In the text, Williams mentioned most disabled people are older, low income individuals, which makes it harder to accommodate those users because for one, there won't be very many using the tools because they are older and not so tech-saavy. Of course, there are chances that they may come across the site, but it won't be as frequently as abled people. And also, the fact that it is expensive to create software or even hire translators will discourage people to try to gather this technology for the disabled. It would be nice if we could help everyone, but sometimes the resources aren't there. Unfortunately, if there is not a huge demand for such services, people won't be persuaded to create special products for the disabled.

People with disabilities have been neglected for a long time. But I think that inventors are improving to make devices that are accessible to non-disabled people also accessible to disabled people. They made a huge improvement with wheelchairs. Before, it was people who were sitting on wheelchairs had to manually roll the wheels for the wheelchair to move. They still make this kind, but you are seeing less and less of these. Now with a press of just one button and the turning of a small cylinder-like stick, people can move when they want without having to move the wheels by themselves. I believe that if inventors keep trying to make these kind of improvements, then everyone will be very satisfied.

Blind people can't use any device with a screen. Since they can't see, a screen is basically useless to them. They would have to use devices that have a braille or audio transcribed in it. I think that digital inventors should start thinking of some way to improve devices with screens, so that blind people can start using them too. Blind people might also want to use touch screen. They want to fit in, and not want other people to think that they are different from anyone else. Blind people don't want to be judged just because they are blind.

Touch screens are bringing more of the possibility of people just having to use their finger to touch. Mouses are beginning to be useless. In this section, it says that touch screens help the disabled. But, what about people who are blind? How do they use touch screens? Blind people can't see the screen, so how can they use it. I believe that blind people would find the mouses more useful than touch screen. With mouses, the innovators can put braille on them so it would be easier for them to use it. Innovators can't really put braille on the touch screen. But, it think that digital inventors can start thinking about how they are going to put braille on touch screen. This will make it a whole lot easier for blind people to use. Therefore, I do not agree when this section says that, "Both of these technologies are extremely useful for people who are disabled..."(Williams).

I don't quite understand this section of the article. Don't useful and usable mean the same thing? If something is usable, should it not also be useful? Usable means something that is available or convenient while, useful means something that is helpful or of good effect. When inventing a device, we should focus on it being usable because, if it is usable then it should also be useful. Usable is for short term, while useful is for long term. Innovators should first think about making the device or tool usable, and then think about how to make it useful. Because, if the device is available or of convenience, then it should also be of advantageous or helpful.

I also agree that people with disabilities will be at great advantage if digital people continue to work on projects that take on the concept of universal design principles. Even though it might be time consuming and take a lot of hard work from the digital innovators, but people with disabilities really need this help. Working for disabled people, could also help the innovators rethink about invention whether it really helps everybody or just a particular audience. For example, how can tools in the kitchen be reinvented to help not only non-disabled people but also disabled people? Are there even tools in the kitchen that help disabled people who like to cook food? These are some questions that innovators might be thinking of to help the disabled people.

I feel like this online tool will be able to help a lot of disabled people. The users of this tool will be able to read aloud what is on the screen, while the people who have low vision or are blind can just listen to what is on the screen. People who are hard of hearing or are deaf can read the captions that people have transcribed using the tool. Scripto is a "user-friendly interface"(Williams) that allows people to contribute their own translations to an online source.

This to me is one of the best reasons to apply Universal Design. Since the goal of Universal Design is to create design that can be used by as many people as possible, creating a website that can do that would be efficient.

Since I am not in any of the tech industries quite yet, I can assume from experience with my wife and mother, designing for special needs communities doesn't seem to a common goal for a few companies. That is not to say these are bad places necessarily, but that aspect of design may not be a priority. But, what if in the near future, websites are required to be ADA compliant just like a building? In this case the website would need to be re-engineered to accommodate a new audience when that audience could have been accommodated for from the beginning.

As tech writers if we apply Universal Design to our own work than we will be doing exactly what we have read about and discussed in class, reaching as many audiences as possible. Universal Design is also another reason to apply as many modes as possible to our content so that the information can be comprehended as efficiently as possible to some one who is blind, deaf or otherwise impaired. All of this improves efficiency for not only the company or non-profit creating the product or content, but the user as well.

This section caught my attention in that it is outlining how in the academic world, many professors might balk at using a proprietary software to share their work, but may not give a second thought as to how the format or design of their content could exclude others (current professor not included...) all the same.

This grabbed my attention since I'm not sure I would think that way at first as well. In my opinion, the academic world is a perfect place to begin implementing universal design elements where possible. Looking at my own blog, I'm very confident that there was no thought into how someone with a disability or someone who is unable to access a computer could process the information I have assembled. To go off the first part of this article, I have a "free" blog because I have paid my tuition. So technically it is a proprietary format as well.

