Nice work!
Digital Divide
The "digital divide" is a multi-facited term referring to the gulf of division between the "haves" and "have-nots" of technology (2). Whether you differentiate between these two groups by gender, ethnicity, education level, income, computer usage, internet usage, or a select combination of the above is debatable, but what is not is the importance of understanding how these gaps of IT access effect the "have-nots" but also the #bubblec('community as a whole', 'Not sure: The community of have-nots (as opposed to the "have-nots" as individuals) or the general population? -- try to be as precise as possible'). A common proposed solution to fixing this problem is lowering the threshold, particularly economic, that prevents individuals from participating in a virtual society. #bubblec('Crude','why do you think that they are crude? To offer free internet in libraries seems to be a working and elegant solution.') examples of this include the OLPC, One Laptop per Child, initiative and a growing access of publicly available computers, such as local libraries.
Local communities, research, and policy often assumes, without much supporting evidence, that usage of IT systems can be converted into valuable goods, services, and life outcomes (1). In 2001, two cities in the state of Georgia attempted to begin closing the digital divide by providing two very different "free", IT services to their citizens (1). The below section briefly outlines what they attempted to do and highlights the success/failure of these efforts.
In Atlanta, community leaders specifically targeted an area with low literacy levels, high poverty levels, where many of the individuals falling below the poverty line had children under the age of 18. City officials felt that this area of the community could be most assisted by the creation of local community technology centers, and hoped that computer skills and increased literacy would increase a participants chances in the job market, help children in school, and empower participants to become active in the community. Characteristics of these technology centers include: the abundance of older computers, time limits imposed on computer use, the use filtering software and policies preventing file downloads, and lack of printing access. Similarly, the city of LaGrange, Georgia attempted to provide all citizens with the opportunity to use technology in their home. LaGrange was the first city in the world to offer free, fast internet access to every citizen. (In truth the cost was free if you had basic cable, if not it was a recurring charge of 8$ a month.) Here the goal of the project was to create workplace skills and educational opportunities for those citizens whose socioeconomic status inhibited the adoption of information technology independently.
In both of these cases, officials and policy makers were disappointed in the results of their efforts. Community organizers were mostly surprised by the lack of enthusiasm citizens in both communities had towards these projects. Some speculated that the services might have been intimidating to unfamiliar users, others felt that the projects held little meaning for those individuals who were not curious or interested in becoming active technology users before. Participants in both cities did not feel that the training courses or internet access really improved their job chances as many had low literacy levels to begin with. Despite very little "success", citizens in both communities that were interested in technology prior to the projects did use the free services as a starting point to educating themselves. The crucial question remains as to how to reach populations that choose not to participate in such projects or who do not have any budding interest.
Although it can be enticing to think that we can close the digital divide by lowering the economic threshold, it is #bubblec('unfortunately not a realistic or independent solution','I assume this your opinion and not taken from (1)? It might be a good idea to mark that, for example by writing "it seems to me that" or simply "from my point of view" to separate opinion and coverage.'). Before people will have any interest in embracing technology they need to understand and believe that it can offer them something worthwhile and meaningful. How to do this goes beyond just providing IT access and beyond providing just training and usage education, and remains a very open question.
CLeaver
I realized after I submitted my initial assignment that I forgot to answer the second question, namely how does the CLeaver project relate to the digital divide. The aim of the CLeaver project is to provide cognitive levers, or supportive assistance in the shape of technological devices to cognitively disabled individuals to help them achieve greater independence. Because cognitively disabled individuals often need very specialized solutions to meet their needs, modern,out-of-the-box packaged software often does provide the framework or flexibility they need. This short sightedness on the part of software companies and developers has created a digital divide in the shape of unusable, inflexible software that does not meet a large number of individuals needs. Instead of creating highly functional systems, such as MS Word, whose complexity is hidden in a large system of menu structures, developers should create software where flexibility and individual preferences are at the forefront of the architecture. Specialized menu structures and modifications should be the norm instead of reserved for expert users. Hopefully if the idea of individualized settings, structure, and functionality are pervasive enough, next generation software systems will encourage and provide solutions for an ever-diverse array of potential users.
(1)Kvasny, L., & Keil, M. (2002). The challenges of redressing the digital divide: A tale of two cities. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Barcelona, Spain.
(2)Digital Divde, Wikipedia article, Version: September 4th, 9:34
