2 Shew (2022) on the Origins and Framework of Technoableism:

Shew (2022) explores the origins of technoableism, tracing it back to historical developments in technology that have consistently marginalized individuals with disabilities. The framework of technoableism is built upon several key ideas that highlight how the exclusionary design of technologies perpetuates ableist norms and inequalities. Technologies have often been designed without considering the needs and abilities of disabled individuals, leading to exclusion and marginalization. This neglect is rooted in a historical context where technological advancements prioritized the experiences and capabilities of able-bodied users. Examples include:

• Industrial Revolution: The machinery and tools developed during this period were designed for able-bodied workers, often ignoring the needs of those with physical disabilities. This led to workplaces that were inaccessible to many.
• Early Computing: The first computers and their interfaces were designed for users with fine motor skills and unimpaired vision, excluding those with physical or visual impairments.
• Public Infrastructure: Historical urban planning and public infrastructure projects often ignored accessibility, resulting in buildings and transportation systems that are challenging for disabled individuals to navigate.

Design Bias: The default design process typically centers on able-bodied users, overlooking the diverse range of human abilities. This bias is often unconscious but pervasive, leading to several key issues:

• Assumptions of Normalcy: Designers often assume that all users will have similar physical and cognitive abilities, resulting in products that do not accommodate those with different needs. For example, standard keyboards are not suitable for individuals with limited dexterity.
• One-Size-Fits-All Solutions: Technologies are frequently designed with a one-size-fits-all approach, failing to provide customizable options that would make them usable for a wider audience. This lack of flexibility can make technologies inaccessible for people with disabilities.

Impact: The oversight in design leads to technologies that are inaccessible or less usable for disabled individuals, reinforcing societal ableism. The impacts are multifaceted and profound:

• Digital Divide: Disabled individuals are often excluded from the benefits of technology, exacerbating the digital divide. This exclusion can limit access to information, employment opportunities, and social interactions.
• Social Marginalization: Inaccessible technologies can contribute to the social marginalization of disabled individuals, making it harder for them to participate fully in society. This marginalization reinforces negative stereotypes and biases about disability.
• Economic Disadvantage: The inaccessibility of technology can lead to economic disadvantages for disabled individuals, who may find it more challenging to gain employment or access services that are increasingly digitized.

Framework for Addressing Technoableism: Shew (2022) proposes a framework for addressing technoableism, which involves several critical steps:

1. Inclusive Design Processes: Incorporating the needs and perspectives of disabled individuals from the outset of the design process. This includes involving disabled people in user testing and feedback loops.
2. Awareness and Education: Raising awareness about technoableism among designers, engineers, and policymakers. Education and training programs can help to shift mindsets and reduce biases.
3. Policy and Regulation: Implementing policies and regulations that mandate accessibility standards in technology. Governments and organizations can play a key role in enforcing these standards.
4. Continuous Improvement: Recognizing that accessibility is an ongoing process. Technologies should be regularly evaluated and updated to ensure they remain inclusive as new needs and challenges arise.