Analysis of Digital Accessibility in E Learning Using the Concepts of Psychological Field and Affordances

Purpose of the study : development of a pedagogically oriented tool for assessing the availability of electronic educational resources based on the analysis of verified criteria WCAG 2.2 using the concepts of psychological field and affordances. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines are formulated in technical language and do not take into account the specifics of the educational context, which makes it difficult to apply them in pedagogical practice. Bridging this gap requires transference WCAG 2.2 requirements into psychological and pedagogical categories. The theoretical foundation for such an adaptation is provided by K. Lewin’s psychological field theory and J. Gibson’s theory of affordances. Their combined application to accessibility analysis opens up possibilities for modelling learner behaviour in a digital educational environment and for developing tools that that allow moving from the statement of violations to their psychological and pedagogical understanding and overcoming. Materials and methods. The study was conducted in May - July 2026 and comprised the following stages: examination of the theoretical framework and selection of methodological instruments; systematization of affordances according to verified criteria of WCAG 2.2; and development of a web-based tool to optimize the verification of the availability of electronic educational resources. Microsoft Excel was used for systematization and data statistical analysis, Google Draw - for visualizing the structure of the psychological field, and Google Forms, Google Sheets and Google Apps Script - for constructing the supporting online tool. The web tool was tested manually across a range of verification scenarios. Results. We propose, for the first time, to consider e learning affordances as elements of the psychological field that either facilitate or impede progress towards an educational goal. All affordances were systematised into three types, each comprising four classes: actual affordances (perceivability, manageability, clarity, reliability); defective affordances (hidden, false, unsuccessful, phantom); and proxy affordances (addition of alternatives, correction of programmatic semantics, revision of educational content, correction of visual layout). 38 affordance groups were identified, describing learner behavior in a digital educational environment both under violation of the requirements of WCAG 2.2 and after their remediation. The structural variants of the psychological field were examined for all affordance types. An online tool was developed to recognize accessibility violations and generate structured reports with remediation recommendations. Conclusion. A methodological approach to analyzing digital accessibility in e learning is proposed, integrating psychological field theory, the concept of affordances, and WCAG 2.2 provisions. The developed affordance classification covers the full cycle from design to remediation of accessibility violations. The online tool simplifies the processes of violation recognition and analysis, enabling a transition from technical requirements to pedagogically grounded solutions. The research prospects include extending the approach to other accessibility standards, developing training modules for specialists, and designing expert systems to automate digital accessibility assessments.