Inclusion

This week’s discussion will revolve around the article “The Business of Digital Disability” by Gerard Goggin and Christopher Newell.

I selected this article because I believe in advocating for accessibility for everyone. In a world that continually marvels at the technological advancements that have been made, there still continues to be a struggle for those with disabilities to gain the access they need.

Goggin and Newell’s article argues that, when it comes to technology, disabilities are often overlooked in policy, design, and protocol. The one line in the entire article that struck me most was used in relation to Australia’s policies in 1991 regarding the accessibility of telecommunications for disabled people. The statement is, “It was not, as both government and industry deeds demonstrated, deemed to be in the national interest” (2007, p.164). While being used in relation to one country, I think the statement could be applied elsewhere in the world as well.

Accessibility for all should be more than just a national interest; it should be a worldwide one. An article I found titled “Depending on the Digital Design: Extending Inclusivity” by Guy Dewsbury, Mark Rouncefield, Karen Clarke, and Ian Sommerville, states, “technology can only be used effectively when other structural and architectural elements are attended to” (2004, p.821). Disabled people make up the “structural and architectural elements” of society. How can technology be considered effective if it doesn’t also meet their needs?

“The Business of Digital Disability” points out that, when it comes to accessibility for the disabled, it’s often described as “an extra cost and a nuisance” (Goggin & Newell, 2007, p.164). Many establishments don’t see the point in spending the money to meet the needs of the marginalized. “Depending on the Digital Design” brought up a good counter to that argument, however. The article quotes Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs,” saying that “until basic needs are met then higher needs cannot be considered, it has been found that when the living environment of a person is substandard, due to structural constraints or inappropriate attention to detail, then considering advanced technology is simply impractical” (Dewsbury, 2004, p.821). It doesn’t matter how advanced technology becomes if it cannot meet the needs of those who require it most.

The process for more inclusion is messy. It’s not something that can be fixed overnight. However, both articles do an excellent job of pointing out that, so long as we are unable to meet the needs of everyone, technological advancement will continue to fail us.

References

Dewsbury, G., Rouncefield, M., Clarke, K., & Sommerville, I. (2004). Depending on digital design: extending inclusivity. Housing Studies, 19(5), 811–825. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267303042000249224

Goggin, G., & Newell, C. (2007). The Business of Digital Disability. The Information Society, 23(3), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240701323572