Influence of Assistive Technology Interoperability on Digital Inclusivity in E-Justice Systems for Persons with Disabilities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59952/tuj.v8i2.522Keywords:
Assistive technology interoperability, Digital inclusivity, E-Justice, Persons with disabilities, Social Model of DisabilityAbstract
This paper examines how three dimensions of Assistive Technology Interoperability (ATI), namely Operating System (OS)/platform interoperability, assistive software compatibility, and input/interaction modality interoperability, influence digital inclusivity within e‑justice systems. Assistive technologies including screen readers, voice recognition software, magnifiers, and alternative input devices are the primary mechanisms through which many persons with disabilities access digital systems. Yet e‑justice platforms are rarely designed or tested for interoperability with these tools, creating a structural barrier that transforms digital courtrooms from gateways into gatekeepers. Drawing on the Social Model of Disability and extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2), the study employed a sequential explanatory mixed‑methods design. Quantitative data were collected from 362 court users, judicial officers, and advocates in Nairobi County, Kenya, and analysed using covariance‑based structural equation modelling (CB‑SEM). Qualitative data from semi‑structured interviews with persons with visual, hearing, and mobility impairments provided contextual triangulation. The findings reveal that ATI is a strong predictor of digital inclusivity (β = 0.492, p < 0.001). Among the three dimensions of ATI, assistive software compatibility (loading = 0.792) emerged as the most influential, followed by Operating System (OS)/platform interoperability (0.697) and input/interaction modality interoperability (0.665). The study concludes that AT interoperability functions as a gateway variable: without it, no other accessibility investment is fully effective. For judicial ICT directors and policymakers, the findings mandate that AT interoperability testing be embedded in procurement contracts, development cycles, and quality assurance protocols as a non‑negotiable precondition for digital inclusivity.
References
Abdurahman, S., & Kabanda, S. (2024). Factors influencing the design and implementation of accessible e‐Government services in South Africa. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 90(4), e12317. https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12317
Ara, J., Sik-Lanyi, C., & Kelemen, A. (2024). Accessibility engineering in web evaluation process: A systematic literature review. Universal Access in the Information Society, 23(2), 653–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-023-00967-2
Atata, R., & Odedeyi, T. (2025). Designing Inclusive Interfaces: Enhancing User Experience for People with Disabilities Through Adaptive UI Accessibility Principles. International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 16(2), 1072–1096. https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2025.16.2.2446
Banes, D., & Lobnig, S. (2023). Accessible Consumer Electronics Are Essential to Closing the Gap in Assistive Technology Provision. In D. Archambault & G. Kouroupetroglou (Eds.), Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI230629
Buthelezi, S. P., Zondo, N. M., Nxumalo, L. T. M., & Vilakazi, M. (2024). Determining the digital divide among people with disabilities in KwaZulu-Natal. South African Journal of Information Management, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v26i1.1820
Chen, Y., Huang, C., Gao, S., Lyu, Y., Chen, X., Liu, S., Bao, D., & Lv, C. (2025). A Multimodal Deep Learning Approach for Legal English Learning in Intelligent Educational Systems. Sensors, 25(11), 3397. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25113397
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Corra, M., & McCandliss, I. (2021). Disability and access to courts: Assessing the accessibility of U.S. federal judiciary homepages thirty years after the ADA. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v26i9.11435
Correia, P. M. A. R., Pereira, S. P. M., & Bilhim, J. A. D. F. (2024). Research of Innovation and Digital Transformation in Justice: A Systematic Review. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law, 2(1), 221–250. https://doi.org/10.21202/jdtl.2024.12
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. P. (2007). Mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA. https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/Images/735110-studies-in-language-testing-volume-43.pdf#page=53
De Lucchi, Y. (2023). Justicia digital y discapacidad, aprovechando la oportunidad. Revista Española de Discapacidad, 11(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.5569/2340-5104.11.01.03
Droutsas, N., Spyridonis, F., Daylamani-Zad, D., & Ghinea, G. (2025). Web accessibility barriers and their cross-disability impact in eSystems: A scoping review. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 92, 103923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2024.103923
European Union. (2025). European e-Justice Strategy 2024-2028. http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/437/oj
Fager, S. K., Sorenson, T., Jakobs, E., Koester, H., Jakobs, T., & Beukelman, D. R. (2023). Multi-modal access method (eye-tracking + switch-scanning) for individuals with severe motor impairment: A preliminary investigation. Assistive Technology, 35(4), 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2022.2053895
Fok, R., Zhong, M., Ross, A., Fogarty, J., & Wobbrock, J. (2022). A Large-Scale Longitudinal Analysis of Missing Label Accessibility Failures in Android Apps (p. 16). https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3502143
Gregorio, M. D., Nucci, D. D., Palomba, F., & Vitiello, G. (2022). The making of accessible Android applications: An empirical study on the state of the practice. Empirical Software Engineering, 27(6), 145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-022-10182-x
Griffith, M., Wentz, B., & Lazar, J. (2022). Quantifying the Cost of Web Accessibility Barriers for Blind Users. Interacting with Computers, 34(6), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1093/IWC/IWAD004
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Judiciary, T. K. (2023). A Blueprint for Social Transformation through Access to Justice A People-Centred Justice Approach. Judiciary of Kenya.
