Kijt's Blog

Activity 33.1 Other emerging technology

Keith Aquilina — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:33:42 +0000

As for in this activity, I have identified a number of emerging technologies not covered by H810 that could have accessibility issues. This activitiy has been very interesting although with some more time I’d delve in further research on VLEs and online game based learning.

Social Networking

A social networks is a group of individuals who share a commonality. As pointed out by Engeström, social networks are not just made up of people, ‘social networks consist of people who are connected by a shared object.’ Various examples of learning through such sites can be found online.

Positive impacts on accessibility

As pointed out by Ruh (2011), such services may provide accessible channels of communication e.g. for users with a mobility disability.

Negative impacts on accessibility

Cannot set a user account without sighted assistance (AFB, 2011). These sites use CAPTCHAs.
Cluttered web space which poses barriers to disabled persons.
Such sites contain online ads and forms which also may make navigation problematic.
User created content found on such sites may be inaccessible (e.g. without ALT text).
Many times such sites use inaccessible multimedia players.

Augmented Reality

Augmented reality is a type of virtual reality which generates a composite view for the user that is the combination of the real scene viewed by the user and a virtual scene generated by the computer that augments the scene with additional information. Examples of good practice are being used both in business and educational settings. Example at http://www.seeingwithsound.com/android.htm

Positive impacts on accessibility

Allows better interaction with computer by students with a mobility impairment (Gonzalez‐Rodriguez, na).
‘adding information to the perception of reality in such kind of users, increasing their motivation as well as encouraging the learning of causeeffect relationship; such is the case of students suffering autism.’
Help learners learn how to control their movements.
Adding information to the perception of blind or deaf users.
Alternative ways of interaction for users with Cognitive or mobility-related disabilities.

Negative impacts on accessibility

Ereaders

An electronic reader is a device for reading digital content ‘such as e-books, newspapers and documents. A standalone e-reader typically has wireless connectivity for downloading content and conducting other Web-based tasks. Popular dedicated e-readers include Amazon’s Kindle and Sony Reader’ (Techtarget, 2008).

Positive impacts on accessibility

Mobile devices which may be used in different settings (e.g. home and school)
May change settings (e.g. font size) as opposed to traditional books.
May preview books before actually downloading and use.
Students with mobile disabilities may benefit as for example such devices may be attached to the wheelchair frame.
Battery charging frequency is much less when compared to other portable devices.
Adjustable brightness of device
Some ereader manufacturers offer text-to-speech features. This provides visually disabled students with a needed functionality.

Negative impacts on accessibility

Their cost may be prohivitive.
Need of wifi at school or at home to download material. Else need to subscribe to a 3G network.
Another device which needs to be learnt.
Does school have an account though which students and teachers using such devices may download books?
Not all ereaders offer text-to-speech features
Some of these devices lack reading of menus.

related link: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/education-deptartment-clarifies-e-reader-accessibility-rules/31507

Online game based learning

Positive impacts on accessibility

Negative impacts on accessibility

VLEs

http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/effective-use-of-VLEs

http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/effective-use-of-VLEs/intro-to-VLEs/introtovle-special/introtovle-making-accessible

http://www.saradunn.net/VLEreport/section07.html

Positive impacts on accessibility

Negative impacts on accessibility

References

AFB (2011) Are Social Networking Sites Accessible to People with Vision Loss? available from: http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=57&TopicID=167&DocumentID=3153 (accessed 16 December 2011).

Discapnet (2010) Accessibility of Social Networking Services available from http://g3ict.com/download/p/fileId_868/productId_186 (accessed 17 December 2011).

Engestrom http://www.zengestrom.com/blog/2005/04/why-some-social-network-services-work-and-others-dont-or-the-case-for-object-centered-sociality.html (accessed 15 December 2011).

Friedlander (2011) Five Questions to Ask Before You Buy a Dedicated eReader available from: http://assistivetek.blogspot.com/2011/11/five-questions-to-ask-before-you-buy.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FgVvh+%28EdTech%29 (accessed 15 December 2011).

Gonzalez‐Rodriguez M., and Mantilla, F. (na) Augmented Accessibility: towards an Augmented Reality
environment accessible to disabled users available from: http://www.w3.org/2010/06/w3car/are_accessible_to_disabled_users.pdf (accessed 17 December 2011).

AFB ( ) http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=57&TopicID=167&DocumentID=3153 (accessed 15 December 2011).

Ruh, D. (2011) Social Media and Accessibility available from: http://g3ict.org/resource_center/newsletter/news/p/id_274 (accessed 17 December 2011).

Tech Target (2008) e-reader (electronic reader) http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/e-reader.html (accessed 15 December 2011).

Activity 31.2 Positive aspects of Web 2.0

Keith Aquilina — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:40:42 +0000

Web 2.0 has provided various online tools vith varying functionality e.g.;

Blogs
Wikis
Social bookmarking
Social networking
Mashups
RSS
Virtual Worlds

Through advents in the web, what is done in the real world is nowadays imitated in the virtual world. For example Social Networking allows friends to keep in contact. Wesch through his video ‘The Machine is Us/ing Us’ explains how differently from the original web, normal users are the producers in web 2.0 (example YouTube). Web 2.0 provides user generated filtering and user generated distribution.

As outlined by TEL (2008), rather than seeing if the Web 2.0 tool should be adopted in learning, it is more a matter of how such tools may be used. Obviously this needs to be done with accessibility in mind.

Refs

Wesch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE

Technology Enhanced Learning, TEL (2008) Education 2.0? Designing the web for teaching and learning, available from: http://www.tlrp.org/pub/documents/TELcomm.pdf (accessed 13 December 2011).

Activity 28.1 Staff development perspectives

Keith Aquilina — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 07:47:30 +0000

Chapter 9 Developing accessible e-learning practice: the staff developer’s perspective.

1. Apart from this module that you are studying now, think of a staff training event or resource that you have attended or accessed, related to accessibility and/or disability. If you have never attended such an event, imagine carrying out one of those listed in the resources or discussed in Topic 7.What was effective or ineffective about the staff training event/resource?

To what extent did the following factors influence the effectiveness of the experience for you: content or focus; structure or presentation; role or expertise of the leaders/developers?If you have not attended or accessed a staff training event/resource related to accessibility prior to this module, what are the reasons for this?

In all state schools, a compulsory staff development session needs to be held every term. In the school where I used to teach, one of these sessions focused on dyslexia. The presenter lectured through a powerpoint on how a dyslexic student could be identified and what measures should be taken in class to include such students.

This compulsory session (like many such sessions) was quiet boring as it was the norm that every term, the head of school invited a speaker for this three hour session. Although many times the speakers were experts in their field, such sessions boiled down in the speaker giving out knowledge to the about 100 teachers attending.

2. Use your reflections and answers to Question 1 to develop a conceptualisation of what you think makes or defines an effective accessibility-related training event/resource and an effective trainer or staff developer.

Seale (206, p.113) notes that both lecturers and support staff seem to want specific disability awareness training which focuses/specialises on a specific issue. Through such training, the staff may acquire recognised accreditation/qualification.

A staff-centred model of staff development (Seale, 2006 p. 124) as training may focus on the development by staff of ‘their own services and must ‘own’ their own changes’ (p.124). The training needs to help each stakeholder in becoming proactive rather than reactive so that staff may ‘work with others to meet the challenges head-on and develop appropriate solutions and options of which they are in control and of which they can claim ownership’ (Seale, 2006 p.124). For staff development to be successful, it is important that such ownership is embedded in the training sessions. An important factor in elliciting interest and participation is by limiting numbers of attendees and rather than lecturing, practical/ hands on sessions should be delivered. As pointed out by Seale (2006), a hybrid approach consisting of both face-to-face workshops and online help, may enable staff to keep updated with accessibility issues.

3. Should accessibility-related staff development be made compulsory for all those who work in post-16 education?What are the reasons behind your answers?

Accessibility-related staff development need to be made compulsory as all staff need to be made aware of accessibility issues. As Deborah points out, making such training compulsory will allow for the allocation of ‘adequate time and funding’. Still when such training is made compulsory, the problem may be the interest, motivation and ownership of the attendees. From my experience of attending staff development training and also in desiging and delivering such training, many times staff come in just to sign the attendance sheet rather than to participate. Thus it is very important that practical, hand-on training is developed and delivered. Although such training may need to be compulsory, it is imperative that ways and means are found where staff are made to own the development sessions.

