Alison Kershaw, Project Officer, Digital Bridge Unit [HREF1], Information Economy Directorate, South Australian Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology [HREF2], Level 6, 11 Waymouth St., Adelaide, 5000. Email: kershaw.alison@saugov.sa.gov.au
This paper discusses the changing face of the digital divide and outlines some positive steps being taken by the South Australian Government to improve the accessibility of E-Government for people with disabilities as an example of how a small effort can make a big difference.
The Digital Bridge Unit (DBU) is a small business unit of the Information Economy Directorate, in the South Australian Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology. The Directorate's role is to maximise the social and economic benefit of Information Communication Technologies (ICT) for South Australia by working to identify opportunities for the effective, creative and inclusive use of ICT.
The unit was established after the end of 'Networks for You' [HREF3], a program providing hands on training on the 'new' internet for South Australians in regional and remote areas. It was noted that, whilst people may have access to computers, it is their inability to use them that can put them on what is considered the wrong side of the digital divide.
The DBU works to ensure that people do not get left behind as ICT advances at breakneck speed. Our work includes policy development, co-ordination of digital bridge strategies, liaison with key stakeholders and identification of funding and project opportunities. We work to minimise the digital divide, empower communities, and develop ICT capacities.
In 2002, in a paper entitled "Re-evaluating the Bridge [HREF4]," the Public Policy Roundtable of Pacific Bell / UCLA determined that addressing the digital divide required more than an analysis of access - that is more than just ensuring the availability of a computer and a connection to an Internet signal. In fact, a multitude of qualitative factors, encapsulated as the "Three Cs", impact on people's access and use of digital technology. The DBU takes a holistic approach in addressing every aspect of digital disengagement.
A person's or community's ability to access appropriate and affordable ICT. For the DBU this may mean advocating for broadband connections availability in particular areas, providing information about recycled computer schemes for those on a low income, or facilitating access to assistive equipment for people with a disability. "Assistive equipment" is specially designed equipment and software that enables a person with a disability to effectively use a computer.
The DBU aims to develop a person's skills and confidence in using ICT. Such development is tailored to their needs, environment and ability.
The DBU understands that participation in online communities, being able to access e-government, learning opportunities and social networks can be empowering and connect people with their community and beyond
The Roundtable paper asked, "is content accessible, culturally sensitive, community relevant, and language appropriate, and how do these characteristics affect motivation to use technology, once connectivity has been achieve". In considering these requirements, the DBU has helped create and develop online content to encourage Internet usage by specific communities, such as the Wangka Wilurrara website [HREF5], which provides information for and about Eyre Peninsula Aboriginal communities.
In this context, we also advocate for appropriate, accessible and relevant content on South Australian Government websites. This will be discussed in more detail later.
Having defined the concept of the digital divide in clear academic terms, the reality is that the concept of the digital divide is much more complicated. If you were to ask 10 people for a definition of 'digital divide', you would get 10 different answers. The farmer might note the poor broadband coverage in regional and remote areas of Australia, an occupational therapist might discuss a person's inability to use a computer without some assistive equipment, while a development worker would note the gap between internet usage rates in developed and developing nations.
Working 'on the ground' with groups who self identify as being on the wrong side of digital divide, the staff of the Digital Bridge Unit (DBU) has come to realise there are groups that are often not included in scholarly research about the digital divide.
This was brought home to me when, at a meeting, I met a Coordinator of a Domestic Violence Service who wanted to discuss how the DBU could help her clients. I must admit it was not immediately apparent to me how domestic violence was a digital divide issue. The Coordinator explained how for many women the internet can be a tool for them to begin to regain control of their lives.
The Coordinator explained that when women escape a violent situation the computer is not something they usually take with them. This leads to many problems for themselves and their children. . For women wanting to re-establish themselves, looking for accommodation (particularly interstate) can be difficult offline; finding employment is equally difficult without internet access. Accessing information about government and non-government services can also be difficult without internet access.
Children escaping a violent situation may become isolated as they cannot access the internet for Instant Messaging, social networking websites, email and homework. Recently some schools have been posting homework assignments and information on the web, which means children with no computer or internet access are at an distinct disadvantage.
This conversation was my 'light bulb moment'. In Australia the digital divide has moved on from the a simple city vs. country debate. There are whole sections of Australian society that do not have access to computers and the internet for a range of reasons. But the traditional reasons of city vs. country divide is now inadequate to describe how people are affected.
In a 20 minute 'snapshot' of searching for the term 'digital divide' on Google, Yahoo and Wikipedia [HREF6], I found 19 reasons a person may be on the wrong side of the digital divide.
