Disability at the centre of digital inclusion: assessing a new moment in technology and rights

References

• Alper, M. (2017). Giving voice: Mobile communication, disability, and inequality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Astbrink, G., & Tibben, W. (2013). The role of public procurement in improving accessibility to ICT. Telecommunications Journal of Australia, 63, 2.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2018). 4430.0 –– Disability, ageing and carers, Australia: Summary of findings, 2015. Canberra: ABS.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN). (2017, April, 28). Submission to senate references committee on community affairs delivery of outcomes under the national disability strategy 2010-2020 to build inclusive and accessible communities. Sydney: ACCAN.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). (2018, July). Human rights and technology issues paper. Retrieved from https://tech.humanrights.gov.au/
   Google Scholar
• Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big Data’s disparate impact. California Law Review, 104, 671–732.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blanck, P. (2014). eQuality: The struggle for web accessibility by persons with cognitive disabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Borg, J., Larsson, S., & Östergren, P.-O. (2011). The right to assistive technology: For whom, for what, and by whom? Disability & Society, 26(2), 151–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boys, J. (2014). Doing design differently: An alternative handbook on architecture, dis/ ability,and designing for everyday life. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Carney, T. (2018). The new digital future for welfare: Debts without legal proofs or moral authority? UNSW Law Journal. The Forum. Retrieved from. http://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/forum_article/new-digital-future-welfare-debts-without-proofs-authority/
   Google Scholar
• Claypool, H., Bin-Nun, A., & Gerlach, J. (2017). Self-driving cars: The impact on people with disabilities. Boston, MA: Ruderman Foundation. Retrieved from https://rudermanfoundation.org/white_papers/self-driving-cars-the-impact-on-people-with-disabilities/
   Google Scholar
• Cormann, M., Senator the Hon., Minister for Finance. (2016). Access to technology made easier. Media release MC 36/16. Retrieved from https://www.financeminister.gov.au/media-release/2016/08/22/access-technology-made-easier
   Google Scholar
• Couldry, N. (2010). Why voice matters: Culture and politics after neoliberalism. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Crawford, K., & Schultz, J. (2014). Big data and due process: Towards a framework to redress predictive privacy harms. Boston College Law Review, 55, 93–128.
   Google Scholar
• Darcy, S., & Burke, P. F. (2018). On the road again: The barriers and benefits of automobility for people with disability. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 107, 229–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darcy, S., Maxwell, H., & Green, J. (2016). Disability citizenship and independence through mobile technology? A study exploring adoption and use of a mobile technology platform. Disability & Society, 31(4), 497–519.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Communications and the Arts. 2017. Communications accessibility: 2016 and beyond: Consultation outcomes. Canberra: Australian Government. Retrieved from https://www.communications.gov.au/documents/communications-accessibility-2016-and-beyond-consultation-outcomes-reform-national-relay-service
   Google Scholar
• Dobransky, K., & Hargittai, E. (2006). The disability divide in Internet access and use. Information, Communication & Society, 9(3), 313–334.
   Google Scholar
• Dobransky, K., & Hargittai, E. (2016). Unrealized potential: Exploring the digital disability divide. Poetics, 58, 18–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellcessor, E. (2016). Restricted access: Media, disability, and the politics of participation. New York, NY: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ellcessor, E., & Kirkpatrick, B. (Eds.). (2017). Disability media studies. New York, NY: NYU Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, K., & Goggin, G. (2015). Disability and the media. Houndsmill, UK: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, K., & Goggin, G. (2016). Disability, locative media, and complex ubiquity. In U. Ekman, J. D. Bolter, L. Díaz, M. Søndergaard, & M. Engberg (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing, complexity, and culture (pp. 270–285). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, K., & Kent, M. (2011). Disability and new media. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, K., & Kent, M. (2015b). Disability and the internet in 2015: Where to now? First Monday, 20(9). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/6163
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, K., & Kent, M. (Eds.) (2017). Disability and the media (vols. 4). New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.routledge.com/Disability-and-the-Media-1st-Edition/Ellis-Kent/p/book/9781138848047
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, K., Kent, M., & Locke, K. (2018). The preferred user: How audio description could change understandings of Australian television audiences and media technology. Cultural Science Journal, 10(1), 7–16.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, K., Kent, M., Locke, K., & Clocherty, C. (2017). Access for everyone? Australia’s ‘streaming wars’ and consumers with disabilities. Continuum, 31(6), 881–891.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eubanks, V. (2017). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
   Google Scholar
• Farrelly, G. (2011). Practitioner barriers to diffusion and implementation of web accessibility. Technology and Disability, 23(4), 223–232.
