When redesigning task #1, I had to first think of what the significance was of the ‘bag’ in the “What’s in Your Bag?” activity. I realized that the bag served as a mobile container for important tools that needed to be accessible it’s carrier, from one environment to the next. In September, I took a course on assistive technology (AT) through Athabasca University. Here I learned about how tablets and smartphones can operate as (AT) because of their portability. These devices can also be preferred by their users because they don’t attract much attention. I used this knowledge, of these technologies as tools, to redesign Task #1 for someone who is blind or has low-vision. 

To redesign the task, I had to research what type of adaptations existed for people who are blind or have low-vision, when using technology. This included adaptations needed to perform “common” functions in an educational setting. Examples of these included: how to copy and paste, find buttons and switch tabs on the computer. I also had to differentiate between different learners who use different tools, such as a braille keyboard, voice to text, screen reader, etc.. 

In activity #1, I asked the learners to talk about the apps on their mobile device, because I thought that it was one way that each individual could express their personalities, passions and how they move through the world. I did this with the words of the The New London Group (1996) in mind: “Designing will more or less normatively reproduce, or more or less radically transform, given knowledges, social relations, and identities, depending on the social conditions under which Designing occurs”(p.75). I tried to empower each learner to share the apps that they felt represented their identity best.

For activity #2 I wanted to activate discourse around using mobile tools. I looked up the most accessible social media platforms for individuals who are blind or low-vision, and Twitter came out on top! I decided to implement a tweeting activity to enhance discourse: “…(discourse) draws attention to the diversity of constructions (representations) of various domains of life and experience associated with different voices, positions, and interests (subjectivities)”(the London Group, 1996, p.78). I also wanted the activity to extend beyond the space of the course, and into the public realm and the learners chosen community space or lifeword (The New London Group, 1996, p.71). 

One of the benefits of changing modes for this task was that I became more aware of how other people access information. I realized that I had never thought about how someone who is blind or low vision would find hyperlinks, discussion boxes and ‘submit’ buttons on the screen. I realized that for some individuals that audio, spatial and visual design (colour contrast), is very important to access information (The New London Group, 1996, p.83). I also recognized, through this activity, that spatial, technological and aural literacy must be much higher in people who lean more on other senses than sight. After looking at some of the accessibility features on Android phones, I think that people who are blind or have low vision, may also have strong executive function capabilities. I say this, because a lot of information is stored in categories or containers on mobile phones through accessibility functions. This makes related information stay grouped together, almost like nodes in the brain. The ability to read and write braille is also another type of literacy; the ability to communicate and receive ideas through touch. 

One of the challenges of engaging in the redesign activity is that I found myself wanting to change a lot of the original activity, but I didn’t want to stray away from the initial task too much. It was also a challenge to design for learners with a variety of abilities, without assuming too much about what those abilities looked like, and what literacies each individual uses the most. 

The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. (Links to an external site.) Harvard Educational Review 66(1), 60-92.