This list is by no means comprehensive but serves to demonstrate the complexity of the issue. Over the four years since it's beginning the DBU has frequently found that often actually getting a computer is the least of a person's problems when it comes to addressing the digital divide. A person needs appropriate training, support, content, internet connection and the opportunity to learn.
As a public servant rather than an academic, it is difficult for me to stay informed about all the current academic research that is being undertaken. It is probably worth noting that when I was searching using the term 'digital divide' there were almost no results that directed me to any academic research. It is also worth noting much of the research is published in what could be described as 'scholarly' journals not widely available to the public, and public servants.
When speaking to a representatives of recently arrived Somali refugees they gave me a profound example of how he is affected by not being able to use email and the internet. They are currently looking for work and the only way to apply for any job at Coles or Woolworths is online. In fact in the Frequent Questions section on the Woolworths' website [HREF7] there is a link to hotmail.com so a person can create an email account in order to apply for a job.
Work that may be unskilled such as 'night fill', i.e. re-filling the shelves in readiness for the next day's trade, now requires a level of computer skills to actually apply for the unskilled job. The assumption is made that everyone has an email address or at least knows how to set one up.
The Somali refugees need to learn how to use computers is supported by the fact that nearly 15 times more jobs are advertised online as opposed to newspapers. In February 2007 297,000 jobs were advertised online, as opposed to 20,000 a week in major metropolitan newspapers [HREF8]. This demonstrates the instant disadvantage a person has if they do not have the skills to use a computer to search and apply for work.
The group of Somalis I met with were aware of their disadvantage and knew that to truly be part of Australian society they needed an email address and needed to know how to use the internet. They knew computers could do much more, but they knew the priority was email and the internet. They knew computers could do much more, but their priority was email and the internet. To be able to find information, apply for jobs, and manage their money required them to know how to use a computer.
Although many had computers provided by well intentioned supporters, these well meaning people had not provided any training or support. As with many ethnically or linguistically diverse communities, for the Somali community any training needs to be culturally appropriate. For them this means a need for seperate training for women women, men and elders with a bilingual trainer or a trainer and interpreter. Some felt that overcoming the language barrier as well as learning a new skill would be too much.
This example demonstrates how circumstance, language, economic status, culture, opportunity and availability of training can put people on the wrong side of the digital divide. But these obstacles are not insurmountable. The DBU is working with a local community centre and health centre to arrange appropriate training for members of the Somali community with a view to training 'mentors' so they can train other members of the Somali community
One of the problems faced by the groups with which we work is the assumption that everyone owns (or at least has access to) an up-to-date computer. This is just not the case. A friend asked for advice about buying a USB flash drive for her 9 year old son. When I asked why a 9 year old would need a flash drive, she told me that is how the school provided his homework. Some schools are posting homework online, so a student without a home computer and /or an internet connection is immediately at a disadvantage.
The DBU recently ran a digital storytelling competition, however some schools were unable to enter as they did not have any computers with Windows XP. They were still running Windows 2000 which was not compatible with the format chosen for the competition. These were schools in metropolitan Adelaide, a major Australian city, and I was told by a contact at the Education Department that schools have 'differing priorities' and so they may choose not to keep their ICT up-to-date.
This raises some fundamental pedagogical issues. How can children learn about effective use of ICT on computers with software that is 7 years old? If some private schools in Adelaide are issuing all their students with laptop computers, then are those students at schools still running Windows 2000 going to be able to receive the same standard of education?
These few examples demonstrate how in a developed nation, in an affluent city, there are some sections of the community greatly affected by the digital divide.
The Internet is growing at such a pace that policy makers, academics and web designers are playing catch up. Policy development, research and design standards are generally created in reaction to an online development, rather than before.
There are very few who would have predicted the use of mobile phones to access the Internet and email, or phenomena such as MySpace [HREF9] and Flickr [HREF10], leaving writers of standards, rules, policies and training in the position of being reactive rather than proactive.
It is important to note that, given the internet is a global medium, this game of 'catch up' is an international issue. It is not that Australia is doing a particularly bad job rather that no one else is doing a particularly good job.
A good example of this is how people with disabilities are placed on the wrong side of the digital divide by the breakneck speed of developments on the internet.
Many people with disabilities are already financially on the wrong side of the digital divide as they cannot afford a computer. However the advent of computer recycling schemes --both formal (government and non-government) and informal (hand-me-downs from friends and family)-- computers are becoming more attainable for more people with disabilities.
