‘If the phone were broken, I’d be screwed’: media use of people with disabilities in the digital era

Abstract

Digital media have become integral to the everyday life of people with disabilities. So far, research about disability and digital media use is rather scarce and narrowed on issues of accessibility and social media. This paper draws on qualitative interviews with people with visual or motoric impairments to provide an in-depth analysis of their everyday experiences relating to barriers and benefits of digital media. The findings reproduce previously identified barriers and extend these by adding novel sub-aspects of individual cognitive and attitudinal barriers like non-use of digital media due to their (perceived) complexity and a feeling of greater dependence on digital technology. However, the results also shed light on highly individualized ways that people with disabilities actively make use of digital media to improve their daily life. Despite persisting and new barriers, the general findings suggest that, with the appropriate training and support, digital media are largely beneficial.

Points of interest

• About 15 percent of the population worldwide are directly concerned by the issue of disability and digital media (for example smartphones, apps, online news).

• In this study, forty people with visual or motoric impairments were interviewed about their everyday experiences with digital media. They reported both benefits and problems of digital technology.

• Benefits: digital media allow people with disabilities to lead a more independent life; for example, shopping without assistance, reading the newspaper, or using social media.

• Problems: fear of technology, feeling dependent on digital devices, and lack of know-how are obstacles for digital media use. Increasingly complex websites and apps create additional barriers.

• A solution would be individual support and training.

Keywords:

• Disability
• digital media
• media use
• everyday life
• accessibility

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.