A2 – FULL SIZE IMAGES

IMAGE 1

poster-1-final-logo.ai_Download

IMAGE 2

poster-2.ai_Download

IMAGE 3

poster-3-1Download

Poster 3 – Drafting & Conceptual Basis

Concept & Brainstorming

• The concept of my final poster was to be strongly linked to the notion that digital access and divide are closesly related to the availability of online legal services.
• The intersection of digital exclusion and online legal services impacts many people, with the Australian Digital Inclusion Index mandating financially dsadvantaged people are the most disadvantaged.
  • This is due to their Australian Digital Inclusion Index score being the lowest in Australia
• Therefore, the concept of my first poster was to be: Digital Exclusion towards older people and how it restrains their access to legal justice.

Putting Ideas into practice

• I wanted to convey this message by composing a digitally manipulated image through photoshop.
• Iwanted to make this image relatable to a majoirty audience, meaning I needed to make the background of the image as familiar to the average person as possible.
  • This is done through the computer screen, a familiar piece of equiptment to capture one’s attention.

Draft #1

Draft #2

Draft #3

Draft #4

Draft #5

Draft #6

Visual Literacy Tools

Signifier & Signified

• Computer Screen:
  • Signifier: Computer Screen
  • Signified: Digital Technologies

• Hands with coins:
  • Signifier: Hands with coins
  • Signified: The notion that digital exclusion is a concept within digital literacy that directly impacts people with limited incomes (specifically those within the lowest quintile of Australian income earners). The helplessness of the hands in a ‘begging’ position is symbolic of the helplessness of those who are restircted from digital inclusion, and therefore restricted from the access to online legal services.

Information Value

• The information value of this image can be assesed through the compositional choices throughout the image.
• As mandated above, the hands with coins symbolise the notion that digital exclusion is a concept within digital literacy that directly impacts people with limited incomes (specifically those within the lowest quintile of Australian income earners). The helplessness of the hands in a ‘begging’ position is symbolic of the helplessness of those who are restircted from digital inclusion, and therefore restricted from the access to online legal services.
• In conjunction with the ‘Error’ message on screen, this notion displays the formal lack of legal egalitarianism through the message “you have insufficient funds too access your legal rights”.
• This is supported through the notion of the ‘posit-it’ notes to support this message.

Salience / Framing

• The audience is primarily guide to the error message. Then, vector lines allow the visual path to continue to the helplessness of the hands with coins. Following this, the eyes are guded left to right due to the post-it notes.

Given/New

• Left = “Poverty = Digital Exclusion” “Digital Exclusion = Unequal access to online legal services”
  • Given – general consensus

• Right = “Affordability is the leading cause of digital exclusion in Australia”
  • New – fact

Poster 2 – Drafting and Conceptual Basis

Concept / Brainstorming

• The concept of my second poster was to be strongly linked to the notion of the digital divide and lack of equality within digital access to facilitate an imbalance access to legal representation.
• This concept was to be the salient image of the piece
• Through the notion of legal representation – I began to think about the idea of using the scale of justice as the main image – however to symbolise the inequality caused by those who are subjected to the digital divide, I would have one side of the scale more heavily weighted than the other.

Putting Ideas into practice

• I wanted to display (using symbolism and a variety of visual literacy skills) the notion of digital exclusion to restrain digitally excluded people from obtaining access to justice.
  • This is an ideology which stems from the Law Council of Australia – who mandates that “access to internet, the physical ability to use online devices, internet and technological know-how, and willingness and/or capacity to learn how to use the internet as a source of information I wanted to display (using symbolism and a variety of visual literacy skills) the notion of digital exclusion to restrain digitally excluded people from obtaining access to justice”.

• To represent this i wanted to digitally illustrate a scale of justice which is unequal in balance – to represent the inequality when accessing the law between those who have access to technology and digital services (and those who do not – ‘the divided”).
• This will be further symbolised through the heavier side of the scale having a laptop in its place and the lighter side having a large stack of books on it.
  • Computer – The computer is symbolic of all forms of technology and digital platforms which the digitally divided are not able to access or operate properly.
  • Books – The pile of books refers to the only other means of information which is provided to those who do not have access to digital technologies and/or are divided from such technologies.