What do you think are the pros and cons of making accessibility-related staff development compulsory?

Pros:

Raise the awareness of disability and accessibility issues for all the staff. ‘Disability expertise is shared and embedded throughout the institution (O’Connor, 2000).
Awareness of guidelines and standards, assistive tools, use of appropriate evaluation tools, design of accessible resources, curriculum design,
Develop staff’s skills in accessibility issues.
Keeping staff up-to-date
Each individual staff may understand their role in the design, delivery, maintaining or support of accessible learning.
Acquire relevant qualifications

Cons:

Lack of ownership by stakeholders

27.1 Supporting disabled students

Keith Aquilina — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 22:32:07 +0000

Read Seale Chapter 8 Supporting the use of accessible e-learning: the student support service perspective.

1. How helpful do you think it is to have ‘specialised’ rooms or areas in an educational institution, which only disabled learners can use to access technology/online learning material?

Such specialised rooms having restricted access are prone to create segregation rather than inclusion of students. Moreover restricting access to these rooms limits their accessibility as students would be required to disclose their disability as a teacher will need to unlock the room or maybe they would need to ask for the issue of a card which enables access to such resources.

Still, it may be argued that specialised equipment should be accessible only for those students who really need it.

2. How are student support services organised or structured in your institution? In what ways do you think this organisation influences the way in which disabled learners are supported to use or access technology?

Seale (2006, p.101) ‘the extent to which student support services should be a separate service provision and the extent to which it should be integrated into ‘mainstream’ service provision:’.

Seale (2006), groups assistive technology support services as focusing on issues regarding;

making specialist equipment available;
assessing the assistive technology needs of students
providing generic and specific technology skills training for students.

Seale (2006) discusses the use of speciaised equipment rooms versus adapted mainstream campus computers. Seale (2006) specifies ’interesting issues about the way that specialist technology areas are set up and managed:

specialist technology is available to just students with disabilities or for all students;
specialist technology is locked or protected by keys or passwords;
specialist technology is supervised by specialist staff.’

Still, these days, institutions may allow students to access the institution’s computer network using their own laptops and thus specialised software.

The problem may boil down to expenses. Funding needs to be accessed and this may many times be done by having the students disclose their disability.

3. What would you change about the way in which students are supported in your institution and why? (You might find your notes from Topics 8 and 9 relevant to this question.)

As in the institution to which I have been referring to throughout H810, does not have any support structure, a whole new structured support system needs to be put in place. Such a structure needs to provide various facilities of which;

Develop own institutional policies,
Earmark relevant guidelines,
Make students aware of national funding schema (see learn.open.ac.uk/mod/forumng/discuss.php?d=639139#p5253529)
Teacher training focusing mainly on accessibility awareness and accessible resource development,
Continuous training and support for teachers and disabled students.
Assessment programs (e.g. IEPs) for students,
Promote a barrier-free learning environment.

As pointed by Seale in his conclusion of chapter 8, ‘Developing effective support services therefore involves more than supporting students, it involves supporting and working with staff across the whole higher education institution. ‘

Activity 26.1 Seale Chapter 7

Keith Aquilina — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:49:53 +0000

Read Seale Chapter 7 Designing and developing accessible e-learning experiences: the learning technologist’s perspective

1. There is a debate surrounding who is responsible (or most responsible) for accessibility. How helpful is this debate in ensuring that people working in post-16 education change their practices?If those with technical skills, such as learning technologists, are not ultimately or solely responsible for ensuring accessibility, what responsibilities do you think they should have and why?

Seale (2006) hints that various authors make the ‘assumption that it is learning technologists who will respond’ and who are mainly resonsible for accessibility. It is important that such a debate does not place the responsability on a particular type of stakeholder whilst removing responsability from other roles. It may be true that, as pointed out by Seale (2006), learning technologists ‘have a key role to play with regards to increasing the accessibility of elearning’. Still, stakeholders are dependant on each other, therefore each role has to give its own input. For example, administration need to specify what policy the institution need to adhere to, teachers need to give their input by highlighting the needs of the context in particular of specific student needs.

