Instructors are trying to find ways to identify students using AI to commit academic misconduct on online assignments and exams (e.g., quizzes on Canvas), which has become a significant academic issue. Unfortunately, many instructors have inadvertently turned to approaches that break accessibility, which harms disabled students, violates university policy, and is against federal civil rights laws. Additionally, approaches that interfere with accessibility cannot distinguish between an incorrect answer on a quiz due to someone using AI to commit academic misconduct and someone disabled using assistive technologies.
This page identifies some common ways people may attempt to stop AI use that break accessibility, and explains the problems with them. This page is not a guide on how to prevent AI from being used to commit academic misconduct on exams - the most viable solutions are likely to be pedagogical (i.e., involving changing overall teaching and examination approaches), not technical.
Many of the approaches below stem from the assumption that all students are reading/interacting with content in the same way that the instructor creating that content is (e.g., reading text visually, with the text looking identical to how it shows up to the instructor), and that only an AI system would use or process the content another way. That assumption doesn't account for the ways that many disabled people read and interact with content (explained in more detail in the examples below). The result is that instead of an "AI trap," what's been created is a trap for anyone or anything that interacts with the text in a different way, including disabled people and assistive technologies.
Matching Color ("White-on-White") and/or Tiny Text
The problematic approach: Hide secret text that changes the meaning of content (or includes direct instructions for AI) by making it the same color as the background (e.g., white text on a white background) and/or by making the text extremely small text (e.g., 1pt font).
The problems:
- Screen readers (an assistive technology commonly used by people who are blind, who have low vision, or who have reading-related disabilities or dyslexia) turn text into audio, and screen readers don't announce font size or color changes by default. All text is read out the same way, regardless of formatting. Simply put, changing the color and size of text is a purely visual change, and does not hide the text from anyone using audio (i.e., via a screen reader). For students relying on a screen reader, there is absolutely no distinction between the text you're trying to hide and the text that's supposed to be there.
- Students with low vision, reading-related disabilities, dyslexia, and other disabilities often use custom display settings that change the color, font, and size of text to make it easier for them to read. These settings override the color and size that you set for text, making all of the text (whether you're intending to hide it or not) look the same.
Images of Text
The problematic approach: Replace real text with images of text.
The problems:
- Students with low vision, light sensitivity, vision-related disabilities, reading-related disabilities, dyslexia, and other disabilities may need to change the color, font, and/or size of text to read it (as explained in the prior section). Those customizations only work for real text, not images of text. Blocking disabled students from customizing the display of text can make it more difficult, or even impossible, for them to read it.
- Students who are dyslexic or who have reading-related disabilities may use a screen reader that visually highlights text as it is read out. This does not work with images of text.
- Students who are blind and using a screen reader need text to be fully navigable and controllable with their screen reader, and images of text can directly interfere with that.
- Images of text are a violation of accessibility requirements, and the very limited exceptions to that rule do not apply in this case.
Fake Alternative Text
The problematic approach: Provide false information in alternative text on images. When used in conjunction with images of text, the visual text and alternative text provide different information (e.g., words are added or removed in the alternative text version).
The problems:
- Students who rely on a screen reader will only get the alternative text, and will have no way to know that it is incorrect. They are relying on you to provide accurate alternative text (as required by accessibility standards).
- While there is an exception in alternative text rules if "non-text content is a test or exercise that would be invalid if presented in text," that exception is intended for sensory experiences, like tests of hearing or visual skill development, not simply any content that happens to be on a test. Regardless, that exception still requires that "text alternatives at least provide descriptive identification of the non-text content." False or intentionally misleading alternative text does not qualify as descriptive identification - even in instances where the exception applies, fake alternative text would be a violation of accessibility standards.
Fake Instructions
The problematic approach: Include fake instructions or details that students are expected to immediately recognize aren't serious or real, so that students will ignore them and AI will follow them.
The problems:
- Many neurodivergent students may take instructions and text extremely literally, and may not recognize sarcasm, jokes, or implications, no matter how obvious you may think you are being. If you give explicit instructions, they will be followed by some students, regardless of your underlying intent.
Relying on Accommodation Requests or Identification of Disabled Students
The problematic approach: Use any of the approaches above, but allow disabled students to identify themself or request accommodations to get a different version of the materials that doesn't have broken accessibility.
The problems:
- An explicit goal of the federal web accessibility rules is that students should not need to ask for accommodations for anything that is covered by the web accessibility standards. Intentionally breaking accessibility and requiring disabled students to opt in to a different version of materials goes directly against this.
- Disabled students may need to change their use of assistive technologies without warning. For example, a student may only need to use a screen reader when they're having a disability flare-up, which can occur suddenly (even in the middle of a short quiz).
- Requiring students to out themselves presents a barrier and opens up the potential for additional discrimination and differential treatment, and many disabled students will choose not to identify themselves for a variety of reasons.