A USER CENTRED APPROACH

The aim of this paper is to suggest a model which assists in the ability to judge the access offered to the public by Information Technology, IT and Public Information Systems, PIS. It has its starting point in the Swedish Government’s endeavour to turn Sweden into the first ‘information society for all’. A study of the available statistics concerning the access to a PC and the Internet in Swedish homes could make one think that this vision may soon be realised. Naturally, access to the technical equipment is a fundamental condition in order to be able to use the Public Information Systems, but unfortunately, is not the only one. Several studies have shown that it is not possible to equate possession and use. A number of access models or frameworks designed to judge whether or not a person has access to the ICTs do exist. However, it is my opinion that there is a deficiency in these models; their starting point is not the individual user’s prerequisites, but rather they judge the external conditions available for possible access. Assisted by four empirical studies, interviews and questionnaires, a number of access barriers experienced by the users have been identified. The studies show that in addition to the technological hindrances, a more elusive set also exists, originating from the prevailing norms and values in the user’s environment. These barriers are categorised into five groups; to have, to be able, to will, to may and to dare. Together these notions form the User Centred Access Model, UCAM, which is suggested for use in charting and communicating the necessary considerations that must be taken into account in the development of Public Information Systems.

[1]  James E. Katz,et al.  Motivations for and barriers to Internet usage: results of a national public opinion survey , 1997, Internet Res..

[2]  K. Keniston,et al.  The Four Digital Divides , 2003 .

[3]  Lynette Kvasny,et al.  The Digital Divide at Work and Home: The Discourse about Power and Underrepresented Groups in the Information Society , 2002, Global and Organizational Discourse about Information Technology.

[4]  Katarina Lindblad-Gidlund Techno Therapy : a relation with technology , 2005 .

[5]  Jan van Dijk,et al.  The Digital Divide as a Complex and Dynamic Phenomenon , 2000, Inf. Soc..

[6]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1964 .

[7]  A. Clement,et al.  The Access Rainbow: Conceptualizing Universal Access to the Information/ Communications Infrastructure , 2000 .

[8]  Olof Nilsson,et al.  Access Barriers - from a user's point of view , 2005 .

[9]  T. Pinch,et al.  The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other , 1984 .

[10]  Rod Carveth,et al.  Policy Options to Combat the Digital Divide in Western Europe , 2002, Informing Sci. Int. J. an Emerg. Transdiscipl..

[11]  Brian D. Loader,et al.  Digital democracy: an introduction , 2005 .

[12]  Karl R. Popper,et al.  The Worlds 1, 2 and 3 , 1977 .

[13]  K. Popper,et al.  The self and its brain , 1977 .

[14]  Ola Henfridsson,et al.  IT-adaptation as sensemaking: inventing new meaning for technology in organizations , 1999 .

[15]  Elizabeth C. Boyd Introduction to the Special Series on the Digital Divide , 2002, Informing Sci. Int. J. an Emerg. Transdiscipl..