"Access" itself is diverse: Typology & terminology

Two recent items - a tweet by the Office of the President of Niger touting greater internet access as a key to the digital development component its "Niger 2.0" program (below), and an announcement by IAB-South Africa (logo on right) of a campaign for free internet access in South Africa - raise anew questions about (1) what we mean by "access" in multilingual societies, especially in the service of development, and (2) how to clearly signify those meanings in ways that facilitate clear discussion, planning, and action.

Le développement du numérique, axe fort du programme Niger 2.0, passe par un plus grand accès à internet. La jeunesse Nigérienne, pilier de la Renaissance Culturelle, est au cœur de ce développement. #RenaissancedUneNation pic.twitter.com/pRMkdkdQYY

— Présidence du Niger (@PresidenceNiger) May 19, 2018

In African Languages in a Digital Age (ALDA) I discussed how "access" in information and communication technology (ICT) may refer to many things, but then adopted a binary distinction between on the one hand "physical access," basically the having a functioning digital device with power and connectivity, and on the other hand "soft access," being the software and applications. In a multilingual society, localization (L10n) is, or at least logically should be, a major concern of soft access.

Nearly a decade later, the tendency still seems to be to treat access as one thing, focused on the technical or physical aspects of access (devices, connectivity), and leaving out L10n and a deeper consideration of how people in multilingual societies access and might interact with the technology. In the wake of the 2015 "Connectivity Declaration" and Facebook's Internet.org initiative I discussed this problem at some length on this blog: "Access gap in the 'Connectivity Declaration'?"

What counts as "access"?

This gap in how we frame access is reflected in Wikipedia (English) articles relating in one way or another to access or to localization:

• Internet access (corresponds roughly with physical access; no mention of software outside of network context or of L10n) & the "right to internet access" (the discussion of which is framed in terms of physical access, and doesn't broach linguistic rights; and the latter article for its part doesn't mention access to the internet or ICTs in general)
• Computer accessibility & web accessibility ("accessibility" generally concerns people with disabilities)
• Language access, linguistic accessibility, & variants (a set of terms not covered in Wikipedia, which have to do with a range of situations including, but definitely not limited to ICT and the internet; this terminology "sub-space" does not seem clear or well-elaborated)
• Internationalization and localization & language localization (include processes leading to software and content in diverse languages, but does not mention access as a goal; in fact, the emphasis is more on reaching people with appropriate messages than it is in facilitating people's access and use of software and content)
• Digital divide (makes specific reference to access, and only marginal mention of languages, but language of software/content is not clearly evoked as a factor in enhancing access to help bridge the divide; no mention of L10n)
• ICT for development (ICT4D; references to access, with language mentioned as a consideration only in some ways that do not relate to access; a single mention of L10n)

It should be pointed out that these  Wikipedia articles do get editorial input from people who have some expertise in the topics covered, so while they may not be definitive, they offer a fair impression of thinking on these subjects.

The impression I get from reviewing these articles is that they show exactly the kind of gap between dominant use of "access" on the one hand, and the issues of access related to language on the other, that I had hoped to help bridge with ALDA and other writing.

The back story on "soft access"

When I first started looking at the dimensions of access to ICT in early 2000 - which was around the time of the Bamako 2000 "Internet: Bridges to Development" conference - I used the term "meaningful access" as distinguished from "physical access." This was intended in part to address the language dimension that was discussed at Bamako 2000 (its Plan of Action included "plurilingualism" among its 20 "essential activities"), but was largely overlooked in most of the early enthusiasm about how the internet was supposed to transform African development.

In later work on the PanAfrican Localisation project and the writing of ALDA, however, I instead used "soft access," a term borrowed from a TeleCommons Development Group report released in June 2000. I had a brief email correspondence with that NGO prior to the release of the report, but it is not clear whether or to what extent my input regarding types of access may have contributed to their thinking. In any event, their take on "soft access" (including as it did, attention to the issue of languages) seemed to capture the essence of what I was getting at. And their emphasis on software in defining soft access seemed productive in the context of localization I was dealing with in writing ALDA:

"software and applications which are designed to enable rural African users to utilize ICTs for their own needs and uses once the physical access has been established."

When it came time to translate ALDA into French, there was the question of how to translate "soft access." The resulting formulation - "accès logiciel" - is fine, but also shades the focus even more explicitly toward software and apps. (The translation adopted for "physical access" in Les langues africaines à l'ère du numérique is "accès matériel.")

Return to "meaningful access"? Or, "real access"?

In the years since, I have occasionally wondered if I should have stayed with "meaningful access," for a harder insistence on the linguistic and cultural dimension of access to technology. And more recently whether in fact that term and soft access might not better be thought of as two distinct but complementary access issues addressed by localization: content and interface.

Meaningful access, however, is a term that can be understood - and indeed is used - in ways that don't deal with language or even content. For example, meaningful access might simply refer to the quality of physical access (which would not be meaningful to have if, say, safety or noise were problems). One recent article on helping African women and girls to get online discusses "meaningful access to the internet" in broad terms that also encompass what I've been calling physical access (although it did not mention language):

"having a good, affordable connection and then being able to use it in a way that makes sense for you."

So, perhaps meaningful access might be a useful umbrella term, covering all aspects of "access" that might be left out if the sole focus is very narrowly on hardware and connections. But that doesn't get us too far in a context where language too easily is left on the margins of the discourse.

In this broader use, meaningful access reminds of the "real access" heading used in the early 2000s by Bridges.org (an early ICT4D NGO based in Cape Town, South Africa & Washington, DC, US; logo on left) in recognition that access "goes beyond just physical access and makes it possible for people to use technology effectively to improve their lives".

However, Bridges broke this broad category down into 12 "determining factors in whether or not people have Real Access to ICT" sketches out the environment in which organizations like IAB in South Africa or the government of Niger might try to increase "access" to the internet and ICTs more broadly (even if such organizations are not thinking about it that way). Language is explicitly mentioned only under #5 "relevant content," but a range of linguistic factors are relevant under several others (see my comments below on nos. 2, 4, 6, & 7; I've highlighted their & my uses of language or languages):

1. Physical access. Is technology available and physically accessible?
2. Appropriate technology. What is the appropriate technology according to local conditions, and how people need and want to put technology to use? [Comment: Software / apps localized in locally/regionally-important languages and, where needed, appropriate fonts & input systems can also be considered appropriate tech in this context.]
3. Affordability. Is technology access affordable for people to use? 
4. Capacity. Do people understand how to use technology and its potential uses? [Comment: User skills including knowledge of languages and basic literacy are relevant here.]
5. Relevant content. Is there locally relevant content, especially in terms of language? 
6. Integration. Does the technology further burden people's lives or does it integrate into daily routines? [Comment: Is tech less burdensome & more easily integrated to the extent it "speaks" the language(s) of daily use in the community?]
7. Socio-cultural factors. Are people limited in their use of technology based on gender, race, or other socio-cultural factors? [Comment: Linguistic factors, including lack of appropriate language of interface options would presumably fall under this item.]
8. Trust. Do people have confidence in and understand the implications of the technology they use, for instance in terms of privacy, security, or cybercrime? 
9. Legal and regulatory framework. How do laws and regulations affect technology use and what changes are needed to create an environment that fosters its use? 
10. Local economic environment. Is there a local economy that can and will sustain technology use?
11. Macro-economic environment. Is national economic policy conducive to widespread technology use, for example, in terms of transparency, deregulation, investment, and labour issues? 
12. Political will. Is there political will in government to do what is needed to enable the integration of technology throughout society? 

In fact, language and L10n in the access equation can also be affected by economic and policy considerations (nos. 10-12). Language is indeed a factor, and used of languages are conditioned by, almost anything that involves communication and knowledge. (This could lead into a discussion of "localization ecology," but I'll save that for another time.)

It is very useful when discussing access to technology (internet or ICTs in general) to spread out the subject, as it were, and to see how it might be disaggregated into specific concerns for specific attention, such as what Bridges did. I'm not currently aware of other similar efforts.

What about "linguistic access"? Or the "last inch"?

