"I Can't Keep Up": Accessibility Barriers in Video-Based Learning for Individuals with Borderline Intellectual Functioning

TL;DR

The paper tackles accessibility gaps in video-based learning for individuals with Borderline Intellectual Functioning by combining interviews and a video-watching study to identify cognitive barriers and experiential amplifiers. It finds multi-faceted misalignments between BIF cognitive traits (e.g., working memory, concrete thinking) and typical video design (e.g., rapid pacing, implicit cues), exacerbated by systemic exclusion and negative self-efficacy. The authors propose content-level and UI-level design implications—reducing cognitive load, scaffolding, adaptive segmentation, and self-efficacy fostering—to create BIF-inclusive video learning experiences. The work advances cognitive accessibility in mainstream learning environments and suggests AI-assisted, personalized adaptations to bridge gaps across large video libraries. Practically, the findings inform guidelines for content creators and platform designers to support independent learning for BIF and similar cognitive-diversity groups.

Abstract

Video-based learning (VBL) has become a dominant method for learning practical skills, yet accessibility guidelines provide limited guidance for users with cognitive differences. In particular, challenges that individuals with Borderline Intellectual Functioning (BIF) encounter in video-based learning remain largely underexplored, despite VBL's potential to support their learning through features like self-paced viewing and visual demonstration. To address this gap, we conducted a series of studies with BIF individuals and caretakers to comprehensively understand their VBL challenges. Our analysis revealed challenges stemming from misalignment between user cognitive characteristics and video elements (e.g., overwhelmed by pacing and density, difficulty inferring omitted content), and experiential factors intensifying challenges (e.g., low self-efficacy). While participants employed coping strategies such as repetitive viewing to address these challenges, these strategies could not overcome fundamental gaps with video. We further discuss the design implications on both content and UI-level features for BIF and broader groups with cognitive diversities.

Figures (8)

• Figure 1: Overview of how video elements map to cognitive characteristics, coping strategies, and limitations for BIF users in video-based learning. Left: video elements that heighten cognitive demand—content requiring 2D to 3D translation; technical jargon and abstract terminology; high information density (visually dense scenes, long sentences, rapid pacing); single-channel information delivery; attention-intensive video; dialogue-embedded instructions; omitted scenes; and visual symbols used as inferential cues. Middle: cognitive characteristics—spatial perception and verbal comprehension limitations; working-memory constraints (cognitive overload, processing speed, attention difficulties); and inferential-reasoning difficulties among concrete thinkers. Right: coping strategies (seeking external support, repetitive viewing) and resulting limitations (asynchronous help-seeking deadlock; mental and physical fatigue; knowledge barrier between video creators and BIF viewers). Solid connectors denote relationships identified in our data; dotted connectors denote presumed relationships suggested by participants or prior literature.
• Figure 2: Examples of spatial perception and visual inference challenges in the AED instructional video. Top panel shows how camera angle and device rotation create spatial comprehension difficulties. Q6 tests whether participants can identify the power button when the AED is rotated 45 degrees from the video's viewing angle. Bottom panel (Q9) assesses pad placement comprehension, where participants must translate the angled view shown in the video to select the correct placement diagram among four options. These questions revealed significant spatial processing challenges for BIF users.
• Figure 3: Timeline visualization of a 124-second AED instructional video showing parallel tracks for different speakers and content types. The video is segmented into sections (Intro, Steps 1-5, Outro) with tracks showing when the narrator speaks (yellow), AED device provides audio guidance (green), and dialogue occurs between a man (blue) and woman (red). Red boxes highlight periods of rapid turn-taking (inter-speaker gaps < 0.5 s) where BIF participants reported comprehension difficulties. Video stills above the timeline illustrate key moments from the instructional content.
• Figure 4: Examples of single-channel information delivery in instructional videos that create accessibility barriers for BIF users. Left panel shows "Visual-Only Content" where procedural information about pad placement is presented exclusively through visual demonstration without accompanying narration. Right panel contrasts "Audio-Caption" content (blue) where critical instructions are delivered with both narration and visual captions, versus "Audio-Only Content" (red) where the same instructions are delivered solely through narration without visual reinforcement. These examples demonstrate how BIF users struggle when information is presented through a single channel, highlighting their need for multi-modal presentation.
• Figure 5: Examples of instructional content delivery methods in the AED video. Left panel shows "Instructions Conveyed Through Dialogue" where critical safety information is embedded within conversational exchanges between characters during an emergency scenario. Right panel shows "Visual Symbols as Inference Cues" demonstrating how the AED symbol is used in subtitles to distinguish machine-generated voice guidance from human narration, requiring viewers to make inferential connections between visual symbols and audio sources.