Draft #1

Draft #2

I added the books and computer:

Draft #4

Draft #5

Draft #6

Visual Litercay Tools

Signifier/Signified

• Scale of Justice:
  • Signifier – Scale of Justice which is unequal
  • Signified – Due to the scale of justice representing the fairness and equality within the judicial process, the uneven scale of justice represents the opposite notion. When considered with the elements of the books and computer within their relevant positions, the uneven scale of justice signifies the inaccessibility and inequality created by the digital divide within the legal/judicial process. This indicates that both parties within a case will not be considered equally within a court case or other litigious proceedings due to the notion that those with a technological background possess an advantage.

• Computer/Laptop:
  • Signifier – Computer/laptop
  • Signified – Digital technologies and digital access

• Books:
  • Signifier – Books
  • Signified – The alternatives to digital technologies which are inaqueate when considering access to justice

Information Value

• When considered as a total composed image, the information value of this poster is clear, yet effective.
• This image can be seen to have an information value which satirises the original meaning of the scale of justice. In theory, the scale of justice is a symbolism which is used to represent the legal ‘fact’ of equality and fairness within legal proceedings (with the scales usually being of equal weight and therefore an equal position). The notion of the computer being on the more heavily weighted scale represents the notion that when faced with a party who is digitally excluded, the advantaged of possessing access to digital materials in the law is one which causes an imbalance within the court system. This provides the digitally included (and literate) party to have a greater chance of winning the case, and not win the case based on the merit of factual basis before the law. The other party is represented through the symbolism of the books, which have little impact on the other party.

Salience

• The audience is primarily guided to the imbalanced scales of justice. This is due to the information being conveyed in this message to be the main message of the poster.

Given/New

• The given and new for this poster follows the pattern of the ‘given’ being on the top half of the ccompoition, with the bottom half being the ‘new’.
• Given = the notion that ‘Justice Means Access For All’ (Access reffering to digital access and online legal services)
• New = the reality that people with digital access and literacy have a larger advantage within legal proceedings (communicated through the uneven scales of justice – see above)

Inspiration

https://ccsearch.creativecommons.org/photos/4811f94b-b4e0-4385-95a4-6cf29600bf97

Poster 1 – Drafting & Cinceptual Basis

Concept / Brainstorming

• The concept of my first poster was to be strongly linked to the notion of digital access and divide and how to prevents the digitally excluded from obtaining equal access to justice
• The notion of a ‘restrained access’ or ‘prevention’ was to be the main message of the image
• I also wanted to make the image target a more specific audience than just the ‘digitally excluded’. To make it more trageted, I accessed the digital inclusion index and saw that older people (aged 65+) were major culprits of digital exclusion.
• Therefore, the concept of my first poster was to be: Digital Exclusion on older people and how it restrains their access to legal justice.

Putting ideas into practice

• I wanted to display (using symbolism and a variety of visual literacy skills) the notion of digital exclusion to retain older people from obtaining access to justice.
  • This is due to the notion that older people with low digital inclusion/literacy rates are unable to access online legal assistance services, the completion of legal forms online, accessing legislation, etc.

• Upon reading into the topic, the constant repetition of ‘restricted access’ to justice through digital exclusion made me think of the notions of ‘restraint’, ‘ being ‘trapped’, and also being ‘suffocated’ of their legal rights due to an inability to have digital access or be part of the digital divide.
• This made me first think of a pair of hands with a prison chain around it – however this lacked a digital element to it to signify the digital literacy concept of digital access and divide.
  • Stemming from this, I thought about using a power cord to act as the prison chain – which then transformed into the final thought of a computer mouse
  • I chose this due to the notion that it is a familiar piece of equipment to a majority of young people. This will allow them to critically investigate the fact that even ‘familiar’ or ‘everyday’ technological equipment can prove to be a very severe barrier to digital access for some groups of people, especially older people.

Draft #1

Draft #1 – (Clenched fist) – NOT CHOSEN

• I decied not to continue with this due to the notion of this image not creating a vector line towards the pivotal message.

