Comments on: Thinking about Three Levels of Technology Access

By: lifekludger » Blog Archive » The Touch Barrier - Accessibility and usability issues around touch technologies

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:50:12 +0000

[...] post: Thinking about Three Levels of Technology Access Update: DISABLED GAMERS’ COMPRISE 20% OF CASUAL-VIDEOGAME AUDIENCE [Hat tip to Laurel [...]

By: Dave the Lifekludger

Dave the Lifekludger — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:22:23 +0000

Certainly, access is a huge challenge given the individual nature of abilities of people who have some form of impairment that means they can’t use technology in the manner that is dictated by broadcast design ideas.

The bottom line seems to be engagement and collaboration with ‘end users’ (eg: customers, PFKATA) rather than a directive, siloed approach.

And, getting back to what spurred my original post – access needs a holistic view of the individual in context.

Thanks for your continued discussion.

By: lucychili

lucychili — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:33:00 +0000

I guess I was wondering if the diversity and customisation required for accessibility
was a challenge in terms of use because it doesnt fit well with a broadcast model of making technology. Someone makes something to fit a big market makes more money. The business model for making technology probably is a factor in the outcomes for users of the technology. If the technologies are the kinds of things that users can adapt and tweak then it is possible that improving access to training in making technologies would be a good way to improve access to technologies which are effective for their purposes uses and specific needs. It feels like this would be a continuum but that being able to particpipate not just as a consumer would be an interesting shift.

By: Dave the Lifekludger

Dave the Lifekludger — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 02:03:51 +0000

Hi, certainly access is about freedom and my three are only base levels. I see where the freedoms you talk about could fit within these basic levels – kind of as sub-sets or freedoms that enable such basic access.

I like your goal, though think it speaks more of the method of making things accessible. My goal of technology is to actually use it. And the three things I outline are three places that we are traditionally tripped-up. I wanted to point out these different access levels as they have unique problems that often need addressing in different ways.

Participation as you point out is going to be an important shift and openness certainly is the best way to enable that – as well as maybe discovering spin-off benefits – if not ‘big broadcast’ ones, certainly ‘long tail’ ones.

Thanks for the comment.

By: lucychili

lucychili — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:57:41 +0000

I think you need some more kinds of access:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

For me a goal of technology would be that the standards are open and the interfaces are not only gui but are wrangleable from different accessibility perspectives, and that we are able to configure for ourselves. There is no big broadcast benefit in making it easy for people to do this but I think it is a very practical approach because more people are able to have tech that suits them.

Fewer consumers and more people able to participate I feel is going to be an important shift for future society and technology =)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 01:21:55 +0000

Sun Jul 8, 2007 at 6:21 PM a more considered response to Laurel’s request for input to a seminar she will be attending.Â But Dave said it all (and then some).Fang – Mike Seyfang This entry was posted on Monday, July 9th, 2007 …