However for many people with disabilities once they have overcome the hurdles of getting a computer, connecting to the internet, accessing any required assistive equipment and learning how to use both the hardware and software, the design of many websites means they are unable to use the internet the same ways as able-bodied people can. Their experience of the internet is severly affected as most of the internet is not compliant with international accessible design standards, e.g. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) [HREF11] issued through the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
In reality many people with disabilities can crossover the digital divide without needing large amounts of money, time or effort. What it does requires is for service providers, members of the wider community, ICT professionals and all of us to be switched on and to be aware of the need for importance of implementing accessible web design.
To illustrate this point I want to discuss work done by the DBU and the Office of Disability and Client Services (ODACS) [HREF12] in the South Australian Department for Families and Communities [HREF13]. To mark International Day of People with Disability 2006, the theme of the day in 2006 was E-Accessibility. The teams decided to look at the accessibility of the South Australian government online.
Before we began we considered what we felt were the main causes of the lack of accessible web design in South Australian government. The lack of accessible design had been identified in the Promoting Independence: Disability Action Plan Report 2005 [HREF14] produced by ODACS. It showed that most departments were not doing well when it came to their websites meeting Priority One standard of the W3C Accessibility Guidelines mentioned previously.
The Promoting Independence Report for 2005 (page 17) stated that no South Australian departments had reached the required 100% for all their information and communication being inclusive. As there is no one department given with overall responsibility for the management of South Australian Government websites it was difficult to gain a thorough understanding of why minimum international standards were not being met.
To better understand the implications of poor web design, the DBU consulted with a wide range of government staff and disability organisations. We were able to gain first hand accounts of some of the issues government staff face and examples of how inaccessible websites impact the lives of people with disabilities.
Baseline data regarding the level of website accessibility was gathered and evaluated using the departments that are listed in the Promoting Independence Report. This will discussed in more detail later in this paper.
Working with the ODACS the DBU has identified the main causes of poor web design within the South Australia and beyond.
It was felt by the DBU and ODACS that a lack of understanding and awareness of E-Accessibility resulted in the lack of accessible South Australian Government websites, rather than an avoidance of this requirement.
It appears that there is a general lack of knowledge and understanding about web accessibility. For example, someone from a digital infrastructure project asked me 'How do blind people use a computer, do they use a Braille keyboard?' This demonstrates that even technically savvy people have not heard of a screen reader.
In 2006 the United Nations undertook a global audit of Internet accessibility for people with disabilities [HREF15]. A snapshot of the internet was taken with the front pages of 100 websites from 20 countries and analysed on 3 of the basic requirements for accessibility. None achieved Priority 2 or 3 levels of accessibility, as set out by W3C.
The only sites that reached Priority 1 were:
Australia was included in this audit along with countries considered to have developed Internet infrastructure. The sites included in the Australian analysis were:
In December 1997 Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, announced in the Investing for Growth statement, the Commonwealth Government's commitment to putting all appropriate Government services online by 2001 [HREF24]. With the Australian Government leading the way, many businesses, not-for-profit organisations and of course State Governments followed suit.
Using ICT and the Internet as a tool to provide information and services to the community, businesses and other sections of government is known as e-government. In some countries it has been used to attempt to reengage sectors of the community with government by providing an easy means to both comment on government policies through online forums and to receive information.
Initially the application of e-government appeared to be a convenient, efficient, cost saving and democratic approach to providing government information and services. However there was a lack of strategic decisions by some agencies on what should make up this online content.
The resulting idea of just 'putting it on the web' has had implications for all users of the internet. Anyone searching online for some information would have experienced wading through websites with poor search functions, finding a site only to discover that either it has not been updated for many years or finding the page has links to other pages that do not exist any more.
The fact is that good design for people with disabilities is good for design for everyone.
At the second Web Accessibility Forum held in Adelaide in March 2007, Human Rights Commissioner Graham Innes described how many companies first hear about the Disability Discrimination Act when a complaint is made about their website. Companies are amazed to hear that the Disability Discrimination Act applies to Goods and Services, and they are even more surprised to be told that it also covers websites. It was pleasing to hear that in the vast majority of cases the complaint is resolved through discussion and arbitration.
In the South Australian Government, as with the business world, there seems to be a general lack of clear understanding of the policies and legislation that require all Government websites to be accessible.
For any policy to be of use it needs to be promoted, its implications need to be understood, the implementation policy needs to be clear and regularly evaluated and if necessary the policy needs to be reviewed and enforced.
The Promoting Independence Report mentioned earlier in this paper asks each Department's Chief Executives to assess their own department's accessibility in relation to the 5 outcomes, which include access to services and information. If the importance of providing information to all is not fully understood as including accessible online information, then this may not be given the priority, support and resources it needs.
