RNIB – supporting people with sight loss
Research briefing
Communications technology and
people with sight loss: A summary of
Ofcom research
Introduction
Communication devices and services can increase the
independence of people with sight loss, yet there may be barriers
to usage. Ofcom, the communications regulator in the UK, has
published several reports addressing disabled people’s
communications use and experience. This research briefing offers
a summary of their findings in relation to blind and partially sighted
people.
The resulting information will be of interest to people working in the
sight loss sector and other professionals who are seeking to
understand some of the patterns in blind and partially sighted
people’s use of communications technology.
Method
This briefing considers four reports published by Ofcom. As the
reports followed different procedures for data collection and
analysis, we recommend consulting the full publications should you
wish to interrogate the findings further. We have not tested the
comparisons for statistical significance, as this is a briefing to
highlight the existence of the data, rather than a complete
secondary analysis of each source.
The Consumer Experience of 2014: Research Report
(2015)
Ofcom’s most recent general report, on consumers’ experience of
communications, includes a section about disabled consumers.
RNIB charity numbers 226227, SC039 316 and 1109
The report uses a data set obtained via The British Population
Survey (BPS), which is a face-to-face nationally representative
survey of people aged 15+ across Great Britain. Data is collected
from people in their own homes. Between 1 August and 20
November 2014, Ofcom commissioned a question to identify
respondents who self-reported a disability or long-term illness that
affected their day-to-day life. Ofcom had previously asked the
question in 2012.
In 2014 the survey sample comprised 4,004 adults aged 15+ with
a disability, and 15,859 without a disability. Ofcom based their
analysis on un-weighted data. The responses from people without
disabilities are not generalisable to the UK adult population
because the respondents’ age profile is younger.
The report compares patterns of communications ownership,
between consumers with a single disability (i.e. hearing, visual,
mobility, or learning impairment) and those without a disability.
Some trend comparisons are also included.
Affordability of communications services essential for
participation: Quantitative research. (Jigsaw, 2014)
This study’s objectives were to define which communication
services are “essential”, both personally and to society as a whole;
to explore affordability among the UK population, overall and
amongst consumer groups for whom services may be particularly
essential or for whom affordability is an issue; and to explore
whether essential communication services may be unaffordable in
some situations for some consumers.
Jigsaw conducted 1,997 computer assisted personal interviews,
between 10 March and 9 April 2014. The target groups of interest
were users and potential users of landline phones, mobile phones
and the internet (either fixed and/or mobile). A nationally
representative frame covered the key subgroups, including: age,
gender, socio economic group and nation, rurality, social and
rnib.org.uk
economic exclusions, retirees, younger unemployed (16-34 years),
middle aged unemployed (35-64 years) and disabled people. Minor
weights were applied to align the sample profile to the UK – data
was weighted by age, gender, and socio economic group within
region according to the 2011 census.
Disabled respondents were defined as having “any kind of long
standing physical or mental impairment, illness or disability. By
‘long standing’ Jigsaw means anything over a period of at least 12
months, or that is likely to affect the respondent for a period of at
least 12 months. Their definition is taken from The Single Equality
Act. 14 per cent of all respondents reported any long standing
impairment, illness or disability. Options for respondents included
“poor vision, partial sight of blindness,” however the report doesn’t
analyse responses according to people’s specific disability. Instead
responses from people with any disability are provided as an
aggregate.
The value of the internet to disabled consumers
(BDRC Continental 2013)
This research focused on safeguarding access to broadband for
disabled and older people, take up of broadband services, the
value of access to broadband for disabled consumers, barriers to
access, reasons for usage, the impact of not having broadband
access in the event of a fault and how these areas relate to
different types of disability.
Data was gathered through a consumer omnibus. This is a type of
survey where information on varied topics is collected within one
interview. The interviews were carried out face to face between 12
June and 21 July 2013.
Quotas (by sex, working status and presence of children in the
household) were set during interviewing to minimise any selection
bias. The omnibus used a weighting matrix based on gender, age,
social class, and was grouped according to the Registrar General’s
rnib.org.uk
Regions (North, Midlands, South). Additionally, England, Wales,
Scotland and Northern Ireland weights were imposed to ensure
further regional and national representation.
