning does not depend on colour.
Plain language on the credential page
Plain language applies to the whole page, not only the criteria. Check these places:
- The badge title: choose a name that says what it covers.
- The description: one or two short sentences.
- Instructions for claiming and sharing.
- Error messages: say what went wrong and what to do next.
- The name of the issuer and a contact point for help.
A short summary at the top of the page, followed by detail, lets readers choose how much to read. If your audience speaks several languages, offering translations of key text widens access. Check translations with a speaker of that language, because errors can change the meaning of criteria.
Worked example: Rewriting a criterion in HR
Context: a corporate academy or HR department. Figures are illustrative.
An HR department offers a credential for "Onboarding buddy". The original criterion reads: "The participant shall evidence proficiency in facilitating the integration of newly onboarded personnel through the utilisation of structured mentoring protocols." Several staff for whom English is a second language say they are unsure if they qualify. HR specialist Kofi rewrites it: "You help a new colleague settle in. You use a simple mentoring plan. You can submit your plan and a short note from the new colleague." The standard has not changed. Applications from non-native speakers rise, from 2 to 9 in a quarter (illustrative figures).
Practice activity: Rewrite one criterion
Take this criterion: "The learner will be required to articulate a comprehensive understanding of data protection principles whereby compliance obligations are operationalised." Rewrite it in plain language in two or three short sentences, and add one line saying what evidence counts. Check that your version keeps the same standard.
Plain language keeps the same standard and makes it understandable. Technical terms can stay if they are explained.
Short sentences with active verbs and common words are clearest. The other options use passive or formal wording.
Clear evidence descriptions reduce guesswork for earners and improve consistency for assessors.
Facilitator notes
Optional 30-minute workshop. Give each group one real criterion from their organisation, anonymised if needed. Groups rewrite it, then swap with another group, who check that the standard is unchanged. Discuss where the line lies between simplifying wording and lowering the standard. A speaker of another language can review a short translation if available.Inclusive claim and share flows
What the claim flow is
The claim flow is the set of steps between "you have earned this" and "you can show it". It often includes an email, a link, an account or wallet step, acceptance and sharing. Each step is a place where someone can be stopped.
Common barriers in claim flows are:
- Image-only buttons or links with no text.
- Time-limited links that expire before a person has finished.
- Forced account creation with a complex form or a CAPTCHA that blocks some users.
- Forms with unclear labels, errors shown only by colour, or fields that cannot be reached with a keyboard.
- Unclear steps, with no progress shown and no help.
- Single device assumptions, for example a flow that works only on a large screen or only with a mouse.
- Language that is full of jargon.
Making the flow inclusive
Apply the same basic rules as for pages:
- Give every button and link a clear text label.
- Make the whole flow usable with the keyboard alone.
- Label every form field in text, and show errors in words next to the field, not by colour alone.
- Give enough time, or offer a way to ask for a new link.
- Offer a route to get help, such as a named contact or a support address.
- Keep steps few and show the user where they are.
- Test on a phone and with a screen magnifier.
- Avoid puzzles such as image-based CAPTCHAs. If a check is required, offer an alternative.
Sharing is part of the flow. Earners may want to post a badge on a social network, add it to a CV or send it to an employer. Check that the share options work for people who do not use social media. A plain link or a downloadable file gives choice. Think about privacy as well: let earners decide what to share and with whom, and explain what is visible publicly.
The graphic below shows a claim flow with inclusive choices at each step. Labels are in text.
Worked example: The expiring link at a training provider
Context: a university, college or training provider. Figures are illustrative.
A training provider emails claim links that expire after 48 hours. Credential operations officer Lena notices that many learners from a night-shift programme claim late and lose access (illustrative: 14 out of 60 in one cohort). One learner, Samir, uses a screen reader and takes longer to complete the sign-in form because two fields have no labels. Lena and the web developer make three changes: links stay valid for 30 days and can be renewed by a single request, form fields get text labels, and errors are written in words beside each field. The claim rate in the next cohort rises. The standard of the credential has not changed.
Practice activity: Walk the flow
Choose a claim flow you can try, or sketch one from memory. List each step. For each step write one thing that could stop someone, and one change that would help. Include one point about sharing: what can the earner choose, and what is public by default?