Some departments may administer many websites, which means that multiple staff members are responsible for knowing, understanding, implementing, monitoring and enforcing the policies and legislation. This means that no one group or committee is responsible for ensuring compliance with design standards, style guides and current legislation.
Currently there is some testing being done of South Australian Government websites to help ensure the information included in the Promoting Independence report is as accurate as possible. Unfortunately there are not sufficient resources to regualrly monitor all Government websites.
In preparation of this paper I was also unable to obtain a definitive number of websites hosted by the South Australian Government, with numbers ranging between 289 and 335 from the Service SA website described as 'Your gateway to South Australian services and information' [HREF24A] and SA Central website described as 'The Gateway to South Australia' [HREF24B]. This reflects a lack of a central coordinating body, with two authorative websites having conflicting information, which in turn means that there is no standard Content Management System, design templates, shared resources or even an 'official' network of Government web workers. The lack of a central coordinating body makes it more difficult for any policy or standards to be consistently and completely implemented. Leaving the task to individual officers who are required to be aware of and responsible for this implementation.
Those who have taken the opportunity, or may have had it thrust upon them to look after a website are sometimes referred to as 'Accidental Techies'. These are people with no formal training in website management, development or writing of content. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the vast majority of websites within Government and the wider community are administered by accidental techies.
In developing ways to improve e-accessibility it was noted by staff from the DBU and ODACS that most non-Government organisations (NGOs) do not have the resources necessary to employ a professional web designer. In fact many NGO's have only 'Accidental Techies', i.e. those with no special training but who are willing to 'have a go' at developing, maintaining or writing for a webiste.
Possibly the biggest hurdle faced by those advocating for accessible web design is the lack of inclusion of accessible web design in university and further education curriculums. In search for evidence of inclusion in curriculums in South Australian institution I was unable to find any. In subsequent conversation with further and higher education lecturers, it was confirmed that not much accessible design (if any) is included in curriculums. A speaker from the Royal Society from the Blind (South Australia) described at the second E-Accessibility Forum how she had been invited to a web design class to demonstrate different screen readers and magnifiers. Having done this the lecturer explained that accessible web design section of the course had been completed. This seems to indicate if a person has had formal training in website design at TAFE or university it is likely that they will have received almost no training on accessible web design. Rather than accessible web design being the default design standard, there are some 3 year courses, for example, where accessible design rates only a one hour talk from a disability service provider.
Thus a qualified web designer may have little or no knowledge of accessibility requirements. This situation leaves the SA Government, and anyone else with a website, in the invidious position of having to consciously stipulate that a site should be designed in accordance with accessible guidelines. This, of course, also requires that the designer and 'owner' of the website must know and understand these guidelines.
Recently when I was speaking at a conference about the work being undertaken to improve web accessibility in the South Australian government, a university student in the audience put up his hand and said he had never heard of W3C. I asked what course he was doing, web development was the answer. How can a university course about web development not include any information about W3C?
The DBU and ODACS' first thoughts on addressing the problem were not to play the blame game. Arguing over how we got to the current situation was pointless - what was needed was solutions.. It was decided to work to raise the profile of the issue and work to support Government web workers to improve the accessibility of the sites they administer and /or contribute to.
When considering how to address the issue of poor e-accessibility it was acknowledged that the information and resources we provide need to be targeted at those responsible for web content as well as web design. Both the content and the design of a website contribute to the overall accessibility of a website. Content needs to be concise, written in plain English and culturally appropriate for the particular audience. This approach reflects the fact that some websites are designed by an external agency and then handed back to possibly untrained officers in Department, who are responsible for updating the content.
As DBU and ODACS have limited staff and financial resources we examined the ways in which we could effectively help raise awareness of e-accessibility and provide information and support to the staff responsible for website design and content. Our approach needed to be cost effective, easy to manage and pose little financial risk.
The strategy developed was made up of 4 key aspects:
Different options for awareness raising events were discussed, it was decided forums where attendee could learn about the issues would be an affordable and effective format. The Forums aimed to highlight the issue from the viewpoint of people with a disability, demonstrating both the limitations of previous experiences with web access and showcasing developments and devices addressing these situations.
The Forums targeted Government web staff, both developers and managers, and aimed to give web workers a sense of the issues faced by people with disabilities when faced with poor web design. We wanted to provide practical information about how individual staff would then be able to work to improve their website. Given that umbrella policies are already in existence, it was considered important to work from the other end of the continuum to encourage improvements at the 'coalface' of each individual website.