Draft #2

• For the progression of this poster, I decided to create this image into a digital artwork – however making one major change – Adding wrinkles to my hands – this links back to the signifier and signified. With the wrinkles within the hands symbolising the notion of old age (crucial to addressing digital access and divide of older people).
• This can be seen below:

Draft #3

Draft #4

Draft #5

Visual Literacy Tools

Signifier/Signified

• Wrinkled hands:
  • Signifier – Wrinkles
  • Signified – Older people who are a particularly large group of people who are subjected to digital exlusion and divide.

• Tied Hands
  • Signifier – Both Hands tied by a mouse and mouse cord
  • Signified – The notion that digital exclusion/divide is a concept within digital literacy which directly impacts older people ‘restricting’ their access to justice. The notion of restriction is evident through the notion of the hands being tied – symbolic of restraint and handcuffing.

Information Value

• The information value of this image can be seen through the symbolism of the hands being tied by the mouse (cord).
• This is due to the notion that older people are being restrained to their access to justice due to the digital divide. The tied hands resemble to fact that new legal services (which are based online) means that alot of older people are not able to access their basic rights under the law with the same amount of ease as other people who are not subject to problems with digital access and divide. The symbolism of tied hands represents the hopelessness of older people when facing this modern problem – however also calls for the audience to think about a solution to the matter (with this solution being increasing digital access for older people).
• This digitial divide impacting older people’s legal rights is evident through the digital inclusion score of people aged 65+. This led to a digital inclusion rate (ADII Score) which was 13.9 points below the national average.

Salience

• The audience is primarily guided to the hands tied to the mouse. This is due to this information being the main focus of the image due to its symbolism stated above (under ‘information value’).

Framing

• Although the salient image of the poster displays the hopelessness of older people’s digital exclusion and the ramifications it has on their access to justice – the information is divided and connected to make the audience think of a solution to this issue.
• Due to the vector lines of the index fingers of each hand pointing upwards, the audience is confronted with the message ‘UNTIE THE DIVIDE’.
  • This is a pun on the call for the audience to ‘untie’ both the physical cord around the persona’s hands, however also to ‘untie’ and ‘remove’ the barrier of digital exlcusion on older people due to its impacts to justice which it possesses upon them.

Given/New

• Left = “Digital Inclusion means justice for all” (Given) – General consensus.
• Right = “Older people have the lowest digital inclusion rate in Australia” (New) – fact.

Inspiration

https://ccsearch.creativecommons.org/photos/54a1cd8a-7a43-4be1-b292-733a8a4acea3

Progress 12/09

The following is a sample idea of what i want to do for one of my posters – I will attempt to do this by sketching something similar (with more individual expression towards issue), scanning it and enhancing it through photoshop

Faculty: Law

Organisation: Legal Aid NSW

Issue: Access/Divide

The organisation related to my field (Law) that I have chosen to focus my images on for the next assignment is (Maurice Blacburn Lawyers).

scanDownload

Tutorial Image concepts – 26/08

This image illustrates access through the notion of inclusivity represented through the ramp. This signfiies the defintion of access – allowing for the participation of the greatest population of people possible. This contrast between stairs and the ramp displays that disabled people also have oppurtunites to acess through intentional design.

The bars, symbolic of a jail cell, demonstrates the concept of restraint and confinement.

The Impact of Algorithms on Digital Literacy & Political Discourse

Algorithms are fundamental to the discourse of information and opinion within digital platforms due to evaluating information displayed to the viewer. Due to this, understanding the impact of algorithms is essential to digital literacy. Algorithms severely impact the user’s navigation of digital information, altering the content presented and distributed by the user (Crawford 2016).

Within social sciences, algorithms extend beyond a “calculation engine” creating a single “autocratic decision” based on data provided to it (Crawford 2016, p. 79). Rather, algorithms are the unseeable processes by which digital spheres are produced and altered, not solely the final output (Crawford 2016). Thus, digital literacy includes being aware of factors altering the algorithm, including the processes and assumptions implemented by those who created it.

