If there’s anything that new technology/devices can teach you quickly is that there’s a language to access that some people have, and others don’t. And maybe it has some to do with specific regions – as it definitely has something to do with the logos/brands placed on devices – because some languages are better understood than others.
For example, you can say to someone that you have an iPad, and the language that’s heard sounds like ‘affluence,” “American,” “arrogant,” or whatever comes to your mind when you see that apple logo. Or even terms like access, internet, social networking, and smartphone. These terms have some shape within our minds, and then as we learn more about the terms, the people and actions associated with them, and even their impacts, we begin to form some language towards those items that may or may not be so clear to others.
Those people who are IT-minded tend to know this very well. There’s a language that (depending on where in IT you sit), is either geeky, nerdy, or just flat out weird. When engaging people who don’t have that background, it can be a challenge for some to remove themselves from their “native tongue” to something more accessible to the listening audience. However, this is an endeavor that we should take on – for how does the Body get edified if the sound is harsh or foreign and not easily understood in its context.
That’s the challenge for mobile – as a genre of technology and culture. As a phenomena that has literally wrapped itself around every area of the world that reads and speaks, mobile has itself created this language of use and function that is sometimes easy to understand (applications, ringtones, costs, etc.) and other times is jumbled gibberish (APIs, plaforms, standards, policies, etc.). For those of us who are in mobile, its our challenge to make these areas intelligible to others who are apt to teach so that mobile doesn’t become stigmatized and that it can reach realms beyond just those who can attain it.
Many of the largest mobile companies (manufacturers, carriers, etc.) have been looking at how to drive mobile penetration rates higher. At this point, almost everyone who wants to own a mobile has one. The problem is reaching those who might want one, but have some non-addressed need. For example, they cannot read, therefore how would they operate the device. Or, they have an harder time with screen, input, or other service elements that would require substantial redesigns of devices and service layers. These companies have correctly identified that if mobile were to grow (in profit and influence) for their benefit, that they have to address these concerns.
In the same way, the Body (Christian faith communities) have to ask the question of not just mobile, but all tech – are we speaking a language that is easily understood by all. Or, are we subjecting the message to just the subset of people who have access to it? If we are doing this, how then do we exercise the fulfilling of Jesus’ prayer in John 17:20-26?
9(unknown*no*no*1)&guid=ON&x_utmac=MO-16595840-1){kind=small}
The Language of Access
Thursday, May 20th, 2010If there’s anything that new technology/devices can teach you quickly is that there’s a language to access that some people have, and others don’t. And maybe it has some to do with specific regions – as it definitely has something to do with the logos/brands placed on devices – because some languages are better understood than others.
For example, you can say to someone that you have an iPad, and the language that’s heard sounds like ‘affluence,” “American,” “arrogant,” or whatever comes to your mind when you see that apple logo. Or even terms like access, internet, social networking, and smartphone. These terms have some shape within our minds, and then as we learn more about the terms, the people and actions associated with them, and even their impacts, we begin to form some language towards those items that may or may not be so clear to others.
Those people who are IT-minded tend to know this very well. There’s a language that (depending on where in IT you sit), is either geeky, nerdy, or just flat out weird. When engaging people who don’t have that background, it can be a challenge for some to remove themselves from their “native tongue” to something more accessible to the listening audience. However, this is an endeavor that we should take on – for how does the Body get edified if the sound is harsh or foreign and not easily understood in its context.
That’s the challenge for mobile – as a genre of technology and culture. As a phenomena that has literally wrapped itself around every area of the world that reads and speaks, mobile has itself created this language of use and function that is sometimes easy to understand (applications, ringtones, costs, etc.) and other times is jumbled gibberish (APIs, plaforms, standards, policies, etc.). For those of us who are in mobile, its our challenge to make these areas intelligible to others who are apt to teach so that mobile doesn’t become stigmatized and that it can reach realms beyond just those who can attain it.
Many of the largest mobile companies (manufacturers, carriers, etc.) have been looking at how to drive mobile penetration rates higher. At this point, almost everyone who wants to own a mobile has one. The problem is reaching those who might want one, but have some non-addressed need. For example, they cannot read, therefore how would they operate the device. Or, they have an harder time with screen, input, or other service elements that would require substantial redesigns of devices and service layers. These companies have correctly identified that if mobile were to grow (in profit and influence) for their benefit, that they have to address these concerns.
In the same way, the Body (Christian faith communities) have to ask the question of not just mobile, but all tech – are we speaking a language that is easily understood by all. Or, are we subjecting the message to just the subset of people who have access to it? If we are doing this, how then do we exercise the fulfilling of Jesus’ prayer in John 17:20-26?
Tags: accessibility, Body, IT, language, unity
Posted in Commentary, Communication | 5 Comments »