One step I could begin within my own blog is to simply try to access and use it from my cell phone. Is there another theme that makes the content easier to scroll through? Could my fonts be bigger or bolder? Would it be possible to add pertinent videos that have subtitles? I think trying to add elements of universal design will be good training to get my mind rolling in that direction when thinking about my own work in the future. This will only make me more employable as well.

I find this to be a great summation of technology, "All technology is assistive, in the end". Whether it's the first wheel or the first calculator, technology in the end is advanced by the need to assist humans. The first robot I ever saw was built for the purpose of assisting humans within the home. To someone with a disability this could change their life.

When we think about technology, there is no reason why it shouldn't be used to help those who are blind read a book or a website homepage. In the end Williams mentions, "...there is no "natural" way to interact with the 1's and 0's that make up the data we are interested in creating...". This too goes back to our job as tech writers and information architects. In some cases we are making a world that is full of 1's and 0's more accessible to as many people as possible. If technology's primary goal is to assist humans, than it is our goal to assist them with their interactions with that technology. Whether that includes web design or content management, in the case of my own service learning project, we are adapting a piece of technology to a larger audience by making the website easier to use.

It would then make sense that we would use technology to assist those who need the most assistance. By adapting technology to meet the needs of the disabled, we are fulfilling the mission of technological innovation itself, to create an easier world for humans.

When different forms of media exclude approaches that could cater to those with disabilities they lose out on reaching an audience that has traditionally been marginalized in media. As Williams points out, "...using the same methods risk excluding a large percentage of people". In business, especially when that business is centered around media and it's different forms, reaching as many people as possible is imperative. Content drives viewership and viewership drives advertising. By creating content that can be used by not only those without disabilities but by those with them, the potential audience for the content can increase greatly. This is what makes the idea of Universal Design so interesting. While many seem to argue that true Universal Design may be unattainable, the effort to create content that is close, is a step in the right direction.

When we go out into the real world, we may be writing to an audience that is older, blind, deaf or even autistic. Our content needs to apply the ideals of Universal Design to make content that can reach as many of these different audiences as possible. Again, it may not be attainable. However, we need to try. Plus, 3 out of 4 from the list above isn't bad either. That number may fluctuate, but as we write we should be thinking somewhere in our brains, "what if a deaf person had to use this?" "if they wanted to, could they?". This type of thinking drives innovation in regards to how we cater to populations with disabilities.

This passage from Williams blows my mind. To think that a gif that is so small and basically invisible to me, a sighted person, is seen so clearly to a blind person is fascinating. This is a great example of how technology within in literature is changing the industry but also bringing in an audience that has been left behind. This aspect of Universal Design to me is fascinating because this is an actual application of Universal Design in a tangible way. To someone who can see, this is a normal website. But by adding small elements like a gif, someone who can't see is now able to skip ahead of content the way most of us skip immediately with our eyes. On top of that, the content can be read so quickly that even those of us who can hear, would find the content unintelligible.

In today's world of digital media and online content, writers need to write in a way that is respectful of the reader's time. As a sighted person, I can just scan a website for the information that I find pertinent. By adding this small gif, a blind person can now do the exact same thing and skip to the information they find pertinent. Many websites are not built this way, which means according to Williams, they have to sit through the content on a particular website as their screen reading software gives them a word for word description of a home page. Most people hate waiting for the different options when listening to an automated phone system, they probably haven't had to sit through a screen read of an older, text heavy website.

Technology is closing the gap between those who are disabled and those who are not. Our journey will be to continue to improve their lives by thinking of them when we are creating content and trying to reach for the largest audience bases we can.

This passage in the article details the benefits of Universal Design with a great, but simple example. Williams explains how the creation of a simple "curb cut" in a side walk that was created to assist people in wheel chairs could also have unintended benefits unknown to the creator.

Williams writes that curb cuts could also be used when, "making a delivery with a dolly...pulling luggage on wheels...pushing a child in a stroller". By trying to solve one problem, the curb cut actually solved numerous problems. Another example would be using captions and an accompanying transcription for a video. While the captions and transcriptions help the deaf watch the video, they also increase search optimization as well as helping non-disabled users understand the content even better.

So while we can solve one problem by applying universal design, we may also be able solve problems we didn't even think about just by being open to trying something new and different. As technical writers we should keep this open minded approach and try to see what we do from the point of view of the user.

I find this passage intriguing on a few levels. The first is that the improvements in how those with disabilities interact with different forms of media has come from the business world. That shouldn't be too surprising since they are in the business of making money and in this specific case, helping to improve the lives of those who may not be able to hear or see. Making "significant progress in meeting the needs of such users" is in their best interest. This opens up their companies' products to new audiences that had not been catered to previously. This connects with the article by Goddard and Hsy as they seem to be making a connection between the advancement in technology and the advancement Universal Design. By making an article (this one is a great example) interactive and as user friendly to as many audiences as possible, they are creating a path for more profit.

