Análisis de Guía de Observación de las condiciones de la infraestructura

Determining the accessibility of ICTs in EMM public libraries was another objective of this study. The aim, here, was to establish if ICTs in libraries are within reach of every user or not, as facilities that are inaccessible are most likely to remain white elephants and not utilised. According to Day (1997), access is simply not an issue of public access points and their geographic locations alone. Citizens must be able to use the technology and have the capability to use the information. According to this author, the fact that these are skills that most people do not possess, the issues of access should be linked to training, education and learning. Respondents were asked to indicate as to whether ICTs facilities in the libraries were accessible to them or not.

In reviewing the literature, it was found that although ICTs were very accessible to a high proportion of users, they were not accessible to some of the users, due to barriers such as “users’ fear and lack of knowledge and skills of how to use ICTs”, “time limit” and insufficient ICTs in libraries” (Chisenga 2004; Chaplin 2002). The findings of this study reveal that although ICTs were “very accessible” to a high proportion 134 (79%) of respondents, 36 (21%) of respondents found the facilities to be “not accessible”. The inaccessibility of ICTs could be attributed to the availability of a range of barriers that prevent ease of access to ICTs as already identified by Chisenga (2004) and Chaplin (2002), and these are also listed in Table 4.6 of this study. It is a fact that “access” is one of the key principles of Batho Pele, which emphasises the need for all government services to be accessible to all citizens. Therefore, the fact that some users found the facilities not accessible

99

means that there are certain measures that Ekurhuleni libraries need to take in order to ensure that facilities are accessible to everyone, such as, reducing the cost of ICTs services (printing, photocopying, laminating and fax services are paid for in the libraries), extending access time limit to computers as well as ensuring that staff members are trained on ICTs to assist users with ICTs-related queries or challenges.

Those who responded that ICTs in libraries were “not accessible” to them were requested to identify the barriers that make their access to ICTs a challenge, amongst which are: a) time limit; b) fear and lack of knowledge of how to use the ICTs facilities; c) insufficient facilities in libraries; d) unfavourable libraries hours and; e) other. Respondents were allowed to indicate more than one option, and multiple responses were provided.

The results from the libraries user survey show that the main barrier to ICTs access was “insufficient facilities in the libraries”. “Time limit”, which could be linked to libraries ICTs usage management guidelines, which limit access to the facilities to at least 30 minutes per person, unless there is no one in line who has also made a booking to use the facilities, was identified by some as another barrier which prevents people from maximising the full benefits offered by ICTs in libraries. Although “fear and lack of knowledge of how to use the facilities”, “unfavourable libraries hours” and “other (cost of ICTs services)” were also identified as barriers, they had a lesser impact as barriers compared to “insufficient ICTs in libraries” and “time limit”. Nevertheless, the fact that some respondents identified “lack of knowledge and skills of how to use ICTs” as a barrier to ICTs access means that simply providing access to ICTs is not enough, as people also need training in order to know how to use the facilities.

Respondents were also asked to indicate whether they had access to ICTs elsewhere apart from the libraries. In response, 98 (58%) indicated that they did have access to facilities elsewhere, while 72 (42%) were found to be having no other access apart from libraries. Those who had other access to facilities elsewhere were requested to indicate their other access points from a) home; b) work; c) educational establishment; d) cybercafé; e) friend/relatives home and f) other. Respondents were allowed to indicate more than one option, and multiple responses were provided.

100

The results of this study show that respondents’ other ICTs access points apart from libraries were home 53 (31%), cybercafés 38 (22%), work 29 (17%), educational establishments 17 (10%) and friends or relatives home 10 (9%). This may explain why some of the respondents did not use ICTs available in libraries as they had access to the facilities at these other places. Eve and Brophy (2000) and Chaplin (2002) found, in their studies, that people had, homes, work, educational establishments and cybercafés as other ICTs access points, and therefore did not rely on public libraries to access ICTs. The fact that users had other ICTs access points apart from libraries and did not rely only on public libraries to access ICTs means that libraries need to up their game if they are to have a competitive edge over other ICTs service providers, in order to remain relevant to the people, or else they will become white elephants.

Respondents were also asked to indicate whom they consulted when they experienced ICTs usage related problems in libraries from a) staff; b) computer books; c) other users and d) other. It was interesting to find that 145 (85%) of the respondents consulted "library staff”, while “other users” were consulted by 18 (11%) of respondents. ICTs manuals were consulted by only 7 (4%) as reflected in Figure 4.7. There was nothing shocking about these results, considering that staff members are the first people users consult in libraries whenever they experience library usage challenge, be it ICTs or non-ICTs related matters.

101

Therefore, in terms of accessibility of ICTs in EMM libraries, one can say that although the facilities seem to be accessible to 134 (79%) of users, there are barriers that make access to facilities a challenge that need critical attention. Consequently, critical evaluation of such barriers is necessary if libraries are to continue playing a role as one-stop information and ICTs access points. This is crucial because if no efforts are made to address these barriers, most users will be forced to use other points of ICTs access such as cybercafés, educational establishments, such as schools or universities, where they study. In the end, this will be bad for public libraries that are already facing the prospect of extinction as a result of the stiff competition from other ICTs service centres or providers.