(no subject)

Our Yearly Meeting is doing a survey on use of internet mediated communication. The demographics they ask for are age range, whether one is affiliated with a Meeting, and gender.

Not whether one lives in an urban or rural setting, or how much it costs to have internet access, or at what speed one has access... I wrote a comment at the end of the survey, noting the exclusion a binary gender question created and the absence of any "useful" demographics. Then, as i began journalling, i wrote a longer email:

I continue to reflect on what seems to me a problematic construction of the demographic questions as part of the survey.

I worry that digital divide questions about the cost of access to the internet were not reflected. Prompted by the gender question, which seemed irrelevant and problematic in its exclusion of members of our community, i find myself listing questions that i would find helpful in discerning the appropriateness of the use of internet mediated services by the Yearly Meeting Community:

I recognize the value my spouse and i put on our digital tools, and we recognize we are outliers holding down the end of a curve. What is it like to have to go somewhere to get internet access, i wonder, as many get their internet access at the library? How many of the respondents only have access at work, library, or school where access to some sites may be blocked?

Do folks own their own computer? Do they share it in the family? Or is it a personal tool?

If a respondent had to cut costs, would the internet service be a luxury to be cut? Is the service an expense that's bundled with other communications or separate?

What is the quality of the experience, the speed of the service? Are the respondents using dial-up, DSL, a service with cable? If something goes wrong is it a mystery that the respondent has to ask for favors to get resolved? Or is it a problem that the respondent knows how to resolve?

While i could easily engage an a discernment practice around the advertising practices of Google, Facebook, and Twitter and the appropriateness of using such "free" services, my real concern about community use of internet mediated communication is the digital divide.

Most people can take a letter and a book to a quiet, private place to read and reflect. There are some class and ability constraints, but i wonder if there are as many constraints as there are for taking internet-mediated communication to a quiet, private place. If one only has access at a public library or in a break room at work, it is not the same experience as i have at this moment, writing from my bedroom at dawn.

Some of the services in the survey, such as Google Docs, rely on high bandwidth and modern computer memory. What is it like to use those services over dial-up?

Some of the services in the survey, such as Facebook, have not made ADA compliance a priority: how many in our community need screen readers or similar tools to assist in accessing the internet?

I note that for many people with different abilities, computer mediated communication makes translation to different tools possible and opens access to participation, but the design of the particular computer mediated environment becomes a more pointed question. For some people, print materials would require asking for assistance while digital communication is something that would be immediately accessible, just in a different way from the "common" mode.

I do not think there's a simple point to be made here: access to information via digital services both bridges and creates divides of class and ability. I delight in how participation is opened to me because of the ability to time shift, i delight in the sense of connection, i delight in the accessibility of the communication despite my level of health. I recognize, though, that just "getting to the computer" is a very different experience depending on one's work life, financial ability, and physical abilities, and worry that those differences were not addressed in the survey.

3 min to a meeting, gotta go.