So why not just identify "linguistic access" as a key component in a broader "meaningful" or "real" access that goes beyond the usual focus on physical access? That thought occurred, but in the original dichotomy between physical and meaningful access, the latter was intended to go a bit beyond just language, much as L10n also is also concerned with more than just translation.

In a redo of Bridge's approach, one might call out linguistic access as a need addressed by localized software / apps and interface. And also localized content, perhaps still under "relevant content," meaning content created in, and/or translated into relevant languages.

A completely different way to refer to linguistic access is the "last inch" metaphor introduced by Dwayne Bailey and the African Network for Localisation (ANLoc; logo on right) a decade ago. The idea here is explicitly the language of software and interfaces (and content). However the term always seemed to be used only in the sense of "last inch limitations" and "last inch barriers," thus falling into the same trap of discussing lack of a common language first in negative terms that I've discussed elsewhere.* After all, the whole point of L10n is to bridge that "last inch" and thus facilitate linguistic access. Maybe "last-inch opportunities" or "bridging that last inch" to full access?

Wait - access for what?

Maybe part of the reason that the concepts and terms seem hard to settle on is that there is a deeper question that needs to be answered first: Access for what? Bridges discussed people using tech effectively "to improve their lives." One.org's "Internet for all" site, home of the Connectivity Declaration), says "Internet Access is Essential for achieving humanity's potential." These are broad well-intentioned goals - everything will be better with access to ICTs, or more specifically the internet. But what exactly is the vision of what people will do with access that will yield such vaguely wonderful outcomes?

Most examples of use of the internet on site Internet for All (which by the way makes no mention of L10n for access or of languages at all outside of a few translated versions of the Connectivity Declaration) relate to consumption of information and e-commerce. No problem as far as those go - they are important. But is access for all really about increasing markets?

In other words, in what vision of access to technology would linguistic diversity not be important? Is it one where people participating in a market for info and goods are really only those speaking a small range of dominant or "elite" languages? Is our current discussion of "access to the internet" really prioritizing certain uses and certain linguistic and cultural priorities?

I pose such questions as a proponent of greater access to ICTs (powered in part by better provisions for use in more languages). One of the dimensions I see as fundamental is the creation of content which while globally accessible, might be local or regional in relevance. Such non-mainstream perspectives may be as important for global learning as they would be for cultural/linguistic survival and development.

Even if the terminology about types of access might be hard to pin down, and even contested, it is essential to begin with acknowledgement that "access" to the internet and ICTs in general is not one thing and needs to be considered from several angles including languages, whether in Niger, in South Africa, or anywhere else.

---

* For example the discussions at the end of "Breaking the 'dialect barrier'" or on my other blog, "Reimagining 'language barrier'."

ICTD 2016, and languages and L10n

This year's edition of the annual International Conference on Information & Communication Technologies and Development - ICTD 2016 - is underway now in Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. The conference began today and goes through Monday (June 3-6).

Having brought up at various times on this blog the topic of ICT4D and L10n^* in African languages, I will take a look at the ICTD 2016 program for hints on how this topic might be treated. Then a comparison with two previous ICTD conferences.

A quick search of the program shows only one topic that contains the word "language":

"Mobile Device Keyboard Customization for Newly Constructed Orthography of A Rural West African Language" [link to paper on ACM Digital Library]
Esther H. Showalter (Johns Hopkins University)

This concerns Kaansa, a less-widely spoken language of Burkina Faso, and may be the only paper specifically addressing aspects of mobile technology localization for text input. No topic in the conference program specifically lists "localization."

