Hi everyone and thank you so much for your interest in our work. My name is Giulia Barbareschi
and today, with my colleague Cathy Holloway I am going to talk to you about our work on
The Social Network: How people with visual impairment use their mobile phones in the
Kenyan informal settlement of Kibera. This work was conducted by UCL Interaction
Centre and the Global Disability Innovation Hub in partnership with the University of
Nairobi and the Kilimanjaro Blind Trust Africa and it’s part of a larger programme of research,
funded by the UK Department for International Development called AT2030-Life-changing assistive
technology for all. As most of you probably know, mobile technologies
can offer great support to people who are visually impaired, both as a social enablers
and as more traditional assistive technologies. There are over 5 billion mobile phone users
worldwide. The numbers are continuously growing and this upward trend is mainly led by low
and middle income countries. Where, more basic phones are more common place.
For this reason, in recent years several researchers in the field of Human computer interaction
and international development have started to look at how people with visual impairment
who live in low and middle income countries make use of their mobile phones to increase
independence and participation in their daily lives.
Some researchers have developed new low cost solutions that enable visually impaired people
who are basic and feature phones users to have access to social media and navigation
services. As expected, smartphones offer significant advantages in everyday life compared with
basic and feature phones, but the transition from button to touch screen interfaces is
often long and complex for many people with visual impairment.
Finally, regardless of the availability of features and services, the barriers and characteristics
of the mobile ecosystem determine how mobile phones are used by visually impaired users.
For example, a smartphone can offer GPS based navigation services, however their usefulness
can still be severely limited by failures of the network or usability issues.
The social context in which people live is probably the most crucial aspect that shapes
not only how people use mobile phones and other technologies, but also the broader experience
of disability. To describe the complex web of people, environments and aspirations that
shape how technology is used, researchers have formulated the concept of Human infrastructure.
These complex networks of people and environments can determine both why and how technology
is used in different contexts.
It is also important to remember that the human infrastructure of technology is often
more prominent in low and middle income countries where technology use is shared by different actors.
Human infrastructure gives rise to different ways to use technology such as direct
or mediated by intermediaries that either interact with the technology on behalf of
users or support them by simplifying the interaction Our study took place in an informal settlement.
Informal settlements, otherwise known as slum communities, represent unique urban ecosystem
with specific organizational, societal and infrastructural characteristics. Most informal
settlements develop as unplanned urban communities that are situated at the periphery of large
cities in many low and middle income countries. Informal settlements are characterised by
high levels of poverty and scarcity of services.
However, thanks to their proximity to large urban developments, residents of informal
settlements enjoy better access to opportunities compared to many people who live in rural
communities. The trade off is they are also places of overcrowding and have poor road
infrastructure, which means that most roads are narrow and unkempt leading to severe barriers
to navigation for many people with disabilities. On the other hand, people living in informal
settlements are more likely to be free from traditional social hierarchies and constraints
that shape rural societies enabling the creation of wider and diverse social relationships.
Finally, the increased resilience to change of most informal settlement residents creates
more openness and willingness to engage with technology in creative ways.
Building on these three strands of research, we formulated two research questions for our
study: How does the social environment of visually
impaired people who live in the informal settlement of Kibera in Kenya shapes the way in which
they interact with mobile technology? The second is, what kinds of interactions would people
with visual impairment who live in Kibera want to have in the future compared to the
interactions they have available now? To answer our research question we developed
a two stage research process to explore both current and future interactions between visually
impaired people and mobile technology. Our first step was to conduct a series of
contextual interviews followed by ethnographical observations of six visually impaired Kibera
residents. Our aim was to identify the types of interactions participants had when using
mobile phones for different purposes, and to understand how these interactions are characterized
by their social components. To gain a comprehensive understanding we also conducted a few additional
interviews with key members of the human infrastructure of the participants focusing on exploring
their role as technology intermediaries. Data from interviews and observations was
analysed using thematic analysis and the findings from this initial stage of research were used
to develop two storytelling and modelling activities for a co-design workshop with an
additional 10 visually impaired people living in informal settlements. The aim of the workshop
was to engage participants in exploring the ways in which they aspired to interact with
technology and their social environment in the future, and understand the role they envisioned
these interactions could have in achieving more fulfilling lives.
I’ll now leave you to my colleague Cathy who will be walking you through the results
of our studies.
Thank you Giulia. I will now take us through the results
From the first study, we identified four types of interactions that the participants had
when using their mobile phone. These were direct interactions, supported interactions,
dependent interactions and restricted interactions.
Direct Interactions as you can see here were categorized by independent mobile use by the
VIP. Although these direct interactions were mainly described in relation to mobile phones,
they went beyond the use of mobile phones as people spoke more generally about interacting
with basic appliances, for examples kettles and radios. Direct interactions with mobile
phones were facilitated by physical buttons on feature phones and basic phones and on
smartphones, these were facilitated through a screen reader.
