Critical Review: It means inclusion: a creative approach to disability and telecommunications policy in Australia by Kate Ellis.

Vision Assist

This review is going to identify the relevance of Ellis’s (2012) article in relation to the information profession and in particular the library. This article describes the various different types of telecommunications technology available and those that are being rolled out in Australia, e.g. digital TV, the National Broadband Network (NBN) and mobile phone technology and how they function with people with disabilities. It describes the issues that each technology has with various disabilities and how this can either positively or negatively effect their interaction and inclusion with society.

Tablets allow for ease of use
 for those with limited dexterity

How is this relevant to the information professional and the library? The purpose of the library is people with information (Prentice, 2010) and the library can use the various types of telecommunication to provide services to the disabled part of society. This part of society can be seen as part of those effected by the digital divide (Burke, 2009) as there is limited accessibility to services.

Speech to text translation App
and SMS Text for mobile devices

Ellis states that mobile technology is an important part of disabled people adapting the various section of society. Libraries can now use SMS messages to promote library services as well as notices about books that are overdue (Abnu K & Mavuso, 2012). Adapting library webpages and catalogues to work with mobile interfaces (Burke, 2009) also allows for programs to “read” a webpage and for magnifying programs/devices to be used. There is also the idea that smartphones and tablets with touch interfaces allow those with limited dexterity to use a multitude of applications and web services (Ellis, 2012) and this can be applied to library web services and interfaces. Creating web interfaces that interact with the library and selecting electronic media and materials (e.g. electronic databases), staff can make these features adaptable for people with a range of disabilities and technologies, while still working within their budget and focus (Mates & Reed IV, 2011). Ellis (2012) also makes the point that agencies, in this case libraries, need to be aware of the different range of disabilities and how they can adapt policies to cover each type.

Image explaining Web 2.0

Ellis (2012), however is weak in her assumption that her reader is aware of the web 2.0 technologies and how they can be adapted to work with a range of disabilities. Web 2.0 is the social, interactive web. Instead of being static, both the user and the creator can have input into the web and make changes that allow for it to be individualised, which can provide a social space to meet people without barriers (Mates & Reed IV, 2011). Ellis (2012) also assumes that her readers are aware of how digital television is capable of being adapted in different ways to facilitate communication and socialisation. Until this information is more common place there is no ground for this technology to be in place with services. Services will just assume that there are other avenues that can be used to facilitate the same purpose, complicating access for the disabled person (Foley & Ferri, 2012).

Ellis (2012) provides a great deal of information on current policies in place in Australia in relation to disabilities and currently technology programs. The information contained here can be applied to multiple services such as libraries in regards to the weakness inherent in these technologies and how they are applied. Ellis (2012) also has a strong argument in relation to viewing disabilities differently, that it is not just one category but a term that is an overview for many different issues. Anastasiou & Kauffman (2012) also argue this as the case and that policy makers should adapt their services to change with the user depending on their abilities and disabilities. Applying this to library services will allow for a more equitable provision of connecting patrons with information and community interaction.

References

Abnu K, J.P. & Mavuso, M. R. (2012). Old wine in new wine skin: marketing library services through SMS based alert services. Library Hi Tech, 30 (2). DOI: 10.1108/07378831211239979

Anastasiou, D. & Kauffman, J.M. (2012). Disability as cultural difference: implications for special education. Remedial and Special Education, 33(3), 139-149. DOI: 10.1177/0741932510383163

Burke, J. J. (2009). Neal-Schuman library technology companion: a basic guide for library staff. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.

Ellis, K. (2012). It means inclusion: a creative approach to disability and telecommunications policy in Australia. Telecommunications Journal of Australia, 62 (2), 27.1-27.13. Available from: http://tja.org.au

Foley, A. & Ferri, B. A. (2012). Technology for people, not disabilities: ensuring access and inclusion. Journal of Research in Special Education Needs, 12(4), 192-200. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01230.x

Mates, B. T. & Reed IV, W. R. (2011). Assistive technologies in the library. Retrieved from the EBook Library.

Prentice, A. (2010). Public libraries in the 21^st century. Retrieved from EBook Library. 

Image References

AndriodPit. (n.d.). SpeechTrans Hearing Impaired. In AndriodPit. Retrieved from: http://www.androidpit.com/en/android/market/apps/app/com.nuance.nmdp.ultimate/SpeechTrans-Hearing-Impaired
Morris, K. (2009). What is web 2.0? In Primary Tech. Retrieved from: http://primarytech.global2.vic.edu.au/2009/03/17/what-is-web-20/
Richard. (2012). Vision Australia texpo part 2: mobile apps In Webbism: (noun) the art of crafting websites that work. Retrieved from http://webbism.com/2012/09/11/texpo-201-part2-mobile-apps/
Richies Room. (2013). Tag Tablet. In Ritchies Room. Retrieved from http://ritchiesroom.com/tag/tablet/