icegov2012 proceedings

advanced initiatives specifically designed to assist this population.
For example, the Department of Rehabilitation Services of
Mississippi, United States, provides the deaf-blind population
with technological, pedagogical and psychological devices (such
as hand magnifiers to read, high-intensity lamps, small telescopes
to read from a distance and small circuit television or computers
that magnify printed material) this with the idea of satisfying the
needs and overcoming the barriers this population faces in relation
to such common activities as learning and communication.
However, the characteristics of the condition of deaf-blindness,
also calls for specialized care programs for access to ICT, a highly
trained companion that can help these people. Nevertheless,
despite the fact that this population possesses less communication
capabilities, it has not been given higher priority within
international programs for the deaf-blind community.
3.3. People with sensory disabilities in the
countries analyzed
Table 3: Number of people with sensory disabilities
Country Census of
the country
(million)
Blind
Population
Deaf
Population
Populatio
n with
deaf
Blindness
Colombia 46,51,645 2.4% 0.98% _
Mexico 112,336,538 1.15% 3.6% _
Spain 45,283,259 0.13% 2.3% 0.013%
UU.EE. 305,000,000 8.2% 3.2% _
Canada 34,030,589 0.52% 0.91% 0.04%
Brazil 203,429,773 0.73% 0.083% _
As evidenced by the table above, the most populous country with
sensory disabilities is United States of America where 11.4% of
the population is visually and hearing impaired , excluding people
with both limitations, followed by Colombia where 3, 4% of the
total population presented some sensory limitation (blind or deaf),
then Spain with 2.43% of people with sensory limitations, fifth
place belongs to Canada with 1.44% of the population with
sensory disabilities and Mexico with 1.15% of visually impaired
people.
4. CONCLUSIONS
To build successful programs in the care of people with sensory
disabilities, we must recognize that this is a population group with
its own characteristics in need of specialized care. International
trends in terms of programs for this population, as presented in
this study, have shown that it is necessary to adapt the physical
space for real digital inclusion of people with sensory disabilities.
It is also of the essence to grant them institutional recognition, as
has been the case with successful programs for people with
limitations in the U.S., Canada, Spain, Mexico and Brazil. These
programs empower groups of people with disabilities by making
policy decisions for the access, use and appropriation of ICTs.
Additionally, international experience shows that spread is also
necessary for the production of digital information in the areas of
education and entertainment, since in most countries and
especially in the United States, this initiative is driven by the State
in their quest to achieve greater competitiveness and human
development of people with sensory impairments, so that there are
two scenarios for people with sensory limitations, a first positive
scenario in which that population can access a variety of digital
content of the same quality as those in normal sensory conditions,
thus reducing the information gap and capacity, and a second
70
scenario less favorable in this population remains excluded from
the flow of ideas and information because they lack the means or
knowledge accessing digital information.Finally, the inclusion of
people with sensory disabilities is the only possibility of
generating a real and effective exercise of the right to information
of every citizen. Thus, governments have an obligation to
implement public policies to help facilitate the use of ICTs
independently to exercise their rights as independent persons with
a real capacity to make their own decisions, thereby affecting
collective decisions that allow them competition and active
participation in democracy. However, the benefits of ICTs for
people with sensory disabilities is not limited to purely civic and
democratic roles, as technologies make everyday tasks easier for
these individuals, which is achieved by a dynamic of inclusion
that goes beyond the merely digital and reaches beyond the
academic, social and family life of each person.
5. REFERENCES
[1] Brian D. Loader and Leigh Keeble, Challenging the digital
divide? : A literature review of community informatics initiatives,
JosephRowntree Foundation, Teesside University, 2004
[2] Bueno Manuel. Definiciones y clasificaciones en torno a la
discapacidad visual. La baja visión y la ceguera,2012.
[3] Canadian Association of the Deaf. Statistics on Deaf
Canadians, 2012.
[5] DANE. Censo General, 2005
[6] Gulati. Archana, Universal Service Obligation Fund´s Pilot
Project Scheme For Access to ICTs And ICT Enabled Services for
Persons with Disabilities in Rural India, 2011
[7] INEGI. Censo de Población y Vivienda, 2010.
[8] MengEe Wong and Libby Cohen. School, Family and other
influences on assistive technology use: Access and challenges for
students with visual impairment in Singapore, 2011.
[9] Microsoft Corporation. Conducted by Forrester Research Inc.
in 2003, The Wide Range of Abilities and Its Impact on Computer
Technology, 2003
[10] Observatorio de Sociedad, Gobierno y Tecnologías de
Información. Revisión y análisis de los avances en alfabetización
digital y apropiación TIC para población con discapacidad
sensorial. 2011
[11] OMS. Resumen Informe Mundial sobre la discapacidad.2011
[12] MINTICS. Tecnologías de Comunicación para la población con
discapacidad, 2009.
[13] Pereira. Selau. Mecdaisy: Um Novo Espaço Virtual Para Os
Deficientes Visuais No Brasil,2009
[14] Silvera. Claudia. La alfabetización digital: una herramienta
para alcanzar el desarrollo y la equidad en los países de América
latina y el Caribe.2005.
[15] Ramírez Leyva. Elsa Margarita. La lectura, Alfabetización en
Información y Cultura de la Información,2007.
[16] World Economic Forum. ISNEAD.The Global Information
Technology Report 2010, 2011.Transformations 2.0. 2011.