   Google Scholar
• Fifield, M., Senator. (2016). Communications accessibility: 2016 and beyond. Media release from minister for communication and the arts, Australian Government. Retrieved from http://mitchfifield.com/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1130/MEDIA-RELEASE–Communications-accessibility-2016-and-beyond.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Fifield, M., Senator. (2017, June 23). Establishing a sustainable national relay service. Media release, minister for communication and the arts, Australian Government. Retrieved from http://mitchfifield.com/Media/MediaReleases/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1384/Establishing-a-sustainable-National-Relay-Service.aspx
   Google Scholar
• G3ICT. (2015). Internet of things: New promises for people with disabilities. A G3ict Business Case White Paper Series researched in Cooperation with AT&T. Washington, DC: G3ICT. Retrieved from http://www.g3ict.org/resource_center/whitepaper_internet_of_things.
   Google Scholar
• Gandy, M., Baker, P. M. A., & Zeagler, C. (2018). Imagining futures: A collaborative policy/device design for wearable computing. Futures, 87, 106–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gips, J., Zhang, M., & Anderson, D. (2015, August 2–7). Towards a Google glass based head control communication system for people with disabilities. In C. Stephanidis (Ed.), HCI 2015: International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 399–404). Los Angeles, CA, Proceedings, Part II Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Goggin, G. (2015a). Communication rights and disability online: Policy and technology after the world summit on the information society (WSIS). Information, Communication & Society, 18(3), 327–341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goggin, G. (2015b). Disability and mobile internet. First Monday, 20, 9. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/6171/4906
   Google Scholar
• Goggin, G. (2017). Disability and haptic mobile media. New Media & Society, 19(10), 1563–1580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goggin, G. (2018). Disability and digital inequalities: Rethinking digital divides with disability theory. In M. Ragnedda & G. Muschert (Eds.), Theorizing digital divides (pp. 63–74). London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Goggin, G. (in press). Disability, Internet, and digital inequality: The research agenda. In E. Hargittai (Ed.), Handbook on digital inequality. London: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Goggin, G., Hollier, S., & Hawkins, W. (2017). Internet accessibility and disability policy: Lessons for digital inclusion from Australia. Internet Policy Review, 6(1). Retrieved from https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/internet-accessibility-and-disability-policy-lessons-digital-inclusion-and
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goggin, G., & Newell, C. (2003). Digital disability: The social construction of disability in new media. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Goodley, D. (2016). Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Groce, N. E., & Mont, D. (2017). Counting disability: Emerging consensus on the Washington group questionnaire. The Lancet: Global Health, 5(7), PE649–E650.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahn, H. (1993). The political implications of disability definitions and data. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 4(2), 41–52.
   Google Scholar
• Hamraie, A. (2015). Cripping feminist technoscience. Hypatia: Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 30(1), 307–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamraie, A. (2017). Building access: Universal design and the politics of disability. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hargittai, E., & Hsieh, Y. P. (2013). Digital inequality. In W. H. Dutton (Ed.), Oxford handbook of internet studies (pp. 129–150). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, S. (2017). Big data and the Americans with disabilities act. Hastings Law Journal, 68, 777–793.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC). (2000a). Bruce Lindsay Maguire v Sydney organising committee for the Olympic Games. No. H 99/115. Sydney: Australian Human Rights Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Internet Governance Lab. (2018). Data, disability and development: Innovative approaches to monitoring and evaluating CRPD implementation and disability-inclusive development using big data analytics and text mining. Retrieved from https://internetgovernancelab.org/events/cosp-11-side-event
   Google Scholar
• Jaeger, P. T. (2012). Disability and the internet: Confronting a digital divide. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rieger.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, H. (2010). Net work: The professionalization of web design. Media, Culture & Society, 32(2), 187–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleine, D. (2013). Technologies of choice? ICTs, development, and the capabilities approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knaus, C. (2018, June 1). Agency head apologises to family of man who died waiting for NDIS equipment. Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/01/agency-head-apologises-to-family-of-man-who-died-waiting-for-ndis-equipment
   Google Scholar
• Layton, N. (2015). Problems, policies, and politics: Making the case for better assistive technology provision in Australia. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 10(3), 240–244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazar, J., Goldstein, D., & Taylor, A. (2015). Ensuring digital accessibility through process and policy. Waltham, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Lazar, J., & Stein, M. A. (Eds.). (2017). Disability, human rights, and information technology. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, F., & Goggin, G. (2016). Digital transformations? Gendering the end user in digital government policy. Journal of Information Policy, 6, 436–459.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCann, J. (2013). Smart protective textiles for older people. In R. A. Chapman (Ed.), Smart textiles for protection (pp. 244–275). Cambridge, UK: Woodhead in association with The Textile Institute.
