The digital divide can and will be looked at from many different angles/perspectives.
Mark Warschauer states that projects around the world focus too much on the access of hardware and software, and little on human knowledge of that hardware and software (4).
Access to ICT (information and communication technology) is embedded in a complex array of factors encompassing physical, digital, human, and social resources and relationships. Content and language, literacy and education, and community and institutional structures must all be taken into account if meaningful access to new technologies is to be provided (Mark Warschauer 4).
The digital divide is about access to hardware, software, technology, even the internet connection itself, as well as the literacy needed for and to use the hardware, software and technology. It is a seperation in groups, communities, and people which includes having and incorporating techno literacy and cultural literacy. What good is having a computer if we have no idea how to use it?
The digital divide is not limited to the poor, the uneducated, or to those in third world locations, but is cross globally and reaches across every nook and cranny all over the world. Every one and one point in our lives will experience at least one if not more aspects of the digital divide.
Mark Warschauer provides great examples to show that access plays a vital role, but the only role in the digital divide. In one example, there was an experiment in New Delhi that provided an outdoor, five station computer kiosk, to one of it's poorest slums. No instruction was provided, there were no teachers to help or anyone to explain how to use everything. Kids had to figure out how to navigate through the kiosk. The kids learned how to navigate simple things such as: copying and pasting, changing the "wallpaper", also, how to launch and use Microsoft Word and Paint. The kiosk ended up being minimally effective due to the lack of educational programs provided, as well as lack of content provided in their spoken language. The kids mostly spent their time drawing and playing video games (2).
From the rich to the poor, the young to the old, the technologically savvy to those barely being introduced to it, the digital divide is prominent, and the awareness and attempt to close the gap is starting, but definitely has a long way to go. We must acknowledge the fact that every person starts from a different playing field and must be provided the much needed tools to succeed in this technologically changing and advancing world.
The metaphors used between Windows and Macintosh operating systems was somewhat confusing, and a little difficult for my to grasp and fully understand. I am not sure if it is accurate in that it represents modern capitalism, or that those of us who aren't prominently white middle to upper middle class users see it that way. To say that the icons of the manilla folders support that is a bit extreme and far fetched. They are recognized for what they are, literally. More and more people are familiarizing themselves with software, if that is in fact what they need, whether it be in an office setting, or at home for personal use. It is all dependent upon your level of education, what you actually do for a living, and your interest in the software itself. I was confused after reading this and am not sure what other metaphors can be used to better represent the underlying message of this entry. It isn't about the privelage of accessing the information, it is really about the reasons behind accessing it. What is our use and purpose for it. I wouldn't use Photoshop to merely re-crop an image, and I definitely wouldn't purchase it if that was the only use I would get out of it. However, in the same aspect as the earlier stated metaphor, you could say only designers would access the Adobe programs, due to the fact they are geared towards designers because only a designer would understand the icons of paintbrushes, cropping tools, etc. Like I said, I honestly didn't understand the metaphor so I do not have a solid answer for this.
Selfe and Selfe. Politics of the Interface. 1994. 485-88.
Warschauer, Mark. (2002). Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide. First Monday, 7(7), Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index/php/fm/article/viewArticle/967/888
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You write, "They are recognized for what they are, literally" and I want to know what you mean. Do you mean as binary code? Do you mean as documents and applications? If you mean files, documents, and desktops then you are in the realm of metaphor and I wonder if this way of interacting might still legitimize what computers are for--you know their real work.
ReplyDelete