View previous topic | View next topic

Pandemic 2020 - the day after

Page 14 of 19
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 17, 18, 19  Next

barbados
1378744.  Thu Apr 08, 2021 5:42 am Reply with quote

Ooooooooookaaaaaaaaay
Iím sure whatever you are saying is correct, it has no relation gto the post you quoted, but weíll back away from the diatribe slowly shall we?

@criss, That is what Iím trying to get to the bottom of, not everyone has a mobile phone, but a large proportion of the population do (it was around 55 million devices in use according to statista when I looked) Itís fine saying that
something needs to be done, but what do you suggest? How far down the tech level do we go, and where do we decide that the few at the bottom of the pile are such a small percentage it isnít appropriate to take them into consideration when planning such a large undertaking?

 
franticllama
1378750.  Thu Apr 08, 2021 6:21 am Reply with quote

According to this site 84% of UK adults own a smartphone.
Interestingly 47% of those aged 65 and over don't have access to the internet via a mobile device.

16% of the adult population seems to be a significant enough figure to make provision for.

 
barbados
1378754.  Thu Apr 08, 2021 6:53 am Reply with quote

Thatís fair enough- but how many of the 16% are housebound?
It also doesnít answer the question, how far down the list do we go before we decide that the provision is acceptable?

 
PDR
1378760.  Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:16 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Ooooooooookaaaaaaaaay
Iím sure whatever you are saying is correct, it has no relation gto the post you quoted, but weíll back away from the diatribe slowly shall we?


Of course it has everything to do with the post I quoted. The implicit message in your post was that those who don't own a smartphone are lesser people who don't matter.

So you are promoting the view that anyone on a low income is a person of no account, and older people who might think phones are just things for making phone calls are clearly just coffin dodgers and so you don't really care if they can participate or not.

To be able to use a smartphone QR log-in you must (a) have a smartphone, (b) have the understanding to find, download and install a suitable QR code reader (they are not part of the OS), (c) know how to use it, (d) have your smartphone switched on and (e) have network coverage for your network at the venue and (f) have data budget to allow you to switch on the 4/5G connection.

UK digital exclusion data suggest that between 14 ad 21% of the general population would fail one or more of these requirements, being less than 7 on the Digital Inclusion Scale. These numbers rise dramatically if you focus on the older age groups, and even more dramatically if you focus on the lower income groups.

We have been formally warned that if we have a recruitment process that requires interactive video communication we would be open to legal challenge for discrimination. We would be OK requiring on-line elements to the process (on-line tests, on-line interactive application forms etc) provided we offered them with sufficient notice and/or time flexibility that any potential applicant could arrange to use a free public service internet facility (ie a job-centre). We can only insist on face-2-face interviews for early-careers applicants if we cover travel costs for the same reason, and if we require telephone interviews we must offer notice and flexibility to allow the candidate to (again) arrange to use a free public facility.

Now all that relates to employment rather than events, but it's taken directly from the UK government definitions of Digital Exclusion. Anything that absolutely requires possession of a usable smartphone falls squarely in this area, so would be utterly unacceptable.

To the question "how far down the scale must we go?" the answer has to be a LOT further than that.

PDR

 
barbados
1378761.  Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:23 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
barbados wrote:
Ooooooooookaaaaaaaaay
Iím sure whatever you are saying is correct, it has no relation gto the post you quoted, but weíll back away from the diatribe slowly shall we?


Of course it has everything to do with the post I quoted. The implicit message in your post was that those who don't own a smartphone are lesser people who don't matter.

So you are promoting the view that anyone on a low income is a person of no account, and older people who might think phones are just things for making phone calls are clearly just coffin dodgers and so you don't really care if they can participate or not.

To be able to use a smartphone QR log-in you must (a) have a smartphone, (b) have the understanding to find, download and install a suitable QR code reader (they are not part of the OS), (c) know how to use it, (d) have your smartphone switched on and (e) have network coverage for your network at the venue and (f) have data budget to allow you to switch on the 4/5G connection.

UK digital exclusion data suggest that between 14 ad 21% of the general population would fail one or more of these requirements, being less than 7 on the Digital Inclusion Scale. These numbers rise dramatically if you focus on the older age groups, and even more dramatically if you focus on the lower income groups.

We have been formally warned that if we have a recruitment process that requires interactive video communication we would be open to legal challenge for discrimination. We would be OK requiring on-line elements to the process (on-line tests, on-line interactive application forms etc) provided we offered them with sufficient notice and/or time flexibility that any potential applicant could arrange to use a free public service internet facility (ie a job-centre). We can only insist on face-2-face interviews for early-careers applicants if we cover travel costs for the same reason, and if we require telephone interviews we must offer notice and flexibility to allow the candidate to (again) arrange to use a free public facility.

Now all that relates to employment rather than events, but it's taken directly from the UK government definitions of Digital Exclusion. Anything that absolutely requires possession of a usable smartphone falls squarely in this area, so would be utterly unacceptable.

To the question "how far down the scale must we go?" the answer has to be a LOT further than that.

PDR

If you say so, although I challenge you to provide evidence of when I said those who donít own a smartphone are lesser people?
There is only one person in this conversation who (regularly) considers himself superior to everyone else - and heís the one that watches you shave in the morning.

 
Brock
1378762.  Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:10 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
barbados wrote:
Ooooooooookaaaaaaaaay
Iím sure whatever you are saying is correct, it has no relation gto the post you quoted, but weíll back away from the diatribe slowly shall we?


Of course it has everything to do with the post I quoted. The implicit message in your post was that those who don't own a smartphone are lesser people who don't matter.


No it wasn't, PDR. Once again, you're reading things into people's posts that aren't there.

You seem to be out to cause disruption at the moment. I'm not sure why, but I think I'll ignore your posts for a while.

 
crissdee
1378764.  Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:32 am Reply with quote

franticllama wrote:
According to this site 84% of UK adults own a smartphone. 16% of the adult population seems to be a significant enough figure to make provision for.



This.

 
Jenny
1378766.  Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:00 am Reply with quote

I'm with PDR on this - OK he put it in a style to which we are all accustomed, but what he says is essentially right. If 16% of the UK population are de facto not included in digital communications, that's a significant number.

And as somebody married to a 78 year old who, while he has a computer and uses it regularly, is about as techy as our tabby cat, I can tell you that anything that goes much beyond 'switch it on and launch a browser/email program' is way out of his league. He refuses to own a smart phone because he says his fat fingers won't deal with the small screens, but in fact it's because it asks more of his technological capabilities than he is prepared to give. I think a lot of people his age would be in the same boat.

Before we had digital connections, the bank used to just write to you, and I don't see what's wrong with requiring that for any customer who hasn't requested digital-only communication.

Our Maine Poets Society has a website and a newsletter. The newsletter is available on the website, and we email the membership every time a new issue goes up. However, we have a fair number of elderly members, and about 10% of our membership either have no computer or prefer to get a print version, so we mail it to them.

 
barbados
1378767.  Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:10 am Reply with quote

That wasnít the claim though Jenny
I gave the numbers of smartphone ownership in the U.K., and asked how far we needed to go to include as many while finding the balance of efficiency and cost.
So far the only offering has been ďa lot furtherĒ the high doesnít really offer much more than whataboutery does it? And that isnít the way to have a grown up conversation is it.

 
PDR
1378768.  Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:29 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:

If you say so, although I challenge you to provide evidence of when I said those who donít own a smartphone are lesser people?


Here:

barbados wrote:
So what happens if the alternatives available are not as efficient / more costly?
Should every alternative be made available (down to knocking on the door and physically giving the information) just to ensure that the odd person who doesnít have access to a particular delivery method, even thought that would make the service exorbitantly expensive?


You are saying that it's acceptable to have a major service which would be inherently inaccessible to a sector of the population - ergo they are lesser people who don't matter:

Quote:
There is only one person in this conversation who (regularly) considers himself superior to everyone else - and heís the one that watches you shave in the morning.


