So finally I want to touch on some open questions that I still have. They’re listed here:
- The most burning open question is the one nobody in this room can answer: namely, what will my interview subjects say and how will that shape the content of the site?
- Related: Same question as above but with design.
- What is the most effective way to present the interviews — chunked, in full, or both?
- Related: It seems a shame to not take advantage of all this audio, right?
- What could be done to make this project more inviting of interaction, if not right away then in the longer term?
- What affordances does CUNY Academic Commons offer for balancing accessibility with aesthetics? Or, given that there will be images with descriptions, videos with caption, audio with transcripts, and other multimodal features eventually, what else could I do to have an accessible site that is both accessible and not-ugly?
- As Aimi Hamraie and Mimi Khuc pointed out in their talk (the one I cite in the interview with Seema Suri), I’m not as interested in persuading normate teachers to use the techniques as I am in documenting the brilliant work of disabled instructors in creating collective access. In what ways does that fundamental intention limit this project?
And if you find yourself for some reason coming back to this list of questions, there’s a way to do that using Hypothes.is — just join the group linked to in the access doc:
https://hypothes.is/groups/EYq315Kk/itp-ii-comments-for-tim
Thanks for your time and attention at a time when both are in short supply. Looking forward to our next conversation.