The Community of Practice [HREF25] is a tool to help people gain a better understanding of E-Accessibility, through connecting people engaged in this field with information exchange and development, best practice highlights and a general examination of the issue. The online Community of Practice was set up before the first forum with information on a variety of topics such as accessible web design, design standards and testing. Of equal importance though is reducing the isolation of individuals in the field offered by the community of practice, and sharing the responsibility among web design and maintenance workers and, of course, distributing knowledge about web accessibility more widely.
To provide technical training from experts in the field we approached Vision Australia to design a series of workshops for web staff. The workshops will commence in June 2007 and the topics to be covered are
Vision Australia was selected for their internationally recognised expertise in the area of accessible web design training.
Vision Australia [HREF26] was approached to develop a 10 Point Checklist for Accessible Web Design [HREF26A]. The checklist is designed to provide some straight forward information on how to improve the design of a website. They also provided a 10 Tips for Top Web Content list which targets those responsible for the content of the website rather than the design, as content is also an accessibility issue.
Over 300 SA Government and non Government staff attended two E-Accessibility Forums, with speakers discussing the legal and moral need to provide accessible websites. Assistive technology such as screen readers, screen magnifiers and trac balls were demonstrated.
The response to the forums was very positive, with 79% of those who responded to an online follow-up survey, indicating they were either 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied'. It is of interest to note the feedback asked for both more technical and less technical information to be provided, thus reflecting the range of level of knowledge of the staff involved in and responsible for website design and content.
Given the positive response to the E-Accessibility Forums with over 300 attending it has been disappointing that only 70 have joined the online community of practice. Whilst there has not been any formal research carried out, we have surmised that most web workers are likely to be accidental techies and thus those without a technical background are less likely to join an online Community of Practice as they are usually seen as forums run for technical people by technical people.
While this somewhat disappointing result may well be the result of
'techno-phobia' it has raised the concern that if all the members of the
Community of Practice have little understanding of web accessibility (because
they are 'accidental techies') we could be faced with the problem of the blind
leading the blind.
Thankfully we have received the support of web design
experts who are able to answers 'technical' questions.
The DBU is currently considering ways that participation in the Community of Practice can be increased, including examining other similar projects and working to identify what makes them successful, so we can implement similar initiatives.
It is however, difficult to judge the effectiveness of the Community of Practice. Whilst we actively encourage feedback and communication, as is often the case we don't hear unless someone is particularly unhappy. To date we have not received any.
The future of the DBU working to improve SA Government e-accessibility looks good. We have been very pleased with the positive response to our efforts, despite many people actually being embarrassed when the inaccessibility of website they administer was pointed out to them.
The online Community of Practice will continue until the end of the year, when it will be reviewed and its success, or otherwise, evaluated.
We will continue to work with ODACS to improve the general awareness and importance of e-accessibility with government and policies and legislation that require it. As well as making web workers aware of their responsibilities, it will be vital to also inform senior staff , as they in the end are the ones with the responsibility to allocate the priorities, staff, resources and of course the money to improve e-accessibility for all South Australians.
However, the biggest problem this whole endeavour faces is the lack of appropriately trained staff. With accessible web design barely rating a mention in many web design courses, it is going to be difficult to find appropriately skilled people to repair or redesign any inaccessible website.
It is vital that this issue is also given a higher priority in other environments. While this initiative is working within the South Australian Government to help meet accessibility requirements, universities and training providers also need to educate their students about their legal responsibilities, and some would say moral obligation, to provide equitable access to the Internet for all.
It is imperative that Government leads the way in demonstrating good accessible design as a way to implement policies promoting equity, and access for all, developed at the highest level. This initiative is one way to do this, and the overwhelming interest and response it has generated has indicated that there is general good will and a determination to address the existing shortfall in meeting basic requirements.
The digital divide is something that is likely to be with us for years to come, and the rapid pace of technological innovation may well see new problems arise but the very pace of technological change provides possibilities for new solutions to be developed. The "Three Cs" concept of the digital divide, connectivity, capability and content means far more than access to a digital signal. It is imperative that digital fluency and access to age/gender/culturally appropriate and accessible on-line content be considered a basic and universal requirement in today's digital world.
Afnan-Manns, Sheila and Dorr, Aimee. (2003). Re-evaluating the Bridge! An Expanded Framework for Crossing the Digital Divide through Connectivity, Capability and Content. A Report on the Digital Divide's Multiple Dimensions: Indicators for Measuring Success. Los Angeles: The Pacific Bell / UCLA Initiative for 21st Century Literacies at the UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies.