Three ways your online proctoring software isn’t meeting accessibility requirements
Find out if Integrity Advocate is right for you
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Get a Free Demo

Three ways your online proctoring software isn’t meeting accessibility requirements

Three ways your online proctoring software isn’t meeting accessibility requirements

The World Health Organization reports that more than one billion people in the world live with some form of disability. Software companies that support users across the globe have an ethical and legal responsibility to ensure that products are designed and optimized for all users. 

Unfortunately, some companies are still guilty of designing products without considering the restrictions they create for the differently-abled. In the technology world of click-minimization, optimized user experiences, and intuitive design this is no longer acceptable. 

A truly equitable approach to accessibility goes beyond color contrast and screen reader compatibility. In the world of higher education, superior accessibility features are often the number one priority when selecting new software.

Here are three lesser-known examples of online proctoring design choices that unfairly restrict differently-abled users: 

  1. Overly complex processes. The legacy proctoring technologies typically require that users schedule their session in advance, download and configure a plugin/extension, perform a signature verification that requires students to use a mouse, trackpad, or stylus to sign at the bottom of the screen... and more. Complex and time-consuming processes like this place an unfair burden on students who require additional assistance.
  1. Restrictive ID requirements. Most online proctoring software requires learners to hold approved photo identification up to their camera in order to access the learning event. This act, while simple for some, can be exceedingly difficult or impossible if a learner has visual or psychomotor impairments.
  1. Invasive room scans. This requirement forces the learner to elevate and rotate their monitor, laptop, or webcam to show the entire room in an attempt to ensure they are alone and without external resources. Experience has shown this process to be not only flawed as a proctoring tool, but also a significant accessibility barrier for users with physical disabilities. 

Our Approach to Accessibility-First Proctoring

Integrity Advocate has shown that these barriers can be eliminated through an intentional, accessibility-first design process. 

With a user-friendly, intuitive interface, no scheduling required and nothing to install, Integrity Advocate takes seconds to launch. Additionally, we’ve built in the ability to progress past an ID check so that it can be completed post-assessment, and we leverage a behaviour-based proctoring technique that doesn’t require intrusive room surveillance.

We are proud to offer a solution that accommodates all users, regardless of ability.

Contact us today to find out how we can help your institution maintain the high standard of accessibility your learners expect — and deserve — from an online proctoring service.