As no one watches me shave in the morning it follows that there is no one in this conversation who "(regularly) considers himself superior to everyone else".

PDR

 
PDR
1378770.  Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:44 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
That wasnít the claim though Jenny
I gave the numbers of smartphone ownership in the U.K., and asked how far we needed to go to include as many while finding the balance of efficiency and cost.
So far the only offering has been ďa lot furtherĒ the high doesnít really offer much more than whataboutery does it?


I had thought it was fairly obvious, actually. The target value for unintended exclusion (digital or otherwise) is always cited as "as low as possible". The acceptable target value for intentional (deliberate) exclusion is always zero.

If you are proposing a method which inherently excludes <pick a number> 14% of the population then that is just unacceptable, so the development can stop there because no amount of tweaking will make it acceptable. Either the thing which the method is trying to do must be abandoned or an alternative, fully-inclusive method of achieving that thing must be devised. This is very much one of those "we hold these things to be self-evident" things for most people.

PDR

 
PDR
1378771.  Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:50 am Reply with quote

Brock wrote:

No it wasn't, PDR. Once again, you're reading things into people's posts that aren't there.


Well it seems that multiple people see it differently, so perhaps you could to the democratic thing and accept you are outvoted and thus wrong on this point.

Quote:
You seem to be out to cause disruption at the moment.


I'm addressing the subject issues. That doesn't fit within the common usages of "disruption" in this context.

PDR

 
barbados
1378772.  Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:52 am Reply with quote

I do believe you are once again struggling with English.
I asked criss how far we should go (something you are still to offer a lucid suggestion for)
That in no way implies, in a civilised world, that anyone is inferior to another.
What it does suggest is that we need to find a solution for the problem, and where we draw the line under the problem and point out that the solution offered is a bigger problem than the problem itself.
For example, at an extreme level we could just trust that everyone offered has had the required vaccinations to prevent the spread of this pesky virus. However that would present its own problems that would render that solution impractical.
So, rather than take us down an ad hom alleyway, how about actually joining in with the conversation?

 
suze
1378775.  Thu Apr 08, 2021 11:07 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
I gave the numbers of smartphone ownership in the U.K., and asked how far we needed to go to include as many while finding the balance of efficiency and cost.
So far the only offering has been ďa lot furtherĒ the high doesnít really offer much more than whataboutery does it? And that isnít the way to have a grown up conversation is it.


Well let's see if we can get some more specific figures, then.

As noted, 84% of people in the UK who are 16 or over possess one or more smarthphones. In the 16-55 age group it's well over 95%, but falls away quite sharply among older age groups. (source for these figures) So we have 16% who have a problem if there is a public service which is not available any other way.

Now then, as of the 2011 Census, 86% of the population of England and Wales was white, meaning that 14% wasn't. (source) Would we consider it acceptable for some public servuce to be available only to white people? I don't even need to ask that question, since hardly anyone bar Mr Stephen Yaxley-Lennon would say "yes".

He's not reading this, so I'm fairly sure that everyone who is reading would accept that a service which is available to 86% isn't good enough. Let us go further, then.

Around 800,000 people in the UK are "regular wheelchair users". The source (here) doesn't define that term, but it seems reasonable to suppose that that's at least 800,000 people who have a problem if our service is only available upstairs. The latest official estimate of the UK population is 66,769,807 (source), so our 800,000 is 1.2%.

Would we find it acceptable if that 1.2% were excluded from some service? Now, some absolutely would say "yes" at this point - but that is no longer the mainstream position (except on the London Underground, which has been given an indefinite time period for which it is allowed simply to say "shan't").

If excluding 1.2% is not considered appropriate (unless you are the London Underground), then we have an upper bound on what is.

 
barbados
1378776.  Thu Apr 08, 2021 11:09 am Reply with quote

Do we just believe Karen when she tells us she is vaccinated?

 

Page 14 of 19
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 17, 18, 19  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group