That said, other presentations may address language and localization issues in various ways without signaling the fact in their titles. The following, for instance, concerns a Ghanaian  project that permits sending "bulk voice messages in local languages" to mobile phones:

"Bridging the lastmile with MERGDATA technology platform"
Worlali Senyo, Sessie Burns (Farmerline)

Other topics imply some choices about languages used which presumably would be discussed during the presentations. Two examples are:

"Women’s Use of Participatory Video Technology to Tackle Gender Inequality in Zambia’s ICT Sector"
Tony Roberts (United Nations University, Institute of Computing and Society)

"Reflecting on Video: Exploring the Efficacy of Video for Teaching Device Literacy in Rural Kenya"
Susan Wyche (Michigan State University), Charles Steinfield (Michigan State University), Tian Cai (Michigan State University),  Nightingale Simiyu (Bungoma, Kenya), Martha E. Othieno (Homa Bay, Kenya)

Then there are (or were as they happened on the morning of the first day) two sessions of the ICTD Africa Researchers Network on the theme, "Re-Thinking ICTD Field Research Narrative in the Global South." It would be interesting to know whether language as a factor in evaluation of ICT4D efforts was discussed.

The multilingual dimension of ICT applications and projects for development and education, worldwide as well as in Africa, may permeate the proceedings to a considerable degree, or not. It would be helpful if the conference report could give attention to such cross-cutting themes, although that would require some additional level of feedback from the sessions.

ICTD 2015

ICTD 2015 in Singapore included two topics mentioning "language" (both in Asia), two mentioning "mother tongue" (one in Kenya, the other in Pakistan), and one "localised SMS" (in India).

One topic apparently dealt with languages of extension in Uganda:

"'Buuza Omulimisa' (Ask the  extension  officer):  Text Messaging for  Low Literate Farming  Communities in Rural Uganda"
Daniel Ninsiima (Michigan State University)

That's just from a quick tour of the ICTD 2015 report.

ICTD 2013

The conference preceding the one in Singapore was ICTD 2013, held in Cape Town, South Africa. That included one topic mentioning "language" (Morocco). As in the conferences discussed above, there were other topics that look like they might touch on language-related issues.

I did not access earlier reports, which go back to the first conference in Berkeley, California, USA in 2006.

ICT4D & L10n

It does appear that language is considered in at least some Africa-related presentations, and a number of non-African topics, at the ICTD conferences. What the emphases are is another question - mainly content? voice vs. text? attention to interfaces and input?

I plan to continue to address the ICT4D-L10n connection in Africa, and to that end would invite any feedback from participants in the current or past ICTD events.

---

* ICT4D = information and communications technology for development; L10n = localization or localisation.

Thoughts on linking L10n and ICT4D in Africa

It is striking that in Africa - multilingual as it is - discussions of uses of information and communication technology (ICT) for development (ICT4D) generally pay little attention to how one might optimally adapt the technology and the content to national linguistic realities. There are explanations for this, including for example:

• An outward-looking focus on the internet as way to tap international markets and knowledge (contrasted with a relatively limited local market for internet content, although that is changing somewhat with increased access to smart mobile devices)
• The roles of English / French / Portuguese as official languages, and higher status of these Europhone languages relative to African languages
• Attitudes about language (the notion that African languages are not adapted to science or technology, the impression that there are too many African languages to deal with)
• Issues relating to the written form of languages (in some cases lacking or not standardized, or standard orthographies may not be widely taught; computer systems from abroad may not have fonts for the alphabets used to write the languages)

However, explicit attention to potential uses of the first languages and local lingua francas in ICTs could address such issues and lead to various benefits: some in areas on which traditional ICT and ICT4D policies focus (such as enhancing user skills in ICTs; increasing relevant web content); and some in other areas important to development that fall outside the usual ICT discussions (language development, links with indigenous knowledge, new kinds of creativity).

Discussions of localization (L10n) and multilingual computing in the context of ICTs for national development could be built around several themes, such as:

1. Dialogue between ICT policy and language policy processes. There is apparently little overlap between ICT policy and language policy in most countries of Africa, hence little institutional support for discussion of "localization policy" or, as it is called in some Asian countries, "local language computing policy." This structural divide can go all the way down to the level of computer technicians and linguists. Bringing together discussions of language policy and planning, and education policy as regards languages on the one hand, and ICT policy as concerns expansion of use of the technologies and their contribution to development on the other, could yield some new insights and foster collaborations among efforts to promote ICT4D and develop languages.
2. Approaching localization as a way of adding value to the impact and potential of ICT for national development. Localization is not about replacing one language with another, of course, but rather adding diverse language capacities and content to computer systems and the way we use them. ICT is in many ways inherently additive or positive sum - adding one more option in terms of language interface or content need not take away from another, but rather adds to the benefits potential users can get out of ICT, and what they can use the technology to accomplish. In a multilingual context, promoting ways of enhancing language capacities of computer systems (localizing software, developing tools to make that possible) and increasing diverse language content (through localizing content and creating local content) are relatively inexpensive ways of giving ICT more dimensions, (soft) access points, and meaning - hence value.
3. Linking with broadcast technologies. Broadcast media - the older forms of "ICTs" in effect - have been "localized" from the beginning, so the interface with technology that is not localized will be limited. Localization of web content about important topics in health and livelihoods, for example, could be used directly by community radio stations, without the need for locally (and potentially inaccurately) translating that information.
4. Leveraging the benefits of internationalization of ICT and of language technology for Africa. A lot of work has been going into making computer systems and software more able to handle diverse languages and scripts: Unicode's accommodation of all writing systems; tools to develop language resources (from keyboards to corpora); open-source opportunities for localization; research on advanced applications (such as computer assisted translation), etc. Multilingual Africa stands to benefit a lot from these advances (and contribute in turn to them), but it has not, on official levels, been systematically seeking either to take advantage of the opportunities or to place itself in a position to participate more fully in the future (e.g., training of computer technicians in aspects of language technologies). There are some initiatives on NGO, academic, or project levels, but official support has in most countries appears to be minimal. This is an area that ICT policy can address.

---

(Adapted from a message to the Afrik-IT list entitled "Re: Ghana and other open access network model and SAT3," 23 August 2007. This blog entry was originally posted on 30 September 2015 and inadvertently deleted.)

Applied linguistics for development workers?

In an article last January in The Guardian's Global Development Professionals Network, Maria May suggests "Six resolutions for aid workers" in 2015: 1. Be the best manager ever; 2. Read; 3. Write; 4. Spend more time in the field [i.e., don't let it slide down the list of priorities]; 5. Walk the walk [development "organizations need to exemplify the change that they are trying to make in society"]; and 6. Renew yourself.

I'd like to suggest a 7th resolution for 2015 - never too late to improve practice - which is particularly important in multilingual contexts commonly encountered in development work in Africa: "Be a little bit of a linguist." What I mean by that is to pay attention to what languages are used and might be used, and how, in all levels of development work - especially on the level of beneficiaries and their communities.

Language, of course, is key to communication, which is central to extension, learning, and collaborative planning and action. And when many languages are used in a community, communication in development becomes more complex, choice of languages becomes a factor, and several social and linguistic issues come into play:

1. Participation: Who's talking? Who's not talking (or understanding)? These are issues even in monolingual communities, but where more than one language is spoken, try to observe what the use of or shift among languages means in terms of who does and doesn't participate fully - or at all. Typically use of an elite language or a language spoken by a majority in the community will favor people in leadership positions. Choice of language may reflect power as much as a desire to reach the most people. 
2. Gender: Related to the previous point, what do women speak and not speak? Women tend not to have as many languages as men, due to lack of formal education of girls, as well as to the opportunities even unschooled men have to travel and interact with speakers of other languages in their region (and beyond). Try to get an idea of what languages women use in homes, community, and local markets, and what gaps there may be for their direct communication with government, extension agencies, development projects, school staff, etc.
3. Interpretation: Where it is necessary to work across more than one language, what is the quality of rendition in the target language(s)? If you don't speak the target language you have to trust the interpreters who do, but don't do so blindly. You may have seen a spoof of movie subtitles where an actor speaks a long piece and the subtitle has one or two words - be alert to shortcut summaries and query the interpreter when s/he gives you one.* In 2010 I sat in on a training of community animal health workers in Moroto, Uganda, who requested a change of interpreter to one who had better command of relevant vocabulary in Karamojong language. If there had not been that alternative, what might have been lost in translation? Check to be sure of the interpreter's confidence in the technical topic(s) being discussed before putting them on the spot to translate for you.
4. Translation: Can you bring talking points translated in the target language to the field? At its most basic level, interpretation is oral and translation written, but development work rarely involves the latter when "local languages" are involved. Yet "pre-translating" key concepts and terminology might be helpful as aids to ensure good interpretation and reduce "slippage" in conveying information. Translation is also a key to localizing ICT4D (see below).
5. Local extension agents: What languages do they speak? I've remarked in the past that a US Peace Corps volunteer may get more language training in one week than the average local extension or development worker gets in an entire career. That may not seem to matter much if they speak the local languages, but even when they do, there is no support to assure the quality of technical expression in those tongues, and very likely such workers are not literate in them (if their formal education was uniquely in a Europhone official language). And often it is the case that local extension workers may be posted in a region of their country where a language(s) they are not so familiar with are spoken
6. Local radio: What languages do they use? In my experience in West Africa, community radio stations split their programming among whatever languages are spoken by people living within their broadcast radius. With expertise across languages (including finding ways to express new concepts in them), the staff of a station in an area where you are working could be a valuable partner for both for understanding the sociolinguistic profile of the area and for messaging to reach all groups.
7. ICT4D: Applications, software, and content that do not respond to the linguistic realities of the population will have a limited utility - or utility for a limited number of people. Localization (L10n) involves translation and adaptation to local culture and communication. Projects in information and communication technology for development (ICT4D) and efforts to develop L10n in the same countries would seem to be natural allies with complementary interests, but it may be up to the better funded ICT4D projects to reach out to make this connection.

One by one, such issues may make perfect sense, but even when taken together, the reasons for attention to language as a factor in development have not led to a real understanding of the role of languages in development, or what we might do better in multilingual contexts - and with less-resourced languages - to improve practice and outcomes.

The link between language and development is "largely ignored" according to Ekkehard Wolff. Robert Chaudenson has suggested that the subject of language is "taboo" in development work in Africa. And Birgit Brock Utne noted that foreign donors have a negative view of African multilingualism. This is a problem and we can do better.

---

* An episode of interpretation recorded on video in southern Afghanistan, with translated subtitles, is an example of shortcuts or just bad interpretation. There are other dynamics going on in the video, but the segment about midway through with the local elder is worth viewing.

On a similar topic: "Back again. Gates, Rockefeller & African languages" 14 Sep 2006.

ICT4D and L10n programs: Shall e'er the twain meet?

Graduate programs in information and communication technologies for development (ICT4D) was the subject of recent postings on the Web2forDev list. There are also graduate programs in localization (L10n). Is there any overlap, any treatment of L10n approaches and technologies in ICT4D programs? Any discussion of work on ICT4D in L10n programs?

These are two emerging interdisciplinary fields that would seem to have a lot of potential links on the technology and communication sides, especially as concerns work in multilingual societies of Africa and much of the rest of the world.

In any event, here is a quick, selected, and certainly incomplete list of graduate programs in each:

ICT for Development

• Master of Science in Information and Communication Technology for Development (MS-ICTD), Alliance for Technology, Learning and Society, University of Colorado - Boulder
• Master's Programme in Information and Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D), Department of Computer Sciences, Stockholm University
• ICTs for Development MSc, Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester
• Practising Sustainable Development (Information and Communication Technologies for Development) (MSc/PGDip), Department of Geography, Royal Holloway, University of London

Localization

• MA Translation and Localization Management, Monterrey Institute of International Studies
• Multilingual Computing and Localisation MSc (& distance), University of Limerick
• Master 's Degree in Translation and Localisation Technologies, Universitat Jaume I
• Certificate in Localization: Customizing Software for the World, Professional and Continuing Education (Dept of Computer Science & Engineering, Dept. of Human Centered Design & Engineering, and Dept. of Linguistics), University of Washington 
• (there are many programs in translation that may deal with aspects of localization)

It would be interesting to know of other programs in either, and especially to know of any crossover or combined programs.offerings. Do any institutions have programs in both ICT4D and L10n, and if so, what happens there?

Addendum

If you take ICTs out of the equation, the larger, longer term issue of connections between applied linguistics and the study of languages on the one hand, and the field of development (study and practice) on the other becomes clear. This is a topic I have raised before and hope to come back to again.

