![]() ![]() ![]() For example, many of these technological innovations, like screen readers, don’t account for gaps in access to smartphones, computers, or other electronic devices-gaps that particularly affect low-income voters and voters of color.Īnother example of technological harm can be seen in the case of surveillance. But these solutions often lack an intersectional equity analysis. Text-reading software, digital magnifiers, and audio-tactile keypads-essential accommodations for ensuring voters who are blind, visually impaired, deaf, hard of hearing, or deafblind can privately cast their ballot at the polls-are necessary and can be beneficial for everyone. There are many technological solutions for improving voting accessibility. Yet, people with disabilities continue to face disproportionate barriers that make it challenging or essentially impossible to exercise their fundamental right to vote. ![]() Equal access to the ballot box is not only a fundamental part of our democracy, it is also required by law. Consider, for example, approaches to ensuring voting access. This new paradigm can only be realized if the disability justice lens we bring to technology is intersectional. The intersection of technology and disability justice, while historically underresourced, provides enormous potential to disrupt inequality in myriad forms.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |