The Internet for the blind and visually impaired

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2001, Pages

  Williamson, Kirsty ^a   Wright, Steve ^a   Schauder, Don ^a   Bow, Amanda ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN REHABILITATION ENGINEERING; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MULTIMEDIA SYSTEMS; OPTICAL CHARACTER RECOGNITION; SOCIAL ASPECTS;

SERVICE DELIVERY MODELS; VISUALLY IMPAIRED; WORK DISABILITIES;

INTERNET;

EID: 3242746699     PISSN: 10836101     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00135.x     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Adaptive Technology Resource Centre. (2000). Technical glossary. Toronto, Canada, University of Toronto. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.utoronto.ca/atrc/reference/tech/scread.html
2. American Foundation for the Blind. (2000). Optical character recognition systems. Retrieved June 22, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.afb.org/ info_document_view.asp?documentid=1283
3. Boss, B. XML in 10 points. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.w3.org/XM>/1999/XML-in-10-points
4. Brewster, S. (2001). Haptic interaction. Glasgow, Scotland, University of Glasgow. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~stephen/ research/haptics/index.shtml
5. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Cited by Schwandt, T. A. (1998). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin, and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research(pp. 221-259). London: Sage Publications.
6. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Cited by Schwandt, T. A. (1998). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin, and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research(pp. 221-259). London: Sage Publications.
7. Chen, C., & Hernon, P. (1982). Information seeking. New York: Neal-Schuman.
8. Corker, M. (1999). New disability discourse, the principle of optimization and social change. In M. Corker & S. French (Eds.), Disability discourse. Buckingham: Open University Press.
9. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) (1986). The landscape of qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.
10. European Commission DGXIII, (n.d.). Critical factors involved in end-users: Education in relation to assistive technology. Project D3402 EUSTAT.
11. Gregory, S. (1997). The disabled self. In M. Wetherall (Ed.), Identities, groups and social issues (pp. 354-361). London: Sage Publications.
12. Henter-Joyce, Inc. (2000). JAWS for windows. Retrieved June 22, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.hj.com/JAWS/JAWS.html
13. Hunt, P. A. (1966). Critical condition. In T. Shakespeare (Ed.), The disability reader: Social science perspectives. London: Cassell.
14. Johnson, L., & Moxon, E. (1998). In whose service? Technology, care and disabled people: The case for a disability politics perspective. Disability and Society, 13(2).
15. Kaye, H. S. (2000). Computer and Internet use among people with disabilities. San Franscisco, CA: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Department of Education.
16. Morley, D. (1992). Television audiences and cultural studies. London: Routledge.
17. Morley, D., & Silverstone, R. (1992). Domestic communication: Technologies and meanings, In Morley, D.(Ed), Television audiences and cultural studies. London: Routledge.
18. Muller, M. J., Wharton, C., McIver, W. J. (Jr.), & Laux, L. (1997) Toward an HCI research and practice agenda based on human needs and social responsibility. Conference on Human Actors in Computing Systems. Atlanta, Georgia, 22-27 March.
19. National Council on Disability. (1998). Access to multimedia technology by people with sensory disabilities. Washington, D. C.: National Council on Disability. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/ publications/sensory.html
20. Newell, C. (1994) People with disabilities and the information society. In Population Papers and Policy Issue Discussion Papers. Melbourne: Telecom Australia.
21. Office of Training Technology. (2000). Haptic (sensory/touch) interfaces. Washington, D.C.: United States Navy. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.ott.navy.mil/index.cfm?RID=TTE OT 1000022
22. Penney and Associates, Ltd. (1996). Internet access for people with disabilities, final report. Retrieved July 21, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://indie.ca/strategy/accessreport.html
23. Perrett, B. (1995). Marketing considerations. In P. Roe (Ed.), Telecommunications for all. Commission of the European Communities, Lausanne. Cited by Johnson, L., & Moxon, E. (1993). In whose service? Technology, care and disabled people: the case for a disability politics perspective. Disability & Society, 13(2).
24. Perrett, B. (1995). Marketing considerations. In P. Roe (Ed.), Telecommunications for all. Commission of the European Communities, Lausanne. Cited by Johnson, L., & Moxon, E. (1993). In whose service? Technology, care and disabled people: the case for a disability politics perspective. Disability & Society, 13(2).
25. Roberts, S. (2000). Personal communication, Communications Research Forum 2000, Canberra, Australia 4-5 October.
26. Roth, H. (1991). Planning information services in the disability field: Some essential steps. Link-up 66, February.
27. Royal Blind Society of NSW. (1996). When even glasses don't help: A study of the needs of people who are blind or visually impaired. Burwood, NSW: Royal Blind Society of NSW.
28. Royal National Institute for the Blind. (1998). The Internet and how to access it. Peterborough: RNIB.
29. Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind. (2001). Pensions - benefits - concessions for people who are blind or visually-impaired. Retrieved June 22, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.rvib.org.au/publications/pensions.shtml
30. Schwandt, T. A. (1998). Constructivist, interpretvist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (pp. 221-259). London: Sage Publications.
31. Sinks, S., & King, J. (1998). Adults with disabilities: Perceived barriers that prevent Internet access. Paper presented at the CSUN 1998 Conference, Los Angeles, March. Retrieved January 24, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://accessability.noie.gov.au/view.cfm?resource_id=499
32. Tinker, A., McCreadie, C., & Salvage, A. (1993). The information needs of elderly people: An exploratory study, London: Age Concern Institute of Gerontology.
33. Todd, H. (1984). The information needs of newly retired people. Health Libraries Review, 1, pp. 22-35.
34. Warner, E. S., Murray, J., & Palmour, V. E. (1973). Information needs of urban residents. Final report from the Regional Planning Council of Baltimore and Westat Inc. of Rockville, MD to the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Division of Library Programs under contract No. OEC-O-71-455, ED088464.
35. Watson, N. (1998). Enabling identity: Disability, self and citizenship. In T. Shakespeare (Ed.), The disability reader: Social science perspectives. London: Cassell.
36. Wetherall, M. (Ed.) (1997). Identities, groups and social issues (pp. 354-361). London: Sage Publications.
37. Williamson, K. (1998). Discovered by chance: the role of incidental information acquisition in an ecological model of information use. Library and Information Science Research, 20(1), pp. 23-40.
38. Williamson, K. (1995). Older adults: information, communication and telecommunications. PhD thesis. Melbourne, Department of Social Sciences, RMIT.
39. Wolstenholme R., & Stanzel, J. (1997). Communications technology: Information and access issues for people with disabilities. Armidale, NSW, The Rural Development Centre, University of New England.