Algorithms are not always predictable in nature, creating a public discourse with altering perspectives, therefore allowing for debate. This is evident through programmed randomised testing within digital algorithms, labelled as “A/B testing” (Crawford 2016, p. 80). This creates a platform of democratic public discourse with no separation between technology and politics, conceptualised through the theory of ‘agnostic pluralism’ (Crawford 2016). This refers to having a plurality of opinions and content within the political discourse where “conflict may appear”; however, assists in resolving and understanding differences (Crawford 2016, p. 83).

This notion of agonistic opinions is not a new phenomenon, according to Lazer (2015), likening digital platforms to spheres of 19th-century public debate. Lazer (2015) supports this by comparing Facebook’s algorithm to Habermas’ model of the public sphere. This is due to comparing the algorithms of contemporary digital platforms to 19th Century Parisian salons (Lazer 2015). This is illustrated through the concurrent characteristics of enabling “intense conversation, with leakage across conversations creating a broader, systemic discussion” (Lazer 2015, p. 1090). This notion is also supported through Dahlberg (2001) due to his belief in digital platforms, subject to algorithmic impacts, to facilitate democratic discussion. Through algorithms within contemporary digital platforms, there is the creation of deliberative democracy, in which “dialogue and difference” are pivotal to the collection and dispersion of information (Dahlberg 2001, p. 616). Through added randomised testing, users with differing perspectives can engage in “rational-critical discourses” regarding public matters (Dahlberg 2001, p. 616).

Therefore, through analysing the impact of algorithms upon the user, it is crucial that the individual views algorithms beyond the output of preferential data. Rather, the individual must acknowledge both the assumptions of those who created the algorithms and their current exercise of digital literacy. Through this analysis, it is evident that digital literacy includes being aware of algorithms and its ability to facilitate discussion or persuade the user.

Bibliography

1. Crawford, K. 2016, ‘Can an Algorithm be Agnostic? Ten Scenes from Life in Calculated Publics’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 77-92.
2. Dahlberg, L. 2001, ‘The Internet and Democratic Discourse: Exploring the Prospects of Online Deliberative Forums Extending the Public Sphere’, Information, Communication & Society, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 615-633.
3. Lazer, D. 2015, ‘The rise of the social algorithm’, Science, vol. 348, no. 6239, pp. 1090-1091.

Examining Digital Literacy Through the Lens of Access and Participation

The ability to develop digital literacy is dependent on one’s capability to access and participate in a digital framework. However, there are many barriers to digital accessibility, including physical, contextual and socio-cultural restraints (Ellis & Goggin 2015).

Accessible technology refers to digital tools which can be used efficiently by disabled users without needing to render the process of content consumption or dispersion as inferior (Lazar, Goldstein & Taylor 2015). However, it is important to note that accessibility within digital platforms is not limited to those with physical impairments, however, is focused on a comprehensive design for the “broadest population of users possible” (Lazar, Goldstein & Taylor 2015, p. 7). This provides a deeper understanding that digital literacy is a fundamental component to the rise in participatory culture (McShane 2011). This is due to the shift from information literacy to digital literacy allowing for a transition from a ‘consumption only’ culture to one which also fosters creation and production, therefore, participation (McShane 2011).

However, barriers to this modern and digital-based participatory culture are extremely prevalent in disabled Australian citizens, impacting 20% of the population (Elis & Goggin 2015). This is evident through the Australian Digital Inclusions Index (ADII) Report, concluding that disabled citizens possessed an ADII score “11.0 points below the national average” (Roy Morgan 2018, p. 6). Such barriers in Australian contexts include funding and technological issues (Elis & Goggin 2015).

Government funding allows for the development of inclusive and disability-targeted digital platforms. This is evident through the creation of Ramp Up, a “participatory media space” established by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) which enabled disabled citizens to have a democratic voice regarding disability issues in Australia (Elis & Goggin 2015, p. 81). However, this was met by the barrier of funding restraints, due to 2014-15 budget cuts of $43.5 billion to the ABC, forcing the termination of the program (Metherell 2014). Through this termination, disabled users find digital platforms inaccessible, therefore not allowing for their involvement within digital-based participatory culture, as outlined by McShane (2011). Government restraints also extend to disability support pension cuts, aggravating the difficulties of disabled persons to participate digitally (Gibbs 2014). Such government restraints have caused a modern reliance relied on crowdfunding to facilitate digital inclusion (Ellis & Goggin 2015).