Text labels and written errors help screen reader users and anyone who cannot rely on colour or icons. The other options create barriers.
A longer validity and an easy renewal route remove the time barrier without changing the standard. Hourly reminders add pressure. Removing the claim step removes consent and control.
Control over sharing supports privacy and trust, and helps people who do not want or cannot use certain platforms.
Facilitator notes
Optional 30-minute workshop. Provide a mock claim email and a mock sign-in screen on paper or slides. Groups mark each barrier with a numbered sticky note and propose a fix. Discuss privacy: who can see an earned credential by default, and who decides. Agree one small change each participant will propose in their own organisation.Rules and standards
The European Accessibility Act
The European Accessibility Act (EAA) sets accessibility requirements for a range of products and services in the European Union. It applies since 28 June 2025. Digital services that fall within its scope must meet its accessibility requirements. Whether a particular credential platform or service is covered depends on what it does and who provides it. Check the legal text and your national rules, and take legal advice if you are unsure.
Status as of November 2026; check before publishing.
WCAG 2.2
The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 are the current recommendation from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). They set out testable criteria for making web content accessible. WCAG is built on four principles, often remembered as POUR:
- Perceivable: people can perceive the content, for example through text alternatives and sufficient contrast.
- Operable: people can use the interface, for example with a keyboard.
- Understandable: the content and the interface are clear and predictable.
- Robust: the content works with different browsers and assistive technologies.
WCAG has three conformance levels: A, AA and AAA. Many legal and policy texts refer to level AA. The rules you met in this course, such as text alternatives, contrast, keyboard access and clear labels, map to WCAG criteria.
Status as of November 2026; check before publishing.
EN 301 549
EN 301 549 is a European standard on accessibility requirements for information and communication technology (ICT) products and services. It sets out requirements and test methods. For web content, it points to WCAG. Public bodies and suppliers in Europe often use it as a technical reference when buying or building digital services.
The graphic below shows how the three fit together, as a simple layered picture. Labels are in text.
What this means for credential work
Rules matter for several roles:
- Credential operations and education IT check that platforms, claim flows and pages meet accessibility requirements, and ask suppliers for evidence such as an accessibility statement or test report.
- Learning designers and teaching staff write criteria and assessments that are fair and clear, and prepare accessible badge images and text.
- L&D and corporate academy leads include accessibility in procurement and in design briefs.
- Professional bodies and associations set expectations for their members and the credentials they recognise.
This course gives you the basics. Legal duties depend on your organisation, your country and the service you offer. Ask your legal or compliance team about your own obligations. Meeting WCAG 2.2 criteria is a good practice step, but this course does not tell you whether your service complies with the law.
Worked example: Buying a credential platform
Context: a university, college or training provider. The details are illustrative.
A college plans to buy a new platform for issuing badges. Education IT manager Ines writes a short requirements list. It asks suppliers to state which version of WCAG the platform is tested against, to provide an accessibility statement, to describe how the claim flow works with a keyboard, and to say how alternative text for badge images is entered and checked. A supplier answers that its tool suggests alternative text using AI. Ines adds a requirement: a human must review and edit any suggested text before it is published. She sends the list to the legal team to check what the college must meet under national rules.
Practice activity: Draft three supplier questions
Imagine you are buying a digital credential service for your organisation. Write three questions to ask a supplier about accessibility. Use ideas from this module, such as WCAG 2.2, EN 301 549, an accessibility statement, keyboard access in the claim flow and human checks of AI-generated text. Then name one person in your organisation to ask about your legal duties.
The European Accessibility Act applies since 28 June 2025. Always check the legal text and national rules for your own situation.
WCAG 2.2 is a W3C recommendation, not an EU law. It sets testable criteria for web content and is often referenced by legal and policy texts.
EN 301 549 is a European standard that sets accessibility requirements and test methods for ICT products and services, and points to WCAG for web content.
AI suggestions can be wrong or incomplete. Publishers remain responsible for the final text, so a human check belongs in your requirements.
Facilitator notes
Optional 30-minute session. Invite a compliance or legal colleague, if available, to explain how accessibility duties are handled in your organisation. Ask participants to share their three supplier questions and group them under the four WCAG principles: perceivable, operable, understandable, robust. Remind the group that this course gives knowledge, not legal advice.Assessment and badge
Task
The assessment has two parts.
Part A: Knowledge check. Answer the 10 questions below. Each question has four options and one correct answer. You see an explanation after each question.
Part B: Checklist review. Review one sample credential with the checklist below. You can use a sample credential supplied by your facilitator, or a credential you are allowed to review. Record your answers and one improvement per failed item.
Sample credential checklist
| # | Check | Result (Pass, Fail, Not applicable) | Improvement idea |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The badge image has a short, correct text alternative that names the badge and issuer | ||
| 2 | Text and key shapes have enough contrast with the background (at least 4.5 to 1 for normal text) | ||
| 3 | No meaning is conveyed by colour alone | ||
| 4 | The credential page uses real headings in a logical order | ||
| 5 | Every link and button can be reached and used with the keyboard, with a visible focus | ||
| 6 | The criteria use short sentences, common words and active voice | ||
| 7 | The criteria say what counts as evidence | ||
| 8 | Claim and share steps use text labels, written errors and a help contact | ||
| 9 | Assessment offers a way to request adjustments or another format | ||
| 10 | If AI helped write alternative text, a person has checked it |
Part A: Final knowledge check
Your certificate of completion
You passed the final check with %. Type your name as it should appear on the certificate. Your name stays on this device.
Certificate ID . Keep this ID: you need it to upgrade your certificate.
Need proof that others can check? ICoBC can upgrade your certificate to a signed Open Badges 3.0 credential after an identity check and a competence check, for €110 plus VAT.
Upgrade to a verifiable credentialBringing credentials to your organisation? ICoBC offers vendor-neutral consultancy.
Coverage of the learning outcomes
| Outcome | Where it is assessed |
|---|---|
| 1. Identify common barriers | Knowledge check questions 1, 2 and 3; checklist items 1 to 9 |
| 2. Apply basic accessibility rules | Knowledge check questions 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9; checklist items 1 to 8 and 10 |
| 3. Explain how recognition of non-formal learning can widen or narrow access | Knowledge check question 8; checklist item 9 |
| 4. Name the accessibility requirements that apply to digital services in the EU | Knowledge check question 10 |
Rubric
| Criterion | Not yet | Meets the standard |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge check | Fewer than 8 of 10 correct | At least 8 of 10 correct |
| Checklist completion | Fewer than 10 items answered, or failed items without an improvement idea | All 10 items answered, and each failed item has one improvement idea |
| Barrier identification | Barriers are named without saying who is affected | Barriers are named and the affected group is noted |
| Use of rules | Rules are named without linking them to the sample credential | Rules (text alternatives, contrast, plain language, keyboard access) are linked to what you observed |
Pass rule
You pass when you meet the standard on all four criteria: at least 8 of 10 questions correct, and a fully completed checklist with improvement ideas that name who is affected and link to the rules. You can retake the knowledge check. Revisit the module that matches any question you missed.
Evidence submitted for the badge
Submit these two items:
- Your result from the passed knowledge check.
- Your completed checklist for one sample credential.
Passing leads to the badge "Accessible and Inclusive Credentials: the Basics (Knowledge, L1)", alignment code ICSF-INCL-L1-K. The badge records that you showed knowledge of accessibility and inclusion basics for credentials. It does not prove competency in a job role.
Facilitator notes
Optional 30-minute debrief. Share anonymised checklist results across the group. Ask which barriers appeared most often and which fixes seem cheapest. Agree one small improvement to a real credential in your organisation, with an owner and a date. Remind participants that the badge records knowledge, and that legal compliance needs specialist advice.Sources and further reading
Status as of November 2026; check before publishing.
- Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the accessibility requirements for products and services (European Accessibility Act). Published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Search EUR-Lex for the directive number.
- World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. Available on the W3C website under the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI).
- European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) with CEN and CENELEC, EN 301 549, Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services.
- W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), introductory materials on web accessibility, available on the W3C website.
- ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF), skill INCL "Inclusion and accessibility", published by ICoBC, the International Council on Badges and Credentials, Berlin.