4,431 disabled people participated, allowing analysis by age and
social class. For two of the survey waves people without
disabilities were also included to generate a sample of 1,646 non
disabled participants. Disabled respondents self-categorised into
the following non-exclusive groups: mobility impaired (2,352
interviews); hearing impaired (818 interviews); visually impaired
(720 interviews); multi-disability (1,254 interviews); other disability
(1,183 interviews). If a respondent had more than one disability,
the question was asked about their stated main disability.
Disabilities mystery shopping (BDRC Continental,
2010)
In 2009-10, Continental Research carried out mystery shopping on
behalf of Ofcom, to determine what information the major fixed and
mobile telecoms providers provide to consumers with disabilities
about products and services that are designed to benefit them.
This followed similar research conducted in 2004 and 2006.
Eight providers were selected for assessment, on the basis of
having more than 5 per cent market share at the time the research
was commissioned: BT, Orange, O2, TalkTalk, T-mobile, Virgin
Media, and Vodafone.
Ofcom was particularly interested to see which services were
mentioned by the providers, both spontaneously and after being
prompted by mystery shoppers, to consumers who are (or are
calling on behalf of people who are) blind/visually impaired;
deaf/hard of hearing; cognitively impaired or in hospital long term.
Mandated service aspects relating to blind/visually impaired
shoppers were:
 Free directory enquiries
rnib.org.uk




Through-connection
Bills/contracts in braille
Bills/contracts in large print
Priority fault repair
The research employed multiple forms of contact to test the
availability of services. 1,377 mystery shopping contacts were
made, including 1,271 phone calls, and 105 contacts via
email/website contact form. To avoid detection mystery shopper
calls were rotated between daytime and evenings, and weekdays.
All mystery shoppers posed as potential customers or relatives of
potential customers. 430 of the contacts tested services for
blind/visually impaired people.
Key findings
Fixed line telecoms
The proportion of visually impaired, and non-disabled participants
who own fixed-line telecoms is roughly the same: 75 and 72 per
cent respectively. This hasn’t changed significantly since 2012.
However, not all disabled consumers with a fixed line use it. Usage
is lowest among those with a visual impairment (63 per cent,
compared to 72 per cent of those with a hearing impairment, and
70 per cent of those with a mobility impairment). Across the
disability groups the gap between ownership and use is at around
one in ten. The report does not compare this gap to consumers
with no disability.
Of those who own a fixed line, six per cent of consumers with a
visual impairment stated their usage was prevented or limited by
their disability. (Ofcom, 2015)
Mobile phones
Ownership of a mobile phone is lower among adults with a visual
(83 per cent) compared to those without a disability (89 per cent).
rnib.org.uk
This difference is driven by lower than average ownership among
those aged 65+, and those in the C2DE socio-economic group,
which includes skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers,
casual workers, pensioners and unemployed people. Overall
ownership levels haven’t changed since 2012, but there was a
significant increase in ownership among those with a visual
impairment in the 65+ age group, which was up from 65 to 75 per
cent.
48 per cent of consumers with a visual impairment own a
smartphone, compared to 66 per cent of non-disabled consumers.
13 per cent of consumers with a visual impairment say they are
prevented from using a mobile, or their use of the service/device is
limited, by their disability. (Ofcom, 2015)
Disabled participants were less likely than non-disabled
participants to have the following in their household: Laptop (48
per cent vs. 64 per cent), netbook (5 per cent vs. 11 per cent)
Tablet (26 per cent vs. 42 per cent), smartphone (34 per cent vs.
59 per cent). (Jigsaw, 2014)
Where visual impairment was mentioned during mystery shopper
research, mobile telecoms providers were more likely to offer at
least one mandated service than when other disabilities were
mentioned. This may reflect the fact that there are more mandates
services that benefit visually impaired customers.
For blind/visually impaired consumers, bills and contracts in Braille
or large print were the two most commonly mentioned services
overall compared to other mandated services.
Even after prompting, free directory enquiries were only offered in
21 per cent of the calls. 19 per cent of the mystery shopping
enquiries on behalf of visually impaired customers resulted in the
rnib.org.uk
mystery shopper being told that there were no special services for
disabled customers.