Another barrier to access and participation includes a lack of accessibility regarding digital media platforms. Measures to overcome this are evident through diverse user interfaces to suit people who have special needs (Ellis & Goggin 2015). This is evident through twitter’s adoption of the Easychirp interface which allows for access and participation using technologies suited for disabled users – e.g. screen readers (Ellis & Goggin 2015).

Bibliography

1. Ellis, K. & Goggin, G. 2015, ‘Disability Media Participation: Opportunities, Obstacles and Politics’, Media International Australia, vol. 154, no.1, pp. 78-88.
2. Gibbs, E. 2014, ‘Disability in Budget 2014’, viewed 10 August 2019, <https://www.abc.net.au/rampup/articles/2014/05/15/4004641.htm >.
3. Lazar, J., Goldstein D.F., Taylor, A. 2015, Ensuring Digital Accessibility through Process and Policy, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.
4. McShane, I. 2011, ‘Public libraries, digital literacy and participatory culture’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 383-397.
5. Metherell, L. 2014, ‘Budget 2014: ABC, SBS funding cut, Australia Network contract cancelled’, viewed 10 August 2019, <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-13/budget-2014-abc,-sbs-funding-cut,-ausnet-contract-cancelled/5450932>.
6. Roy Morgan 2018, Measuring Australia’s Digital Divide: The Australian Digital Inclusion Index 2018, viewed 10 August 2019, <https://digitalinclusionindex.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Australian-digital-inclusion-index-2018.pdf>.

Analysing the Digital Divide Through the Lens of Social Logistics in Remote Aboriginal Outstations

The digital divide refers to the gulf between those with optimal and minimal adoption rates of digital technologies (Rennnie et al. 2016). This is palpable in Australia through disparities between Aboriginal Australians living in remote areas (‘Outstations’) and Non-Aboriginal inhabitants in the same geographical location (Rennnie et al. 2016). One must examine the impact of Indigenous socio-cultural structures and how this alters their relationship with technology, labelled as ‘social logistics’ (Tenhunen 2008). Social logistics demonstrate that digital literacy isn’t solely dependent on infrastructure; however, also socio-cultural influences (Rennnie et al. 2016).

The digital divide is evident through only 53% of Aboriginal Australians in “very remote areas” having accessed the internet between 2014/15, compared to 85.7% in urban communities, according to a 12-month sample study (Roy Morgan 2018, p. 19). Previously, it was understood that this divide was solely due to infrastructural issues, evident through a 2007 study which concluded that only 26% of remote Aboriginal communities possessed mobile telephone coverage (Rennnie et al. 2016). To improve this, the Australian government established the National Broadband Network (‘NBN’), designed with “regional parity in mind” (Rennnie et al. 2016, p. 20).

The improved internet, however, did not result in increased internet adoption. This presented the need to analyse the divide through social logistics. Refusal to adopt new platforms of digital literacy presented a new outlook, concluding that low adoption rates were dependant on “social obligations” such as economic and land obligations (Rennnie et al. 2016, p. 20). This presented the concept of a ‘digital choice’ to adopt such technologies (Norris 2001). However, within modern society, this digital choice not to adopt such technologies only decreases one’s digital literacy rates. This choice causes a “social divide” due to a “gap between information rich and poor” (Norris 2001, p. 4). Therefore, it can be noted that deprivation of digital platforms and the development of digital literacy skills fosters ‘information poverty’ (Hersberger 2003). This establishes a clear understanding of digital literacy as a necessary skill to obtain information, therefore impacting one’s class location (Hersberger 2003). This is illustrated through a 1996 US-based study, which highlighted that US homeless citizens without internet access felt degraded by those with superior digital-based information services (Hersberger 2003).

Therefore, digital literacy is severely impacted by the level of access the individual possesses, creating a correlation between one’s digital literacy and class location. It must be noted, however, that one’s access, participation, and digital literacy is dependent not only on infrastructure and economic resources, however also social logistics.

