Technology is supposed to be the great leveller; the democratising force that does away with many of the barriers that exclude ordinary people from spheres of influence.
The average blind person in SA can't use a cellphone, even if they can afford one.
Lezette Engelbrecht, online features editor, ITWeb
But while Web and mobile technologies have done a great deal to enable the creation of and engagement in media, it is far from the leveller many imagine.
Because for the millions of people with specific needs, technology hasn't reached nearly the level of accessibility it has for the majority of users. If you're someone who is visually or hearing impaired, access to the tools, communities and services that have become second nature to most is limited at best.
Blindsided
While even the poorest of communities are gradually being touched by mobile technology, this remains out of the question for most blind users. For individuals who face the double-whammy of being visually-impaired and poor, information technology may never have any kind of significance at all.
This is largely because for special needs users, both hardware and software services are prohibitively expensive. In the developing world, one can send and receive messages and access basic Web services even on a cut-rate handset. And while some hardware items remain costly, most can function out of the box.
But in the case of special needs devices, very few of these workarounds exist. High-end software is generally only compatible with high-end phones. You can have a basic PC, but you need expensive screen-reading software to work it (the widely-used Jaws software can cost around R10 000 for a single user licence). Telecoms services may be affordable, but you require a pricey device to use them. The information highway still exacts heavy tolls for non-mainstream users.
Given that manufacturers are not interested in producing devices for a group that makes up a fraction of their global market, many specific needs consumers are simply side-lined when it comes to better choice and greater functionality. Not for lack of technology or interest, but because these users don't make for a compelling sales proposition. Tech for the people, indeed.
While there are many assistive technologies that have brought the digital world closer for specific needs users, there's no doubt it's far from a democratic medium - not when the average blind person in SA can't use a cellphone, even if they can afford one.
And so the digital divide grows from a crevice to a chasm, as increasingly advanced gadgets stream into the already overloaded marketplace, while users with special needs haven't even caught up to the previous generation of innovations.
Some barriers are fundamental yet simple to bypass. Web page design, for example, can render a site completely unreadable to someone with limited vision, as images without accompanying text are meaningless. As sites become lighter on content and heavier on multimedia, they're even less accessible to the visually impaired, who may have to listen to their speech synthesiser reading out "image”, “image”, “link” with no idea what's being shown. It's a problem that can easily be fixed with a few coding tweaks, yet is so often overlooked out of ignorance.
More equal than others
One of the greatest developments in recent years has been the rise of social activism and an engaged online community, which allows people from all corners to contribute to debates on a range of issues. But we tend to romanticise the openness of this forum without realising a multitude of voices are still left out of the conversation.
We'd like to think technology has changed things; that everyone, no matter how ill represented, now has a way to assert their presence online. Yet millions remain marginalised in the very sphere constantly being upheld as the great equalising force. Good luck bringing a voice to the voiceless when you don't support their language.
Ironically, it's these very views we need to hear to better understand what's lacking in terms of tech accessibility. Their absence is reinforced while those who are already vocal get more tools to amplify their message. A message often commending technology for the freedoms it brings, when this liberty is really reserved only for those with the right keys.
The inequality of access is further compounded by the increasing convergence and sophistication of technology. Mainstream users have apps for virtually everything, from the inane to the inspirational, while millions of special needs users still struggle to send a simple text message. We have online game worlds and AI personal assistants, while others cannot watch or control their new top-range TV because of thoughtless design. Anyone who's bought a complicated remote control will appreciate the effort required to decipher rows of mystery buttons. Now imagine doing that blindfolded.
So technology is a great leveller only for those with the privilege of being able to access the tools they use to ascribe it this status. It's easy for these users to extol the virtues of a free and open Web, but the truth is that for far too many, choices are drastically reduced. With an average of 285 million visually-impaired people across the world (and this just one specific needs group) it boggles the mind that such a large section of society is cut off from the digital world most take for granted.
What's even more worrying is the sluggish rate of progress in a sphere characterised by the speed of change. It was more than a decade ago, for example, that one US government official pointed out to a gathering of Microsoft employees and tech experts, what's really at stake: “For people without disabilities, technology makes things convenient, whereas for people with disabilities, it makes things possible.”
A fact they noted brought enormous responsibility, because the reverse is also true. Inaccessible technology not only cripples people's ability to engage with the world, it makes accessing whole areas of modern life practically impossible.
Share