The second is the notion that scholars involved in the humanities are lagging behind in the creation of or application of digital products that could help those affected by a disability. To me, I would expect this group to be leading the charge of advancement. Of course, there could be many reasons for this. One is funding. A University is not quite a business (that line is blurred) and does not operate necessarily like a business. Departments have budgets and the professors do what they can with what they have. I would assume many tech forward (rich) universities have made an effort to cater to groups with disabilities. However, there other universities that may not have the same budget and are thus forced to use the technology they have handy, which may be a textbook and a power point presentation.

For both groups, their work needs to reach as many people and audiences as possible for it have the best possible results. Whether that is research about the hearing impaired or a physical product to help the blind read the same article, the more audiences they can include, especially with disabilities, the better.

As technology advances further, I believe we will see content being shared on more devices than ever. I believe that Williams is right in his assertion that "...applying universal design principles to digital resources will make those resources more compatible..." I found this interesting since much of my own writing on the subject thus far has been focused on how universal design can help different special needs communities. However, what I have been missing all together is how universal design can help make content more accessible to other groups as well.

Smith points out later that, "...those more likely to use a mobile device for online access include African Americans, Hispanics, and individuals from lower income households." When we are applying universal design to our content and strategy we need to be thinking about other devices than just a laptop or desktop computer. A cellphone may be someones only connection to the internet and the content needs to be accessible to them as well.

In our own service learning project, we saw that the functionality and design of Center Civic Innovation's website was a bit clunky. However, just for fun we decided to see what the site looked like on a cell phone. To our surprise, the functionality was better! So after reading this article, that makes sense and in our work for the Center for Civic Innovation in the future we will need to be cognizant as to how our content functions on other devices.

Universal Design as mentioned in the article is a concept centered around the idea of designing all products and environments to be usable to as many people as possible. Universal Design is also a theme that runs through the Goddard and Hsy article as well. From these two articles, when finding ways to improve access to technology for people with disabilities, Universal Design has to be a part of the discussion.

Audiences are the most important aspect of creating content. We need to know who we are writing for and make sure our content can be easily accessed by that audience. As we have learned, we want to reach as many different audiences as possible so that our writing can be as effective as possible. We have also discussed how adding as many modes as possible to our work can increase the effectiveness of our work. All of these elements lend perfectly to assisting those with disabilities.

If we are increasing accessibility we should be planning on how we could potentially help those with special needs. They are a part of "all people" as mentioned in the article. I would think being able to reach special needs audiences could make a writer very marketable since many writers may think of audience in terms of race, age, sex and education.

So, does the anthologize tool help the blind people? If so, how? I don't quite understand what this anthologize tool does. According to a previous section in this article, anthologize "transforms WordPress 3.0 into a platform for publishing electronic texts"(Williams). So, it converts texts into readable versions? Anthologize can transfer texts into a format called XML that "work with digital talking book devices or with braille output devices"(Williams). This tool makes it easier for blind people read a book or text. But, what is an XML format?http://www.w3schools.com/xml/xml_whatis.asp This link shows what is an XML format, what is does, and how it does it. XML is a software and hardware tool that is used for storing and transporting data. It stands for Extensible Markup Language. XML simplifies a lot of things like data sharing, data transport, platform changes, and data availability.

I agree with this statement. I believe that people who are thinking about innovating new things that they should always think about everyone instead of just focusing about a particular audience. For example when making new phones, the inventors should think about the people who are semi-blind or fully blind and make phones where both the screen and the words on the screen are big enough for those people to see them. We should always refer to the biggest audience possible in our minds when we are making new designs on new objects. This is one way that we can improve the world, so that people with or without disabilities can live in harmony.

This is a definition for universal design. Universal design is the idea of designing all products for people despite their age, ability, or status in life. I believe that we need to focus a lot on this concept. Everyone should be able to have access on a product without having to worry about what their age is, what they are able to do, or how wealthy they are. Innovators should develop more products that are accessible to everyone instead of just a particular audience.

This section of the article is very interesting. It is saying that something that is created to assist a disabled person to make their life easier may not be pleasing or may not help people who are not disabled. And something that has a universal design, is made for everyone. Everyone can use a universal design, but the design that is made for disabled people might only be usable for them and not for everyone. This part of the article is stating the difference for a design that is specifically made for the disabled and a design that is made for everyone.

I agree with this statement. Universal design is not only efficient to those people who are disabled; it is efficient for everyone to use. An example of an universal design mentioned in a previous section of this article would be the automatic garage door. It is affordable and easily accessible for people with or without disabilities. With a click of just one button, the garage door will close by itself. You don't have to walk up to the garage door and use your hands to push it down. The automatic garage door is efficient is that it closes your garage door for you without you having to waste any of your energy. It's productive without you having to do anything for it.

This reason states that applying universal design principles also helps digital resources more suited with multiple devices. Some online resources in the world only work on a desktop or laptop computer. Universal design principles can make online resources compatible with not only your computer, but with a phone, tablet, or any other mobile device. This way you can go to the online resource without having to bring a laptop. You can just search it on your phone or tablet.