Bibliography

1. Hersberger, J. 2003, ‘Are the Economically Poor Information Poor? Does the Digital Divide affect the Homeless and Access to Information?’, The Canadian Journal of Information & Library Science, vol. 27, no. 3., pp. 45-63.
2. Norris, P. 2001, Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and The internet Worldwide, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
3. Rennie, E., Hogan, E., Gregory, R. Crouch, R., Wright, A. & Thomas, J. 2016, Internet on the Outstation: The Digital Divide and Remote Aboriginal Communities, Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam.
4. Roy Morgan 2018, Measuring Australia’s Digital Divide: The Australian Digital Inclusion Index 2018, viewed 7 August 2019, <https://digitalinclusionindex.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Australian-digital-inclusion-index-2018.pdf>.
5. Tenhunen, S. 2008, ‘Mobile Technology in the Village: ICTs, Culture, and Social Logistics in India’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, vol. 54, no 14, no 3, pp. 517.

Examining the Uses & Value of Digital Literacy Through the Myth of the Digital Native

Digital literacy refers to the skills required to navigate, collect, and share information via a digital platform (Deakin University n.d.). When examining digital literacy, it is essential to consider the uses and users of such platforms. The ‘digital native’ refers to individuals with optimal technical proficiency, born following 1984 who have been exposed to the era of digital platforms (Prensky 2001). Many scholars, however, are concerned with the validity of these claims due to current data on usage patterns (Kirschner & De Bruyckere 2017).

The ‘digital native’ as a “new generation of students in possession of sophisticated technology skills and with learning preferences” is a false narrative due to a lack of evidence to support such claims (Bennet, Maton & Kervin 2008, p. 783). Using digital platforms primarily for “personal power and entertainment”, the ‘digital native’ is a consumer of digital content rather than an active participant in the evaluation and composition of information (Kirschner & De Bruyckere 2017, p. 136). These usage patterns are evident through a 2004 US-based study which concluded that the top use, resulting in 99.5% of students, of digital technologies, was categorised as “surfing the net for pleasure” (Bennet, Maton & Kervin 2008). The lack of ‘digital natives’ possessing skills of digital creation and publication is evident through only 21% of students having created “content and multimedia” online (Bennet, Maton & Kervin 2008, p. 778). The digital native as ‘information-savvy’ is a perception which does not correlate to their usage patterns; however, this has allowed for a shift in societal power and value (Kirschner & De Bruyckere 2017). This shift is evident through the terminology of the ‘digital immigrant’ as an older group lacking the “technological fluency” desired in modern society (Bennet, Maton & Kervin 2008, p. 777).

The myth of the digital native also presents false presumptions regarding the individual’s ability to multitask using digital platforms. Multitasking, the completion of two or more tasks simultaneously, is referred to as ‘threaded cognition’ (Salvucci and Taatgen 2008). This is due to the ability of the individual to concurrently complete two or more tasks at once (Salvucci and Taatgen 2008). However, digital platforms present the issue of merely “task switching” rather than the concurrent completion of two tasks at full capacity (Kirschner & De Bruyckere 2017, p. 138).

Debunking this myth illustrates reveals that digital literacy refers to being an active participant in the creation of content, rather than solely consuming content. Further, it displays that digital literacy is a skill which allows for an increase of power, as demonstrated by the perceived rise in the value of the ‘digital native’ in modern society.

Bibliography

1. Bennet, S., Maton, K. & Kervin, L. 2008, ‘The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence’, British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 775-786.
2. Kirschner, P. A. & De Bruyckere, P., 2017, ‘The myths of the digital native and the multitasker’, Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 67, pp. 135-142.
3. Prensky, M. 2001, ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants’, MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5.
4. Salvucci, D.,Taatgen, A. 2008, ‘Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent multitasking.‘, Psychological Review, Vol 115(1), Jan 2008, 101-130.
5. What is Digital Literacy, Deakin University, viewed 29 July 2019, < https://www.deakin.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1237742/digital-literacy.pdf >.