This article from PCMag.com discusses the adoption of Google Apps for Education at New York University and Northwestern University. The adoption is being challenged by the National Federation for the Blind, because of its inaccessibility to visually impaired and blind individuals on these campuses. 

I learned quite a bit from Mike's "Tweeters Take Responsibility for an Accessible Web 2.0" bookmark. Considering that I am recently new to Twitter, having joined for the first time in this course. I really had not contemplated the lack of accessibility the application provided for impaired individuals. Issues like not providing keyboard shortcuts for common commands, a lack of headings, static layouts, and features requiring JavaScript are all components that could hinder universal access for impaired individuals. I thought a statement made in the text, by Katie Ellis and Mike Kent (2010), was enlightening to this point-"While there are a number of people who use Twitter to tweet about accessibility issues, Twitter itself is inaccessible." I was happy and interested to read about the efforts made by Dennis Lembree and his development of the "Accessible Twitter" tool application that breaks down some of the accessibility barriers for blind and visually impaired individuals wanting to be apart of and follow the Twitter crowd. Thank you Mike for this bookmark, I am looking forward to researching and knowing more about Accessible Twitter!

This site is focused on making e-learning decisions on utilizing common Web 2.0 tools to fully meet the accessibilities needs of impaired individuals. You can search using the top tabs for specific "Activities" such as concept mapping, charting, assessments/surveys, etc., or by specific Disabilities" such as visual, mobility, auditory, or cognitive impairments. Each activity or disability will be accompanied by suggested Web 2.0 tools and their accessibility evaluations, based on the impairment, in percent form and broken-down by specific drawbacks to accessibility. The Web 2.0 tools referenced in the site were evaluated or tested to their accessibility for each impairment using various guidelines and services including: W3C, the Web Accessibility Group, JISC TechDis, WebAIM, CEUD, IBM, and VPAT.