   Google Scholar
• McDermott, S., & Turk, M. A. (2015). What are the implications of the big data paradigm shift for disability and health? Disability and Health Journal, 8(3), 303–304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNaney, R., Vines, J., Roggen, D., Balaam, M., Zhang, P., Poliakov, I., & Olivier, P. (2014, April–May, 26–1). Exploring the acceptability of Google glass as an everyday assistive device for people with Parkinson’s. In M. Jones, P. Palanque, A. Schmidt, & T. Grossman (Eds.), CHI ’14: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2551–2554). Toronto, ON, Canada. New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Mills, M. (in press). On the phone: Deafness and communication engineering. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Morsillo, R. (2011). One down, two to go: Public policy in service of an available, affordable and accessible national broadband network for people with disability. Telecommunications Journal of Australia, 61(2), 28.1–28.13.
   Google Scholar
• Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C., & McNeal, R. (2008). Digital citizenship: The Internet, society, and participation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality and species membership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pal, J. (2015). Access technologies and accessibility for inclusion. In R. Mansell & P. H. Ang (Eds.), International encyclopedia of digital communication and society (pp. 7–14). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Paris, D. G., & Miller, K. R. (2018). Wearable and people with disabilities: Socio-cultural and vocational implications. In M. Mehdi & A. Alharby (Eds.), Wearable technologies: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 833–849). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Park, S. (2017). Digital capital. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Productivity Commission (PC). 2017. National disability insurance scheme (NDIS) costs: Study report. Melbourne: Productivity Commission. Retrieved from https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/ndis-costs/report/ndis-costs.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Productivity Commission (PC). 2019. Review of the national disability agreement: Study report. Melbourne: Productivity Commission. Retrieved from https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/disability-agreement/report
   Google Scholar
• Pullin, G. (2011). Design meets disability. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ragnedda, M., & Muschert, G. W. (Eds). (2017). Theorizing the digital divides. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rashid, Z., Melià-Seguí, J., Pous, R., & Peig, E. (2017). Using augmented reality and internet of things to improve accessibility of people with motor disabilities in the context of smart cities. Future Generation Computer Systems, 76, 248–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roulstone, A. (2016). Disability and technology: International and interdisciplinary perspectives. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Roulstone, A., Sheldon, A., & Harris, J. (Eds..). (2016). Disability and technology: Key papers from disability & society. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. London: Portfolio.
   Google Scholar
• Seelman, K. D. (2016). Should robots be personal assistants?. In P. Block, D. Kasnitz, A. Nishida, & N. Pollard (Eds.), Occupy disability: Critical approaches to community justice, and decolonizing disability (pp. 259–272). New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 30–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shakespeare, T. (2014). Disability rights and wrongs revisited (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Soldatic, K. (2018). Disability and neoliberal state formations: The case of Australia. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Stein, M. A. (2007). Disability human rights. California Law Review, 95(1), 75–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein, M. A., & Langford, M. (Eds.). (2019). Disability social rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, J., Barraket, J., Wilson, C. K., Cook, K., Louie, Y. M., Holcombe-James, I., … MacDonald, T. (2018). Measuring Australia’s digital divide: The Australian digital inclusion index 2018. Melbourne: RMIT University, for Telstra. Retrieved from https://digitalinclusionindex.org.au/the-index-report/report/
   Google Scholar
• Treviranus, J. (2014). Leveraging the Web as a platform for economic inclusion. Behaviour Sciences & the Law, 32(1), 94–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treviranus, J. (2018, October 31). Sidewalk Toronto and why smarter is not better. Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@jutta.trevira
   Google Scholar
• Underwood, S. (2009). Smart clothing and disability: Wearable technology for people with arthritis. In J. McCann & D. Bryson (Eds.), Smart clothes and wearable technology (pp. 371–387). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• UNESCO. (2018a, November). Internet universality indicators: A framework for assessing Internet development. UNESCO. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265830
   Google Scholar
• UNESCO. 2018b. World trends in freedom of expression and media development: 2017/2018 Global report. Paris: UNESCO. Retrived from https://en.unesco.org/world-media-trends-2017
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, J. (2018). Afterword: The state of digital divide theory. In M. Ragnedda & G. Muschert (Eds.), Theorizing digital divides (pp. 199–206). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). (2018, June 5). Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/REC-WCAG21-20180605/
   Google Scholar