Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Making video mundane: intellectual disability and the use of camcorders

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Models of disability assume that impairments have only a limiting effect on technology usage. Drawing upon the results of a year-long participant observation study of the use of camcorders by six severely intellectually disabled adults, we argue that intellectual disability (ID) affects the domestication of technology in a more complex and interwoven fashion. The observed group of ID adults attended a weekly 2-h session, organised by a local day centre, in which they would make videos at local locations. There were two main aspects of appropriation in this context. One is the role of the support worker (SW) in mediating many of their interactions due to accessibility problems with the camcorder. While these interventions by the SW allowed them to use the camcorder, they also slowed their interactions with it making them less direct. SW also guided and constrained their early encounters with the camcorders, strongly influencing the environment of appropriation. The second aspect is the way the group transformed the camcorder into two tools during the course of the study: an ‘artistic’ tool for visual exploration, and a ‘social’ tool that participated in the group’s social activities. These appropriations are very different to anything reported in the literature on mainstream camcorder use. While technologists typically model disability as a set of functional limitations, we would argue for broader models that consider the wider social and support aspects of ID, recognising the different ways in which they may choose to make a technology mundane for them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In contrast there is a lot of work looking at photography (e.g.) [20–22].

  2. Unfortunately Chalfen’s excellent study of cine-film use [20] does not apply to video as this changed the way people filmed [23].

  3. All names have been changed.

  4. Based upon both utterances by subjects about what they thought they saw and questions asked by the researcher.

  5. While they are accustomed to being shown how to do things in everyday life, they did experiment with technologies that they owned such as tape decks, watches, etc.

  6. See Sect. 4.1.

  7. This line of argument draws on Ihde’s [27] analysis of how a telescope affects the way we see.

  8. See below for an explanation of this reference.

  9. It is for instance referred to in the exchange above between Lauren and Sarah.

  10. See Sect. 2.3.

  11. This is likely to be true of other complex, or expensive, technologies.

References

  1. Silverstone R, Haddon L (1996) Design and the domestication of information and communication technologies: technical change and everyday life. In: Silverstone R, Mansell R (eds) Communication by design: the politics of information and communication technologies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 44–74

  2. Silverstone R (1999) Domesticating ICTs. In: Dutton W (ed) Society on the line: information politics in the digital age. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 251–252

  3. Kirk D, Sellen A, Harper R, Wood K (2007) Understanding videowork. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, USA. ACM, pp 61–70

  4. Lemor AMR (2006) Making a ‘home’. The domestication of information and communication technologies in single parents’ households. In: Berker T, Hartmann M, Punie Y, Ward KJ (eds) Domestication of media and technology. Open University Press, Maidenhead, pp 165–181

  5. Pierson J (2005) Domestication at work in small businesses. In: Berker T, Hartman M, Punie Y, Ward KJ (eds) Domestication of media and technologies. Open University Press, Maidenhead, pp 205–226

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hynes D, Rommes E, Berker T, Hartman M, Punie Y, Ward KJ (2006) Fitting the internet into our live: IT courses for disadvantaged users Domestication of media and technology. Open University Press, Maidenhead, pp 125–144

    Google Scholar 

  7. Keates S, Clarkson PJ, Harrison L, Robinson P (2000) Towards a practical inclusive design approach. In: Proceedings on the 2000 conference on Universal Usability, Arlington, Virginia, USA, ACM, pp 45–52

  8. Department of Health (2001) Valuing people: a new strategy for learning disability for the 21st century. Stationary Office, London

  9. Porter J (2005) Severe learning difficulties. In: Lewis A, Norwich B (eds) Special teaching for special children. Open University Press, Maidenhead, pp 53–66

    Google Scholar 

  10. Weisz J, Yeates K, Zigler E (1982) Piagetian evidence and the developmental difference controversy. In: Zigler E, Ball D (eds) Mental retardation: the developmental-difference controversy. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 213–276

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bebko JM, Luhaorg H (1998) The development of strategy use and metacognitive processing in mental retardation: some sources of difficulty. In: Burack JA, Hodapp RM, Zigler E (eds) Handbook of mental retardation and development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 382–407

    Google Scholar 

  12. Zigler E, Hodapp RM (1986) Understanding mental retardation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ingalls RP (1978) Mental retardation: the changing outlook. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bybee J, Zigler E (1998) Outerdirectedness in individuals with and without mental retardation: a review. In: Burack JA, Hodapp RM, Zigler E (eds) Handbook of mental retardation and development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 434–461

  15. Vaucelle C, Africano D, Davenport G, Wiberg M, Fjellstrom O (2005) Moving pictures: looking out/looking in. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 Educators program. ACM, Los Angeles, CA, p 27

  16. Labrune J, Mackay W (2005) Tangicam: exploring observation tools for children. In: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on interaction design and children. ACM, Boulder, CO, pp 95–102

  17. Casares J, Long AC, Myers BA, Bhatnagar R, Stevens SM, Dabbish L, Yocum D, Corbett A (2002) Simplifying video editing using metadata. In: Proceedings of the 4th conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. ACM, London, England, pp 157–166

  18. Hua X, Lu L, Zhang H (2003) AVE: automated home video editing.In: Proceedings of the eleventh ACM international conference on Multimedia. ACM, Berkeley, CA, USA, pp 490–497

  19. Zhu C, Mei T, Hua X (2005) Natural video browsing. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual ACM international conference on Multimedia, ACM, Hilton, Singapore, pp 265–266

  20. Chalfen R (1987) Snapshot versions of life. Popular Press, Ohio

  21. Kirk D, Sellen A, Rother C, Wood K (2006) Understanding photowork. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems. ACM, Montréal, QC, pp 761–770

  22. Frohlich D, Kuchinsky A, Pering C, Don A, Ariss S (2002) Requirements for photoware. In: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work. ACM, New Orleans, LA, pp 166–175

  23. Chalfren R (1988) Home video versions of life—anything new? Soc Vis Anthropol Newsl 4:1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Silverstone R, Hirsch E, Morley D, Silverstone R, Hirsch D (1992) Information and communication technologies and the moral economy of the house-hold consuming technologies; media and information in domestic spaces. Routledge, London, pp 15–31

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Davies CA (1998) Constructing other selves: competence and the category of learning difficulties. In: Jenkins R (ed) Questions of competence: culture, classification and intellectual disability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 102–124

    Google Scholar 

  26. Woods D, Fassnacht C (2007) Transana v2.2x. The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, Madison, WI

  27. Ihde D (1995) Image technologies and traditional culture. In: Feenberg A, Hannay A (eds) Postphenomenology: essays in the postmodern context. Northwestern University Press, Bloomington, pp 43–55

  28. Moran JM (2002) There’s no place like home video, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

  29. Lie M, Sørensen KH (1996) Making technologies our own? Domesticating technology into everyday life. In: Lie M, Sørensen KH (eds) Making technologies our own? Domestication technology into everyday life. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, Norway, pp 1–30

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interact Lab, Sussex University, Sussex House, Brighton, BN1 9RH, UK

    Cian O’Connor & Geraldine Fitzpatrick

Authors
  1. Cian O’Connor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Geraldine Fitzpatrick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cian O’Connor.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

O’Connor, C., Fitzpatrick, G. Making video mundane: intellectual disability and the use of camcorders. Pers Ubiquit Comput 14, 197–208 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-009-0258-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-009-0258-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation