I read, "Accessibility in Web 2.0 technology". While I am the "webmaster" of my school's website, the information in this article is way above my pay grade.....okay, way above my knowledge grade! It was interesting to see, however, the nuts and bolts of how to actually make the changes to websites and what exactly needs to be done from the coding level. I do know some html coding, but this is still out of my realm. I know for certain that our district is completely out of compliance with the 2.0 standards. Unfortunately our website is hosted in Australia and I don't even know how I would go about implementing some of these changes. I could start with the tech dept., which would be smart, and go from there. The issue for major corporations when attempting to implement even minor changes has to do with the shear complexity of their systems. In that case there are very real barriers to lifting the barriers, but if IBM is tackling it, I'm sure others can as well. Maybe even little ol' Estacada School District!

I also read, "Colleges Lock Out Blind Students Online". One statement that struck me was, "Mr. Shandrow takes a harder line. Accessibility is a "human right," in his view. If a sighted person can use a piece of technology, he should be able to as well." Really? Cars and planes are technology. Is he saying that he should be able to drive and fly if he wanted to? Maybe so. Several companies are developing technologies that allow a car to drive itself, so maybe someday he can drive. But is that driving? Am I driving a car if I'm a passenger? But I'm getting off topic - the bottom line is that the situations brought forth in this article ARE technologies that SHOULD be accessible to handicapped individuals. The Kindle really ought to have a voice reader function. New campus Cyber Hall ought to be accessible. ALL college courses should be fully accessible to ALL students. It was a sad statement that institutions who would not even THINK of not designing their buildings to fully ADA compliant, routinely fail to apply that same diligence to software and websites and online technologies. When I read the part about Shandrow being the reactionary tweeter who humiliates evil-doers brought a smile to my face. In spite of the fact that it may not be the best way to get people to change, we need people like that. If nothing else, when the more mellow folks attempt to talk nicely and convince through argument the right way it ought to be done, when that fails they can always pull the Shandrow card and say, "Hey, I could always let Shandrow tweet about this to his 1100 followers".

This is a huge document and full of very technical information, but simply looking through the Table of Contents provides an idea of where this influential group wants web 2.0 to go. Many articles published mention WCAG 2.0 guidelines....well, here they are.

Lots of information about accessibility for the disabled including the current options and other barriers.

Short article, but contains some good links to other information as well as good info in the post.