Moving on to supported interactions. Supported interactions allowed visually impaired people
to seek technology advice and support from two sources:
The first were family and friends. Family and friends would be called upon for ad-hoc
help. The close-knit structure of Kibera - both physically and socially - meant family and
neighbors were close by and willing to help. They would put numbers in phone contact lists,
read and reply to text messages and check airtime credit. A specific support person
who answered more complicated requests and who instilled confidence in technology use
was also called upon but less frequently. The enabling factors for supported interactions
being there for family and friends or a specific support person was that the supporters were
part of the social community of the participant.
Dependent interactions were characterized by a person who was not the primary user – usually
a shopkeeper – directly using the mobile phone on behalf of the VIP
The defining element of dependent interactions was trust. Although dependent interactions
appear similar to supported interactions, they differ in two important aspects. First,
supported interactions only occurred with individuals who were already within the visually
impaired person's social circles, whilst dependent interactions happened specifically with shopkeepers
and M-Pesa agents outside of this social circle. Second, participants reported feeling they
had little control over the situation during dependent interactions, whereas this did not
occur during supported interactions.
And finally we have restricted interactions, and these are ones which are unavailable to
the user. These were mainly caused by one of four factors:
Lack of accessibility features on the handset; Cost of devices or services;
Low digital literacy; Limited capabilities of handsets;
They always result in exclusion of the person alongside frustration and disempowerment
Moving on to our results from the co-design session. In the co-design exercises participants
were asked to describe future scenarios in which technology enabled a visually impaired
child who would live their life in Kibera to interact with the world in whichever way
they wanted.
The results were a series of imaginative stories in which our co-designers envisioned that
generations of the future would not be held back by a lack of sight. Instead, the built
environment would support the needs of visually impaired people and technology such as “advanced
talking white canes” and “talking traffic lights and signage” would enable their characters
to progress, be independent and give back to the community
In people’s vision of the future, visually impaired children were not restricted when
interacting in society. This unrestricted access was possible due to social acceptance.
In these new realities “stigmatization was limited” and visually impaired people were
“high profile” . Therefore, there were no restricted interactions. Instead a new
category – unrestricted interactions – emerged. Which are characterized, as I said, by social
acceptance.
The second finding was that supported interactions evolved to be bi-directional in nature. On
the one hand assistive technologies, specifically in education technology supported the future
visually impaired children to “excel academically and socially – even to University”. And
in return their imagined futures had them be leaders in technology which helped society.
And finally, Independent interactions were dominant. They dominated discussions and focussed
on the role of mobile to enable accessibility of the physical infrastructure of Kibera.
This is noteworthy as none of the participants in the first study mentioned using their mobile
phone device to aid navigation despite all complaining about the inaccessibility of the
physical infrastructure of Kibera
So, finally we look at the future visions and aspirations that emerged in our co-design
session. And we feel it is important to highlight the themes that emerged in the imagined futures
as possible avenues for future design work within the CHI community,
People’s Future Visions and Aspired Interactions were for
Technology for navigation , Technology which would promote social acceptance not “healing”,
Technology which would provide access to information for visually impaired people and others,
including their families. Two-way support ensuring visually impaired
people were creators of content and experience as much as the beneficiaries of technology
and support. Ultimately people wished that technology would be a key enabler in helping
the future children of Kibera achieve their life goals and enabling them to reach prominent
roles in the community. So, our conclusions. Our study finds that
the mobile phone in the context of visually impaired people using it in Kibera acts as
both a social enabler and an assistive technology That with current, available technology, mobile
phones use can be classified as direct, supported, dependent or restricted. And that accessibility
barriers always result in the exclusion of visually impaired individual
Finally, participants aspirations are for more balanced interactions where support is
both received and given
Before we finish, when we were out in Kibera we were asked a question from one of the participants,
which was "What makes you different from all the others?”
The ‘others’ he was referring to were the myriad of researchers who crisscross
the lives of people living in Kibera. They come, they ask questions, they write papers,
they leave, and nothing in this man's life seems to change as a result.
So, it’s a question we keep asking ourselves - it acts as a reminder that research conducted
with people who live in informality can so very easily be extractive. It can do the opposite
of its aim very quickly and become disempowering rather than giving positive change to the
participants and their communities.
So, our handover research approach is aiming to create a sustainable community through:
Collaborations with local university Establishing multiple channels of learning,
so we learn as much as we may teach. Contract with local disabled people organizations
for research activities, so that they are paid for their involvement and can grow their
communities. Providing research training where needed and
receiving research training where needed. Making sure that all our research is provided
back to participants in an accessible format and is built on by them.
We hope that by building a programme of research rather than single projects we can create
lasting change
So, that is all from us. Thank you for listening and for UK AID for funding this project. If
you like to continue following the programme at AT2030.org please do. We'll love to hear
from you. Thank you!