enable and encourage - DE4II/advocacy-tools GitHub Wiki
Enabling and Encouraging Digital Participation through Effective Application Design: A Case for Industry Standards in Incarcerated Settings
Abstract
The Digital Equity Act recognizes digital literacy as a core enabler of improved health, education, employment, and civic engagement outcomes for underserved populations, including incarcerated individuals. However, digital literacy cannot be cultivated in isolation from meaningful digital participation. This paper argues that software applications which enable and encourage digital participation must meet two necessary criteria: (1) they must use industry standard workflows, methodologies, features, functions, and user interface (UI) elements to support finding, evaluating, organizing, creating, and communicating digital information, and (2) they must be free from prohibitive usability flaws or bugs. Without adherence to these principles, applications used by incarcerated individuals will fail to support digital equity goals, rendering the intent of the Act unfulfilled.
1. Introduction
Digital literacy, as defined in the Digital Equity Act, encompasses the ability to use digital applications to find, evaluate, organize, create, and communicate digital information. While this definition rightly emphasizes skills, it implicitly depends on the availability and quality of the digital tools used to develop those skills. Among the general population, these tools are nearly always industry standard applications: software designed and refined by teams with domain expertise in user experience (UX), human-computer interaction, accessibility, and iterative development.
By contrast, many applications available to incarcerated individuals are bespoke platforms developed by Incarcerated Persons Calling Services (IPCS) providers. These applications are often closed, poorly maintained, or non-standard in their interfaces and feature sets. As a result, they actively hinder rather than foster digital participation.
This paper presents a technical and UX-focused argument for why applications must meet two core criteria to support digital literacy effectively.
2. Criterion One: Use of Industry Standard Workflows and UI Elements
2.1 Definition and Scope
Industry standard applications are those whose interaction patterns, UI conventions, and functional designs are aligned with widely used platforms such as Microsoft Office, Google Workspace, Adobe Creative Suite, and standard operating system environments (e.g., Windows, Android, iOS, and macOS). These tools shape the baseline experience of digital interaction in the workforce, education, and civic life.
To "enable and encourage digital participation," applications must:
- Follow predictable UX patterns (e.g., file management systems with folders, drag-and-drop interfaces, standard text editing toolbars).
- Support interoperability with standard file types (e.g., .docx, .pdf, .csv).
- Include search, filtering, and tagging mechanisms that mirror those in email clients, content management systems, and document libraries.
- Provide communication tools with interfaces resembling widely used platforms (e.g., Gmail, Zoom, Slack).
2.2 Why Standardization Matters
Cognitive Transfer: Learning how to use one email client (e.g., Gmail) enables users to transfer those skills to others (e.g., Outlook). When applications used in carceral settings diverge from industry norms, this transfer fails, and incarcerated individuals must learn new systems post-release—doubling the cognitive load.
Skills Validation: Employers and educational institutions expect users to be proficient in standard applications. Mastery of non-standard tools does not translate to marketable or transferable skills.
Digital Citizenship: Participating in civic life often requires navigating standardized government platforms (e.g., IRS.gov, FAFSA.gov), which assume familiarity with modern web conventions like drop-down menus, accessibility features, and responsive layouts.
2.3 Examples
- Standard Practice: Google Docs allows users to collaboratively write documents, use cloud storage, and track revision history—features essential for modern digital literacy.
- Non-Standard Practice: A proprietary prison word processor with a clunky UI and limited formatting options offers no comparable experience and does not prepare users for real-world tasks.
3. Criterion Two: Applications Must Not Be Buggy or Onerous
3.1 Usability as a Prerequisite
Even when applications include the correct feature set, their usability determines whether they will be used at all. Applications that are slow, crash frequently, have poor accessibility, or require multiple unnecessary steps discourage regular use and create frustration, anxiety, or disinterest in digital tools.
In UX design, friction is any element that creates barriers to task completion. High-friction environments demotivate users and stifle learning.
3.2 Psychological and Pedagogical Implications
- Learned Helplessness: Consistently negative experiences with technology (e.g., unpredictable bugs, incomprehensible interfaces) can teach users to avoid digital tools altogether.
- Reduced Engagement: Frustrated users are less likely to experiment, explore, or develop curiosity—a key component of digital self-efficacy.
- Loss of Time: Incarcerated individuals often have restricted time for digital use. Every crash or error reduces productive engagement.
3.3 Examples
- Effective Design: A modern email client with clear inbox organization, auto-save features, and built-in help fosters productive communication.
- Poor Design: An IPCS-created messaging platform with frequent timeouts, arbitrary text limits, or broken attachment functionality discourages regular use.
4. Case for Evaluation Metrics
To assess whether applications meet the above criteria, evaluators should look for:
| Characteristic | Evaluation Metric | Minimum Standard |
|---|---|---|
| UI Familiarity | Conformance to standard design systems (e.g., Material, Fluent) | 90% match in components |
| Feature Completeness | Inclusion of file management, search, collaboration, export functions | All present |
| Interoperability | Ability to open/edit/save standard file types | .docx, .pdf, .xlsx support |
| Usability | System Usability Score (SUS) | > 70 |
| Stability | Crash rate per session | < 1% |
| Accessibility | WCAG 2.2 compliance | AA level or above |
5. Policy Implications
Policymakers and correctional administrators must hold IPCS providers to minimum technical and usability standards if digital equity is to be achieved. This may include:
- Mandating the use of vetted, open-standard applications (e.g., browsers, word processors, email clients).
- Prohibiting custom software unless independently validated.
- Requiring annual third-party UX audits.
- Including incarcerated voices in application evaluation and feedback loops.
Without such accountability, incarcerated individuals will continue to be digitally disenfranchised—deprived of the very skills and experiences the Act seeks to cultivate.
6. Conclusion
Applications that support digital literacy must do more than offer isolated features—they must function within a recognizable, usable, and stable digital ecosystem. The ability to "find, evaluate, organize, create, and communicate digital information" cannot be developed using unfamiliar, poorly designed tools. The two criteria outlined in this paper—use of standard workflows and freedom from serious usability defects—are not aspirational; they are necessary preconditions for achieving digital equity.
If we fail to meet these standards in incarcerated settings, we reinforce a second-tier digital experience—one that perpetuates marginalization rather than empowerment.