Learning technologists whose role encompasses the design and development of accessible elearning resources, need to work with all stakeholders by capitalising on the input and experiences of each member in order to produce the best possible solution. Still the attitudes towards accessibility need to be improved amongst staff of which learning technologists.

Learning technologists should be resonsible with the design, development and evaluation processes of accessible elearning. Still this is dependant on the context as the role and responsabilities will vary. From this week’s activities I am seeing that the learning technologist as having a technical role which is complimented by teachers’ pedagogic approach. Learning technologists are are actively involved in managing, researching, supporting or enabling learning with the use of learning technology. see blog, activity 5.4

2. On pages 82–83, Seale uses an archaeology metaphor to try to encourage learning technologists to dig deeper beneath the surface of accessibility guidelines and standards. This is intended to develop a greater understanding of approaches to accessible design. How helpful do you think this metaphor is?Can you think of an alternative metaphor, image, analogy or visualisation that could be used to help develop learning technologists’ thinking in this area?

Through this methapor, Seale (2006) encourages learning technologists to dig deeper to ‘gain a greater understanding of the design approaches that underpin accessibility legislation, guidelines and standards as well as the efficacy of accessibility design, evaluation and repair tools.’

The analogy I’m thinking about is a computer network where various users are using different types of networking devices which allow for communication…

3. On page 98 Seale discusses the tensions regarding the use of technical tools versus human judgement to evaluate the accessibility of learning resources. What is your position concerning this issue?Can we trust human judgement? If so, whose judgement should we trust – learning technologists working within educational organisations or external experts?

As outlined by Seale (2006), both technical tools and human judgments have benefits and challenges when evaluating the accessibility of learning resources.

Still a problem is that the findings output by technical tools still need to be interpreted. When evaluating my learning resource for TMA02, I found difficulty in interpreting technical feedback that such tools provided.

Eye tracking

Keith Aquilina — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 09:10:54 +0000

Yesterday I have been invited to an informal presentation of an eye tracking device. It was my first experience with such a device and through a discussion with the supplier and by actually trying out the device and related software I found myself thinking about issues we’ve met in H810. The adaptility of the product is a plus as it can be used by students who are encountering different accessibility issues both at home and at school.

Such devices cost a lot of money and from the feedback I have got, it seems quite unlikely that such devices will be bought in the near future, even though teachers in special schools identified a number of students whom such devices would change their lifes.

Activity 24.2 Approaches

Keith Aquilina — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:21:04 +0000

Which approach could you take in your role?

It is difficult to use the first two approaches as in the institution for which the online learning resource has been created disabled users are not ‘identifiable’. Moreover there are no accessibility experts working at the institution and hiring them may be costly.

The online learning resource may be evaluated by assessing its conformance to checklists and/or guidelines. In fact the site I created may be evaluated by using WCAG-1 or WCAG-2 as benchmarks. I have used these’

Moreover, I have used a couple of online websites which provide automated feedback;

Headings map test; https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/headingsmap/
Juicy Studio Accessibility Toolbar https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/juicy-studio-accessibility-too/ colour contrast and table tests
Wave toolbar – accessibility test

Windows Narrator was also used. This evidenced problems as the Googlesite uses frames/panes.

To my knowledge there are no assistive hardware technologies available in my institution, therefore it is very difficult to test accessibility through these. Still available assistive technologies as those found in Windows operating systems or free online applications may allow me to focus the testing for specific accessibility issues.

Which approaches could you ask someone else in your organisation to do?

As mentioned previously, the limitations found will limit what type of accessibility testing may be done.

Which approaches would be appropriate for a large virtual learning environment (VLE) such as the one used for this module?

A combination of evaluation tools and manual testing may be the most appropriate. Moreover a team of experts in the field may provide needed expertise. Still, the chosen approach need to considered feasible by the administration.

Still I think that rather than the actual content what needs to be evaluated in a VLE is the tools and functionality which make up the VLE. How the content is developed in a VLE is much dependent on the actual tools making up the VLE and the functionality that administrators allow teachers and users to use.

23.1 Your learning resource

Keith Aquilina — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:54:59 +0000

Why did you choose the particular topic?

It is a topic which is normally covered as part of the Programming Methods module with my Diploma students. Moreover I need to select a topic which would easily fit in the activity’s prerequisites.

Why did you include particular elements?

A number of features have been included in the site for better accessibility;

The colour scheme, mainly the background foreground contrast, should make the content more readable. Also by keeping the design simple design should allow navigation through the keyboard (without mouse). The choice of background colour should allow for easier readability of which dyslexic students. I also chose particular text formatting of which Font type – Verdana, Font size – 12 points and 1.5 line spacing. Guidelines show that such formatting should make the content more accessible. Alt text has been included to the image to make it readable by screen readers. The numbering of titles should enable the student to know where he/she is in the site as the material has a sequential structure. I tried to include a number of features in the table e.g. title/caption for better readability. Tried to include summary feature through HTML but this could not be done in the Google sites. I also selected an option in the Google sites which makes the site readable on mobile devices thus students can use the site on portable devices. Alternative files, Word document and PDF are provided for download in this site. These files included the same content as that provided in the site. (weakness – Accessibility of each single file could be enhanced). Such files may make user who cannot use the site…

What guidelines did you refer to when creating the resource?

MainlyI have tried to use ideas mentioned in various guidelines in Topic 19.

The two mostly used were the following;

http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/about-dyslexia/further-information/dyslexia-style-guide.html Followed main ideas in this site.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/glance/

What areas were particularly difficult and why do you think this to be the case?

Set up for screen readers was somewhat difficult. Google Sites limits the site developer when modifying the HTML of particular sites.

Probably it would have been better if I developed the site in dreamweaver and then uploaded the site somewhere else.

Do you think the act of making an accessible resource affected the way that the learning outcomes were addressed?

The learning outcomes were not affected by the accessibility of the site. The learning material has been presented in a different format which surely is more accessible than that normally used in class.

How many of the decisions you made about the resource were influenced by technical considerations?

As already mentioned the limitations of HTML in Google sites limited the way the site has been built.

How many of your decisions were influenced by pedagogical or other considerations?

The decisions of the material included in this site have been influenced by the module syllabus and its learning outcomes specified in it. The material has been numbered for ease of use and also as the content needs to be visited sequentially as the learning outcomes build on each other. The material has been set with the learner in the center. The material has been distilled. Where possible content has been summaries or put in buller forms.

19.1 Accessibility guidelines

Keith Aquilina — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:00:36 +0000

Read the guidance resources in the next sections and make notes on:

the level of detail – is the technical level suitable for you in your role?
is the guidance complete – does it provide links to further information?
would you recommend this guidance to anyone else in your organisation who needs this information?

General guidance

http://ncam.wgbh.org/invent_build/web_multimedia/accessible-digital-media-guide/

Level of detail

Gives various detail on different types of disabilities and tips on how developers may enhance the accessibility of software. Information presented is categorised and thus somewhat straightforward to search through and read.

I think that the level of detail found in this resource is somewhat technical and even myself (I’ve got a computing background) found at times challenging. I believe that fellow colleagues who are not so IT literate may find many recomendations in these guidelines difficult to understand and implement.

Is the guidance complete?

These guidelines are somewhat thorough with hyperlinks available for specific areas. Still I found a couple of links which directed me to outdated information.

Would you recommend this guidance to anyone else in your organisation who needs this information?

Such guidelines may only be used in my context by technical persons which have the task of designing digital learning objects. Still to build accessible digital learning content whilst following these guidelines, the user propbably will need training and support. Moreover such designers need to be motivated in building accessible content. This may be done if the scope of such an exercise is explained and interest in such an endeavour is brought forward.

Web pages

Level of detail

Very valid guidelines which do not have technical details. Still, some of the WCAG 2.0 recommendations may only be done if the developer has a technical understanding.

The video in the University of Wisconsin (2008) website is very understandable as it gives straight forward advice on how site design may be done to accomodate screen readers.

The Dyslexia Style Guide is very informative without entering into too much technicalities. I found this guide very easy to read and understand.

Is the guidance complete?

For the video, technical knowledge is needed for the educator to include headers, alt etc. Links to further accessibility material are available on the same university site.

The Dyslexia Style Guide might guide better the reader if example sites or documents are given intext.

Would you recommend this guidance to anyone else in your organisation who needs this information?

Yes, educators who may want to create sites or add content to existing sites may find the video very useful.

Powerpoint

Level of detail

The JISC Techdis guidelines are somewhat detailed and give very valid points on how best develop accessible presentations. Still, I felt lost using this website as I couldn’t figure out exactly how the guidlines are structured.

The North Carolina State University powerpoint guidelines are much shorter and lack detail. They contain a link to WebAIM Powerpoint guidelines which are somewhat detailed, organised and uptodate.

Is the guidance complete?

JISC Techdis guidelines include example Powerpoint presentation which make it easier for the reader to understand what is being proposed.

Would you recommend this guidance to anyone else in your organisation who needs this information?

The layout of the JISC TechDis site made me feel lost in a vast array of information. I’d think twice before recommending such a site, even tough it contains valid information. Maybe some readers like myself would have benefited if the information in this site was provided as a whole sequential document.

Word documents

Level of detail

JISC Techdis give some valid detailed guidelines on how best to use MS Word features. Taylor and Colwell (2010) mention other features which need to be made accessible.

Is the guidance complete?

The guidance is thorough as apart from notes, exemplars from different MS Word versions are included.

Would you recommend this guidance to anyone else in your organisation who needs this information?

After coming to terms with the layout of this site, these guidelines may be found useful by educators in my context. The ideas put forward in these guidelines should not be used just when disabled students are present in class but with any students.

PDF documents

Level of detail

As for Powerpoint and Word, JISC Techdis give some valid detailed guidelines.

As expected, Adobe give thorough detail on how PDF documents can be made accessible. This is done by providing a number of PDFs on this page. This may not be accessible for everyone although by providing an overview of the material in the other PDFs, helps orient the user who wants to find specific information.

The guidelines provided by Bailey (2005) are interesting in that they are provided in different formats;

Thus different users may view or listen (through a screen reader) to these guides. The detail given in these guidelines provides the educator with various ideas on how PDF documents may be made accessible.

Is the guidance complete?

As for the other JISC TechDis guidelines, links to further information are provided. Through these three resources, different types of guidelines have been accessed and I believe that the JISC TechDis is the most complete.

Would you recommend this guidance to anyone else in your organisation who needs this information?

I think that in my context, it is more important to focus on the creation of accessible files through the use of other software rather than PDF. Educators usually use Word, Powerpoint or maybe web sites. This may be due to limited IT experience. Thus the focus should be on these. Still if specific individuals are keen in using PDFs, such accessibility guidelines may be recommended but training should be made available.

Flash

Level of detail

Non technical but detailed guidelines.

Is the guidance complete?

First resource provides links to further information.

Would you recommend this guidance to anyone else in your organisation who needs this information?

Fellow teachers do not use Flash to author learning material. Still two specific colleagues have been assigned with the creation of local material which is being done through Flash animations. Such guidance will surely help in becoming aware of how Flash content may be made accessible.

Resources about video

I’m skipping this part for now as this activity has took me more than 6 hours to complete.

Conclusion

From the beginning of this week to this point, I’ve come to better appreciate that its’ not just the quality of the information available which is important but also how and in what ways the information is presented. The available guidelines show different strategies in the way that information can be communicated to an online audience.

18.1 What needs to be accessible?

Keith Aquilina — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 15:12:17 +0000

In chapter 4, Seale (2006) highlights elements of online learning that need to be made accessible and some ideas about the use of accessibility guidelines and standards.

What makes online learning accessible?

Seale highlights that the designing of accessible elearning should include inclusion, removal of barriers and flexibility. The design of learning resources should cater for both current and future needs.

The list of elements Seale (2006) mentions as needing to be made accessible are;

Websites
Courseware
Library resources
Text documents
Presentation applications
Multimedia (Seale mentions how developers need to be wary of accessibility issues when using tools such as Flash or Java.)

Have any new elements emerged since the book was written?

The following is a list of elements which may have emerged before 2006 but still I feel as not being represented by those listed by Seale.

Online communication and collaborative tools e.g. blogs, wikis, LMS and video conferencing. I think that each of these tools, rather than the parent website, need to be accessible.
Mobile learning apps
Educational games
Digital assessment tools
Simulations (e.g. through educational software)
E-books, Digital Talking Books and other digital publications
Apart from the interactive whiteboards hardware, its’ software and the activities created through it, need also be accessible.