The field of localization (L10n) is broad with what I'd characterize as two main areas of focus: content and communication; and software and interface. Localization is often treated together with translation, and from the outside sometimes looks like a sub-field of the latter. This is understandable as it almost always involves translation of terms and text. However localization also involves cultural considerations. Technically, in some contexts, localization might not involve what we usually consider translation at all, if it is simply a matter of adapting content and software for speakers/readers of the same language in different cultural areas.

This cultural dimension, if you will, of localization would potentially be another connecting point of localization and ICT4D, though hopefully without omitting the essential linguistic dimension. (17-12-13)

Passing of Denis Bilodeau

I just learned that Denis Bilodeau, a long-time senior project officer and division chief of USAID, passed away earlier this month in Bamako. He had a long career in West Africa was well known in the region for his work on information and communications technology for development (ICT4D) projects.

Although I only met him during my last trip to Bamako in May 2008, I had communicated with him on a couple of occasions prior to that. I first heard about him and his work from a colleague in ICRISAT in Mali (where I worked briefly in 1999 and 2000), who spoke highly of his work and described him as "plus malien que les maliens."

The occasion of meeting him was the chance for Dwayne Bailey (head of the ANLoc project) and me to talk about aspects of localization and how that could advance work in ICT4D. Sadly we never had the chance to collaborate on any of that, but hopefully there will be opportunities to build on the foundations that Denis helped build.

Linking L10n & ICT4D: Bring back AfAgrICT-L?

One way of describing my focus in working on Bisharat and the PanAfrican Localisation project is linking localization (L10n) of information and communications technology (ICT) with ICT for development (ICT4D) in Africa. Last October I framed this as a question on the LinkedIn network in this way: How to promote better integration & synergism among ICT4D & L10n activities in Africa?

It's an ongoing concern and a question that needs to be returned to from time to time. Therefore I will try to periodically revisit this issue here with specific news, questions or ideas. One of those follows:

Bring back AfAgrICT-L?

About 9 years ago, an email list called "AfAgrICT-L" was set up to facilitate communication about use of ICTs in African agriculture and natural resource management. It was set up by CTA, hosted by Bellanet. Its origins go back to 1995 as described on this page (retrieved from the Wayback Machine), and was intended to "be operational for at least 1 year, after which its continued use and relevance will be re-evaluated." Its purposes were described as:

• Identify and indicate key ICT issues and strategies relevant to agricultural development and natural resource management in Africa;
• Improve the common pool of knowledge and expertise available in this area;
• Identify relevant projects and expertise that could assist in defining strategies
• Provide a mechanism for monitoring technical developments and electronic information sources which can benefit those working in the area of agriculture, rural development and natural resource management.

I discovered AfAgrICT-L in late 1999 and participated on it until it faded out in 2001 or so. It was a brief period, but left an impression. CTA called it "influential." Yet it was closed.

There is now renewed focus on African agriculture as central to African development, and at the same time ICT4D (and ICT in general) is only getting more important in the region. A forum for these topics - ICT, ICT4D, and African agriculture - seems even more timely now than it was several years ago. Of course one could start a website or a list in a short time, but I'm thinking that to revive this known project, and adapt it to the evolving situation, could be of great use for professionals, researchers, and program managers in the coming years.

Then there is the L10n dimension - ICT in African languages. Farmers and rural communities rely even more on African languages than urban areas, and local environmental and agricultural knowledge are embedded in their langauges and cultures. L10n and ICT(4D) in agriculture and NRM would seem to be a natural combination, and support for L10n is much further along now than it was before. So one added dimension for a new AfAgrICT-L could be the intersection of the technical concerns with how to incorporate and adapt localization as appropriate for different goals.

So, is it time to bring back AfAgrICT-L in a new form?

CTA's ICT Update: "Language Technology"

Having mentioned CTA, I should also note that their ICT Update Issue 40 (Dec. 2007) is devoted to the theme "Language Technology." I had the privilege of contributing one of the articles, "Localizing Languages."