The main objective of this research was to evaluate the acceptance of technology based on a wearable lifelogging camera in a sample of older adults diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). A mixed-method design was used, consisting of a self-report questionnaire, numerous images taken by users, and a series of focus group discussions. The patients were involved in an individualized training programme. Nine MCI patients and their caregiver relatives were included. They showed good acceptance of the camera and downloaded an appropriate number of images on a daily basis. Perceived severity and ease of use were the main factors associated with the intention to use the device. Older adults with MCI can become competent users of lifelogging wearable cameras with a good level of acceptance. Privacy concerns are outweighed by the potential benefits for memory. Limitations, strengths and implications for future research are discussed.

Two versions of a website, a non-accessible site (NA-website) and an accessible site (A-website), were tested by 13 participants who were: a) blind users, b) low-vision users and c) users without identified disabilities. The mood of the users and their interaction efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction were recorded as they encountered several web content accessibility barriers. Results show which elements were the major causes of frustration to each user group, and how blind users displayed less criticism than expected to the barriers

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explain the changes in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 compared with WCAG 1.0 within the context of its historical development. Design/methodology/approach – In order to compare WCAG 2.0 with WCAG 1.0 a diachronic analysis of the evolution of these standards is done. Known authors and publications in the field, the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) web pages, WebAIM and the blogosphere were also monitored for comments and third-party analyses. The analysis of the main changes from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0 was based on personal experience with WAI guidelines, experimentation with some of the new guidelines, and a selection of best practice online services in the application of the WCAG, including WAI documentation. Findings – WCAG 2.0 is more educational and is applied to more technologies than WCAG 1.0. The limitations of WCAG 1.0 are mostly due to its origin. In changing from one to the other, new priorities and new elements must be taken into account. The paper concludes that though these guidelines are a useful tool for governments, they are only the first step towards accessibility, which can only be achieved through user-centred design. Originality/value – This paper explains the significance and limitations of the WCAG and gives a short guide to adapting web sites to the new regulations.

La inteligencia artificial está aquí, y será una realidad en el futuro de nuestro alumnado. Aunque tardaremos unos años a aprovechar ChatGPT y herramientas afines con plena productividad, con este libro recorremos el camino con un poco más de calma y conocimiento para ayudar a los docentes hacia una implementación más satisfactoria en el aula y en nuestros quehaceres académicos. Este es un libro interdisciplinario en el que varias miradas se coordinan para explicar el origen, el impacto, los sesgos y los posibles usos de ChatGPT en entornos académicos.