When prompted, 89 per cent of calls to providers on behalf of
visually impaired consumers resulted in at least one mandated
service being mentioned, with alternative format bills and contracts
again the two most mentioned individual services.
In some cases, call handlers offered additional information, for
example in relation to handsets. However, in 22 per cent of calls
the caller was told that there were no discounts or special offers for
disabled people and in 19 per cent of calls the caller was told that
there were no special services for disabled consumers and no
priority fault repair. (BDRC Continental, 2010).
Internet
Internet access is lower among consumers with visual impairments
(75 per cent) than consumers without disabilities (88 per cent).
However since 2012 the proportion of consumers with visual
impairments has increased from 62 per cent, while remaining
unchanged for non-disabled consumers. (Ofcom 2015)
Disabled participants were less likely than non-disabled
participants to personally access the Internet (59 per cent vs. 80
per cent), have Internet access at home (57 per cent vs. 77 per
cent) or have superfast broadband (12 per cent vs. 24 per cent)
(Jigsaw, 2014)
Across a range of areas visually impaired home internet users
were less likely to conduct activities online than non-disabled
users:
 21 per cent of visually impaired home internet users carried out
work or college activities, compared to 40 per cent of nondisabled users.
rnib.org.uk
 63 per cent carried out communication activities, compared to
70 per cent of non-disabled users.
 58 per cent carried out any shopping or transacting activities,
compared to 67 per cent.
 However visually impaired and non-disabled users were about
equally likely to carry out information activities (76 per cent vs
78 per cent) and entertainment activities (54 per cent vs 58 per
cent).
Visually impaired home internet users were more likely than nondisabled users to have experienced internet/phone service
problems in the preceding year (45 per cent vs 29 per cent).
For both disabled and non-disabled users the most likely difficulty
was a problem connecting to the internet attributable to their
internet service provider. (BDRC Continental, 2013)
Television
Freeview ownership is higher among consumers with disabilities.
36 per cent of visually impaired consumers reported ownership
compared to 30 per cent of non disabled consumers. Levels of use
are comparable to ownership for each disability group.
Satellite or cable TV ownership is lower among visually impaired
respondents (48 per cent) than non-disabled respondents (55 per
cent).
14 per cent of visually impaired consumers say they are prevented
from using the television, or their use of it is limited, by their
disability. This is broadly in line with mobility impaired consumers
rnib.org.uk
(13 per cent) and hearing impaired consumers (11 per cent).
(Ofcom, 2015)
Disabled participants were less likely than non-disabled
participants to have the following in their household: Smart TV (28
per cent vs. 33 per cent) and Pay TV (45 per cent vs. 54 per cent).
(Jigsaw, 2014)
4. Conclusions
Taken together the reports provide a picture of inequality in
ownership and usage of communications technology, between
people with sight loss and those without disabilities. Among the
people who participated in Ofcom’s research:
 Those with sight loss were less likely than people without
disabilities to own mobile phones, particularly smart phones.
Around one in ten participants with sight loss said their disability
prevented them from using their mobile device/service.
 Blind and partially sighted participants were less likely than
people without disabilities to access the internet, and to have
internet access at home. They were more likely to have
encountered internet/phone service problems in the preceding
year.
 In common with mobility and hearing impaired people, a
minority of blind and partially sighted participants (14 per cent)
felt their use of the television was limited by their disability.
5. Further information
BDRC Continental. (2010). Disabilities mystery shopping.
Retrieved from
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/telecomsresearch/disabled/DisabilitiesMysteryShoppin.pdf
rnib.org.uk
BDRC Continental. (2013). The value of the internet to disabled
consumers: Research report. Retrieved from
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/accessdisabled/annexes/Internet_Access_for_Disabled_People.pdf
Jigsaw. (2014). Affordability of communications services essential
for participation: Quantitative research. Retrieved from
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/affordability/Ess
ential_Comms_Services.pdf
Ofcom. (2015). The consumer experience of 2014: Research
report. Retrieved from
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/consumerexperience/tce-14/TCE14_research_report.pdf
For further information please contact RNIB Evidence and Service
Impact by emailing research@rnib.org.uk.
© RNIB 2015
rnib.org.uk