Kerdar, S. H., Bächler, L., & Kirchhoff, B. M. (2024). The accessibility of digital technologies for people with visual impairment and blindness: A scoping review. Discover Computing, 27(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10791-024-09460-7
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (Fourth Edition). The Guilford Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=t2CvEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Kline,+R.+B.+(2016).+Principles+and+practice+of+structural+equation+modeling+(4th+ed.).+&ots=sWZBU190hO&sig=KU-3XcmC7MilbtYwrOFyVY64xCc
Li, F. M., Liu, M. X., Zhang, Y., & Carrington, P. (2022). Freedom to Choose: Understanding Input Modality Preferences of People with Upper-body Motor Impairments for Activities of Daily Living. Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3517428.3544814
McDonnall, M. C., Boydstun, J., & Steverson, A. (2025). Is one enough? Screen reader use among employed people who are blind or have low vision in the U.S. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 20(8), 2725–2735. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2025.2528858
McVeigh, J. (2025). Operationalising Article 13 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities the role of assistive technology in ensuring access to justice. Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences, 6, 1650487. https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2025.1650487
Menges, R., Kumar, C., & Staab, S. (2019). Improving User Experience of Eye Tracking-Based Interaction: Introspecting and Adapting Interfaces. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 26(6), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1145/3338844
Mentovich, A., Prescott, J. J., & Rabinovich-Einy, O. (2023). Legitimacy and online proceedings: Procedural justice, access to justice, and the role of income. Law & Society Review, 57(2), 189–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/LASR.12653
Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Macmillan.
Park, S., Kim, H. K., Lee, Y., & Park, J. (2025). Kiosk accessibility challenges faced by people with disabilities: An analysis of domestic and international accessibility laws/guidelines and user focus group interviews. Universal Access in the Information Society, 24(1), 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-023-01028-4
Pereira, L. S., Matos, M., & Duarte, C. (2024). Exploring Mobile Device Accessibility: Challenges, Insights, and Recommendations for Evaluation Methodologies. Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642526
Quesenbery, W., & Horton, S. (2014). A Web for Everyone: Designing Accessible User Experiences.
Rei-Anderson, C., Reynolds, G., Wood, J., & Wood, N. (2018). Access to Justice Online: Are Canadian Court Websites Accessible for Users With Visual Impairments? Alberta Law Review. https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2458
Reuschel, W., McDonnall, M., & Burton, D. (2023). The Accessibility and Usability of Online Job Applications for Screen Reader Users. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 117(6), 479–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X231216757
Ruan, S., Wobbrock, J. O., Liou, K., Ng, A., & Landay, J. A. (2018). Comparing Speech and Keyboard Text Entry for Short Messages in Two Languages on Touchscreen Phones. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 1(4), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3161187
Sarsenbayeva, Z., Van Berkel, N., Velloso, E., Goncalves, J., & Kostakos, V. (2023). Methodological Standards in Accessibility Research on Motor Impairments: A Survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(7), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3543509
Sehgal, N. K., & Mishra, A. D. (2025). Adaptive Minimal Interfaces: Balancing Simplicity, Efficiency, and Personalization Through Context-Aware Multimodal Design. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 1077–1083. https://doi.org/10.38124/IJISRT/25NOV872
Smith, E. M., Huff, S., Wescott, H., Daniel, R., Ebuenyi, I. D., O’Donnell, J., Maalim, M., Zhang, W., Khasnabis, C., & MacLachlan, M. (2024). Assistive technologies are central to the realization of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 19(2), 486–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2022.2099987
Thorneycroft, R. (2024). Screwing the Social Model of Disability. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 26(1), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.1130
UNDP. (2024). Improving access to justice with inclusive digital transformation. United Nations Development Programme. https://www.undp.org/digital/blog/improving-access-justice-inclusive-digital-transformation
Vajjala, A., Mansur, S. M. H., Jose, J., & Moran, K. (2024). MotorEase: Automated Detection of Motor Impairment Accessibility Issues in Mobile App UIs. Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3597503.3639167
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Vollenwyder, B., Petralito, S., Iten, G. H., Brühlmann, F., Opwis, K., & Mekler, E. D. (2023). How compliance with web accessibility standards shapes the experiences of users with and without disabilities. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 170, 102956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102956
Wang’ang’a, A. W. (2024). Social Economic Barriers to Information Communication Technology (ICT) Access for Persons with Disabilities in Africa: Literature Review. East African Journal of Information Technology, 7(1), 318–327. https://doi.org/10.37284/eajit.7.1.2235
WebAIM. (2024). WebAIM: Screen Reader User Survey #10 Results. https://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey10/
Wentz, B., Paliwal, S., Gorham, U., Jaeger, P., & Lazar, J. (2024). Inaccessible PDF forms Limited Access to the Courts during the Pandemic: A Window into Broader Issues of Inequities and Inaccessibility for People with Disabilities in the United States. Including Disability, 4. https://doi.org/10.51357/id.v4i.262
Wentz, B., Paliwal, S., Gorham-Oscilowski, U., Jaeger, P., & Lazar, J. (2023). Evaluating the Accessibility of Digital Government Services for Family Law in the U.S. during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2023 (HICSS-56). https://aisel.aisnet.org/hicss-56/dg/inclusion/2
Zhang, B. (2024). Research progress and intellectual structure of design for digital equity (DDE): A bibliometric analysis based on citespace. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1019. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03552-x
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Josphat Karanja, Collins Oduor, Dalton Ndirangu
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.