Short explanation: When services move online, people with limited digital skills—commonly older adults, those with less formal education, or individuals new to technology—can struggle to complete essential tasks. Difficulties include navigating complex websites, filling multi-step online forms, managing passwords and two-factor authentication, or recognising and avoiding scams. These barriers can prevent access to banking, applying for benefits, booking medical appointments, or obtaining prescription refills, effectively denying people essential services unless alternative, accessible options remain available.

References:

• van Dijk, J. (2020). The Digital Divide. Polity.
• Friemel, T. N. (2016). The digital divide has grown old: determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Media & Society, 18(2), 313–331.

Friemel’s 2016 paper examines how and why a distinct digital divide persists among older adults. Using survey data and statistical analysis, the study shows that chronological aging is now a stronger predictor of non-use and limited use of the internet than traditional socio-economic factors. Key determinants include physical and cognitive impairments, lower digital self-efficacy, weaker social networks that encourage online adoption, and attitudes toward technology. Friemel argues that policy and service design cannot treat internet adoption as merely an economic or educational problem: age-related barriers and the social context of older people must be addressed.

Why this selection fits your context:

• Highlights a large, growing population (seniors) likely excluded when services go digital-only.
• Emphasizes non-technical factors (health, confidence, social support) that digital access policies must consider.
• Supports the need for alternatives to online-only channels and for targeted interventions (training, accessible design, assisted access).

Reference: Friemel, T. N. (2016). The digital divide has grown old: determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Media & Society, 18(2), 313–331.

J. van Dijk’s The Digital Divide (2020) is a concise, theory-driven account of how inequalities in access to and use of information and communication technologies produce and reproduce broader social exclusion. I selected it because:

• Comprehensive framework: van Dijk distinguishes four key dimensions—motivational access, material access (devices and connectivity), skills access (digital literacy), and usage access (meaningful, beneficial use). Those categories map directly onto the examples you listed (no internet, lack of devices, digital literacy gaps, etc.), making his framework immediately applicable for diagnosing why digital-only services exclude people.

• Empirical and conceptual balance: The book combines empirical evidence with conceptual clarity about mechanisms (economic, educational, social capital, and institutional factors) that sustain the divide, helping explain not just who is excluded but why exclusion persists.

• Policy relevance: van Dijk outlines policy implications and interventions (infrastructure, education, inclusive design, and socioeconomic support), which are useful when assessing remedies for excluding digital-only services.

• Accessibility to practitioners: Written for both scholars and policymakers, it’s practical for informing service design, digital inclusion programs, and accessibility standards — all relevant to preventing the harms you described.

Reference: van Dijk, J. (2020). The Digital Divide. Polity.

Short explanation: When organisations move services online without accessible design, people with disabilities can be unable to complete essential tasks. Common barriers include websites and apps that don’t work with screen readers, lack keyboard navigation for users who cannot use a mouse, inaccessible forms and CAPTCHAs, confusing layouts or language for people with cognitive disabilities, and videos without captions or transcripts. These issues can prevent arranging social care, registering to vote, accessing legal aid, or managing benefits. Following the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) helps reduce these exclusions (see WCAG 2.1: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/).

Confusing layouts, dense text, jargon, and unpredictable navigation increase cognitive load and make it hard for people with intellectual disabilities, acquired brain injuries, autism, dementia, or other cognitive impairments to understand, remember, and act on information. When forms use long paragraphs, inconsistent headings, hidden instructions, multiple choices presented at once, or abstract language, users may:

• Fail to find the next step or important warnings.
• Misinterpret questions and submit incorrect information.
• Become overwhelmed and abandon the task altogether.

Design that uses clear structure, plain language, consistent labels, chunked steps, simple choices, and supportive cues (icons, examples, progress indicators) reduces cognitive effort and enables people with cognitive disabilities to complete essential tasks independently.

References: W3C WAI Plain Language and Cognitive Accessibility Guidance; “Designing for Cognitive Accessibility” (GOV.UK / NHS accessibility guidance).

These examples were chosen to show the distinct, real-world ways moving services online can block access to essential tasks. Each point isolates a different barrier so policymakers and designers can identify targeted solutions rather than treating exclusion as a single problem.

• No internet access: Highlights structural inequality (infrastructure, cost) that makes entire populations unable to access services at all.
• Lack of devices: Shows that connectivity alone isn’t enough; physical tools are necessary, and ownership is uneven.
• Digital literacy gaps: Emphasizes skill and familiarity as prerequisites—services can be available but unusable without training.
• Disability barriers: Points to design failures that systematically exclude people with sensory, motor, or cognitive impairments (see W3C WCAG).
• Language and literacy limits: Reminds us that comprehension, not only interface mechanics, determines usability for diverse populations.
• Identity verification hurdles: Illustrates how security mechanisms can become gatekeeping tools when they assume access to specific hardware or apps.
• Intermittent power/connectivity: Draws attention to reliability as well as access—continuous availability is often required for essential tasks.
• Trust and privacy concerns: Shows that social vulnerability and fear of surveillance lead people to avoid otherwise accessible digital services.

Together these examples map the multiple, interacting dimensions of exclusion—technical, economic, educational, legal and social—so interventions can be designed to address the specific obstacles faced by different groups.

Selected references: W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG); Pew Research Center — digital divide reports; UK Government research on digital exclusion.

Short explanation: Disability barriers occur when digital services are designed without accommodating sensory, motor, or cognitive differences, producing systematic exclusion. Examples of such design failures include interfaces that don’t work with screen readers (excluding blind users), controls that require precise pointer movements or gestures (excluding people with limited fine motor control), reliance on visual-only cues or unlabeled images (excluding people with low vision), CAPTCHAs and videos without alternatives (excluding people with vision or hearing impairments), and complex language or inconsistent layouts (excluding people with cognitive disabilities). These problems prevent ordinary tasks—booking appointments, applying for benefits, voting, accessing legal or health information—from being completed independently. Adopting the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) reduces these barriers by specifying requirements for perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust design (see W3C WCAG 2.1: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/).

Short explanation: I selected these specific examples to show the different, concrete ways moving services online can prevent people from completing essential tasks. Each example isolates a distinct barrier so policymakers and service designers can target solutions rather than treating exclusion as a single problem.

Examples that illustrate each barrier

• No internet access — Rural pensioner: A retiree in a remote area with only slow mobile data cannot file a benefits claim or book a GP appointment when the clinic stops offering phone or in-person bookings.
• Lack of devices — Homeless person: Someone sleeping rough with no smartphone or laptop cannot upload proof-of-identity to open a bank account needed for receiving wages or benefits.
• Digital literacy gaps — Older adult: A person unfamiliar with online forms is unable to complete an online tax return or register for social care, even though the service exists digitally.
• Disability barriers — Visually impaired voter: A blind voter finds the online voter registration site incompatible with screen readers and so cannot register to vote or request postal ballots.
• Language and literacy limits — Recent migrant: A non-native speaker with limited literacy struggles to interpret complex online immigration forms and misses deadlines for residency paperwork.
• Identity verification hurdles — Low-income worker: A worker without a smartphone cannot pass an app-based biometric ID check required to open a digital-only bank account, blocking access to wages and benefits.
• Intermittent power/connectivity — Disaster-affected household: During a power outage after a storm, a family cannot access emergency benefit applications that require continuous internet access.
• Trust and privacy concerns — Survivor of abuse: A person fleeing domestic violence avoids online systems that log location or require shared-device sign-ins, preventing access to housing or legal aid.

References (selected): W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.1); Pew Research Center — reports on the digital divide; UK Government research on digital exclusion.

Even when broadband or mobile data are available, people still need suitable hardware to use online services. A household might have a phone with limited data but no smartphone, a shared or outdated computer, or no device at all. Certain tasks — uploading documents, taking photos for ID checks, using apps that require specific operating systems, or completing long, complex forms — are impractical or impossible on small screens or old devices. Device ownership is uneven across income, age, homelessness and disability lines, so moving services online without offering alternative access or device support effectively excludes those who cannot afford, maintain, or operate the necessary physical tools.

Reference: Pew Research Center — “Digital divide persists despite broadband gains” and W3C guidance on designing for varied user contexts (WCAG).

Short explanation: Identity checks that demand specific hardware or apps — for example, a smartphone with a working camera, biometric-capable device, or a particular authentication app — assume everyone can meet those technical requirements. When people lack the required device, have limited storage or bandwidth, cannot install apps (shared or restricted devices), or cannot use biometric scanners for medical or cultural reasons, the verification step blocks access rather than enabling it. Because identity verification sits at the front of many essential transactions (bank accounts, benefits, healthcare records), these technical and procedural assumptions turn a security measure into a gatekeeping barrier, excluding vulnerable groups from services they need.

Reference: See discussions on digital ID exclusion and accessibility in policy research (e.g., UK Government digital exclusion studies) and guidance on inclusive identity systems (World Bank/ID4D; W3C accessibility principles).

Short explanation: Digital ID systems—requiring smartphones, biometric scans, or third‑party apps—can block people from essential services when those technologies or skills aren’t available. Individuals without compatible devices (older adults, low‑income households, homeless people), those lacking digital literacy, people with disabilities whose assistive tools aren’t supported, and those afraid to share personal data (survivors of abuse, undocumented migrants) may be unable or unwilling to complete identity checks. Because identity verification is often a gateway for opening bank accounts, claiming benefits, accessing healthcare or housing, failures in digital‑ID design or implementation create a hard barrier: users can be fully excluded from services even if they meet eligibility. Designing alternative, low‑tech verification routes and ensuring accessibility, privacy protections, and device‑agnostic options are essential mitigations.

References: W3C WCAG (accessibility), Pew Research Center on digital divides, reports on digital ID impacts (e.g., UK Government and UN critiques of digital ID implementations).

Short explanation: The UN’s critiques were chosen because they highlight how digital ID systems, when poorly designed or deployed, can threaten rights and worsen exclusion. UN reports and statements focus on concrete harms—privacy violations, lack of informed consent, discrimination, denial of services to those unable to meet technical or documentary requirements, and increased surveillance—showing that digital identity is not just a technical issue but a human-rights one. These critiques emphasize principles policymakers should follow (data minimization, non-discrimination, accountability, meaningful consent, and availability of non-digital alternatives) and provide international legitimacy for insisting that digital ID programs be inclusive, transparent, and rights-respecting. References: UN Human Rights Council reports on digital ID, UN Special Rapporteurs’ statements, and guidance from UNIDIR/ID4D.

Short explanation: Assistive tools (screen readers, magnifiers, voice input, alternative keyboards, captioning, switch controls) enable people with disabilities to use digital services. When online systems ignore or break compatibility with these tools—through unlabeled buttons, inaccessible forms, poor semantic structure, or media without captions—tasks become impossible or unsafe. Dependence on specific assistive technologies also means updates, cost, or lack of local technical support can block access. Including and testing with assistive tools reduces exclusion by ensuring people can read content, complete forms, verify identity, and receive critical communications independently.

Reference: W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and related ARIA guidance for assistive technology compatibility (https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/).

Explanation: “Language and literacy limits” highlights that successful use of a digital service depends not only on technical access and interface mechanics but on a user’s ability to understand the content and instructions. If forms, error messages, guidance pages or legal terms are written in complex, jargon-heavy, or culturally specific language, people with limited literacy, non-native speakers, or those unfamiliar with official terminology will struggle to complete tasks even when they can navigate the site. Poorly written content increases mistakes, delays and abandonment of essential processes (e.g., tax returns, benefit claims, immigration forms). Designing for comprehension — plain language, clear visual cues, multilingual support, and progressive disclosure — is therefore as important as accessibility features and device compatibility.

References: Plain Language principles; W3C WAI guidance on plain language and usable accessibility (WCAG 2.1).

Plain language principles were selected because they directly reduce barriers that stop people completing essential tasks when services move online. Clear, simple language makes content easier to understand for non-native speakers, people with low literacy, older adults, and those with cognitive disabilities. It reduces errors on forms, lowers time needed to complete tasks, and builds user confidence—so fewer people need help or phone support. Plain language also supports accessibility guidelines (WCAG) and improves trust by making privacy notices and consent clear. In short, plain language is a low-cost, high-impact measure that addresses comprehension, equity, and usability across many excluded groups.

References: Plain Language Action and Information Network (PLAIN) guidelines; W3C WCAG guidance on readable text.

Short explanation: Highlighting intermittent power and connectivity calls attention to reliability as well as baseline access. Many essential tasks — refilling prescriptions, submitting time‑sensitive benefit claims, attending telehealth appointments, or completing identity checks — require a continuous, predictable connection for forms, verification, or real‑time interaction. Frequent outages, limited battery life, or spotty mobile coverage mean people can be cut off mid‑transaction, lose unsaved data, miss deadlines or appointments, or be unable to retry when systems impose one‑time codes or time windows. Those in rural areas, low‑income households, temporary accommodation, or crisis situations are disproportionately affected because they often lack backup power, multiple devices, or affordable data plans. Ensuring services tolerate interruptions (save progress, allow offline alternatives, extend deadlines, provide non‑digital routes) reduces exclusion and the real harms that stem from unreliable connectivity.

References: Pew Research Center on digital divides; ITU and World Bank reports on connectivity and reliability; W3C guidance on progressive enhancement and offline web apps.

Pew Research Center is a widely cited, nonpartisan source that offers rigorous empirical data on internet access, device ownership, and digital skills across demographic groups. Its surveys and analyses show how factors like income, age, education, geography, and race/ethnicity correlate with gaps in connectivity and usage patterns. Citing Pew helps ground the examples of digital exclusion in nationally and internationally comparable evidence, making the case that digital-only services can systematically disadvantage specific populations and informing targeted policy or design responses.

Reference: Pew Research Center — reports on the “digital divide” and internet/broadband adoption.

Digital literacy gaps mean that even when services are technically available online, many people cannot use them because they lack the necessary skills, confidence, or experience. Tasks that seem straightforward—navigating menus, completing multi-step forms, scanning and uploading documents, managing passwords, or following security prompts—require specific know-how. Without training or support, older adults, people with limited formal education, recent migrants, or anyone unfamiliar with common web interactions may be unable to start or finish essential processes (e.g., applying for benefits, booking healthcare, or filing taxes). The result is not just inconvenience but practical exclusion: services exist on paper, but functionally do not for those lacking digital skills. Providing alternative channels, clear plain-language instructions, and in-person or phone support reduces this gap.

Short explanation: “No internet access” points to structural inequality: where broadband infrastructure is lacking (rural or remote areas) or where cost places connectivity out of reach (low-income households), whole groups are simply unable to use digital-only services. This isn’t an individual failing but a systemic one—decisions about where networks are built, what providers charge, and who receives subsidies determine who can access online benefits, healthcare, tax systems, or emergency information. As a result, moving services exclusively online can convert a public service into a service inaccessible to already disadvantaged populations, compounding existing social and economic exclusion. (See Pew Research Center on the digital divide; UK Government research on digital exclusion.)

Short explanation: People who are socially vulnerable — for example survivors of domestic abuse, undocumented migrants, homeless individuals, or those with histories of state distrust — may consciously avoid online services that require personal data, location tracking, device identifiers, or account creation. Even when an interface is technically accessible, the requirement to log in, upload identity documents, share contact details, or allow location/camera access can feel risky. Fears include exposure to abusers, deportation, data breaches, or intrusive profiling by governments or corporations. As a result, these individuals forgo essential tasks (seeking healthcare, applying for benefits, accessing housing or legal aid) rather than risk surveillance or loss of anonymity. Addressing this exclusion requires privacy-minimising design, clear data-use policies, alternatives that do not require personal identifiers, and trust-building outreach.

References: Pew Research Center on privacy and trust; UX guidelines for privacy-by-design; relevant policy discussions on digital ID and exclusion (e.g., UK Government digital exclusion research).

The UK Government’s digital exclusion research was chosen because it provides authoritative, up‑to‑date evidence about who is most likely to be left behind by digital‑only services in a specific policy context. It combines nationally representative data, qualitative studies, and policy analysis to show how factors like age, income, disability, education, and geography interact to produce exclusion. This makes it especially useful for informing practical interventions (e.g., alternative access channels, device and connectivity subsidies, digital skills programmes, and accessibility standards) and for persuading policymakers and service designers who work within UK institutions. The report’s mixed methods approach also illuminates both the scale of the problem and the lived experiences behind the statistics, helping target solutions to groups at greatest risk.

Short explanation: The UK Government’s digital exclusion research was chosen because it provides authoritative, evidence-based insight into who is being left behind by the shift to online-only services and why. Its findings combine national survey data, qualitative interviews, and sector-specific analysis to highlight structural barriers (cost, connectivity, device ownership), demographic patterns (age, income, disability), and situational factors (rurality, literacy, trust). This makes it especially useful for policymakers and service designers seeking targeted, practicable interventions—such as offline alternatives, assisted digital support, accessibility improvements, and privacy safeguards—grounded in the UK policy and service-delivery context. The report also maps policy implications and examples of effective mitigations, helping translate diagnosis into actionable solutions.

Short explanation for the selection: The examples and references were chosen because they capture the multiple, interacting causes of exclusion that flow from shifting essential services to digital‑only delivery: infrastructure gaps, device and skill shortages, accessibility failures, language and literacy limits, identity and privacy barriers, and social vulnerability. Together they offer a practical map for policymakers and service designers to identify where people are excluded and which targeted remedies are needed (e.g., alternative access channels, accessibility compliance, device/connectivity support, privacy‑preserving design, and outreach). The UK Government research and reports from organisations like W3C and Pew provide empirical grounding and actionable standards, while illustrating both population‑level patterns and lived experience.

Suggested authors and works to explore (ideas and people who have written on this topic):

• Sonia Livingstone — Research on digital divides, children and families, and inclusion policy (e.g., Livingstone et al., reports for UK regulators; see her academic work on inequality and digital access).
• Deirdre Mulligan and Helen Nissenbaum — Writings on privacy, trust, and the social implications of surveillance in digital services.
• danah boyd — Research and commentary on youth, privacy, and social media; useful for understanding trust and vulnerability.
• Latanya Sweeney — Work on privacy, identification risks, and how digital systems can expose vulnerable populations.
• Sherry Turkle — Analyses of how technology affects human relationships and trust, relevant to uptake and avoidance of digital services.
• Asia-Pacific and UK policy reports: UK Government’s “Digital Inclusion” and “Digital Exclusion” studies — practical, policy‑oriented evidence; also OECD and World Bank reports on digital government and inclusion.
• Accessibility and design authorities: W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and publications by the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) or American Foundation for the Blind on implementing accessible services.
• Digital ethics and design practitioners: Tricia Wang (ethnography for product design), and organizations like the Centre for Digital Public Services (or Gov.uk’s Service Manual) for practical guidance on inclusive service design.
• Academic overviews: Articles on the “second-level digital divide” (skill and usage gaps) by Eszter Hargittai and others; scholarship on digital identity and exclusion (e.g., works on digital ID systems and marginalisation).

If you want, I can:

• Recommend specific papers, reports or book chapters from these authors.
• Produce a short reading list tailored to policymakers, designers, or researchers.
• Suggest concrete policy or design interventions linked to each exclusion type.

Short explanation: The “second‑level digital divide” was chosen because it highlights that access to the internet alone does not guarantee equal outcomes. While the first‑level divide focuses on who has devices and connectivity, the second‑level divide draws attention to differences in skills, usage patterns, and the ability to benefit from online services. This distinction matters for policy and design: simply providing broadband or devices won’t help people who lack digital literacy, confidence, or relevant know‑how to complete essential tasks (e.g., filling complex forms, using secure authentication, or evaluating trustworthy information). Addressing the second‑level divide requires targeted training, simpler and more inclusive design, supported channels (assisted digital), and measures that recognise varied digital practices across age, education, disability, and socio‑economic groups.

Key references: van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005) “The Deepening Divide”; OECD and Pew Research reports on digital skills and usage disparities.

Short explanation: “Supported channels” or assisted digital services were chosen because they directly address the concrete, immediate barriers that digital‑only delivery creates for people who cannot reliably use online services. Assisted digital provides human-mediated alternatives — in-person help, telephone support, outreach workers, assisted kiosks, or intermediaries — that compensate for lack of internet, devices, digital skills, accessibility needs, language barriers, and privacy concerns. Selecting assisted digital emphasizes practical inclusion: it preserves dignity and safety (for people avoiding surveillance), reduces administrative bottlenecks (by preventing incomplete or incorrect applications), and increases take‑up of essential services (benefits, healthcare, legal aid). As a policy lever, assisted digital is often faster and less costly to implement than full infrastructure or device provision, and it complements longer‑term solutions like accessibility compliance, digital skills training, and connectivity investments.

Key reasons for selection (concise):

• Targets multiple exclusion causes at once (skills, devices, literacy, trust).
• Protects vulnerable users’ privacy and safety through mediated options.
• Improves service completion rates and reduces error/appeal burdens.
• Is operationally flexible: phone, in-person, community partners, or assisted kiosks.
• Works as a bridge while systemic fixes (broadband, accessible design) are implemented.

References and further reading:

• UK Government guidance on “Assisted Digital” in the Government Digital Service (GDS) Service Manual.
• W3C/WCAG guidance on accessibility (context for why assisted channels remain necessary until compliance is universal).
• Reports on digital exclusion from the UK Government and Pew Research Center showing which groups benefit most from assisted support.

Short explanation: The examples were chosen to show the different, concrete ways moving services online can prevent people from completing essential tasks. Each example isolates a specific barrier—technical, economic, educational, legal or social—so that policymakers and designers can see where exclusion happens and choose targeted fixes rather than one-size solutions.

Examples:

• No internet access: A rural family without broadband cannot submit a benefits application during a time-limited window.
• Lack of devices: A homeless person without a smartphone cannot upload identity documents needed to access emergency housing.
• Digital literacy gaps: An older adult who never used online banking fails to set up two-factor authentication and thus cannot pay bills online.
• Disability barriers: A blind applicant cannot complete a government form because the site is not compatible with screen readers, blocking access to social care.
• Language and literacy limits: A non-native speaker struggles with complex tax forms and misses a filing deadline.
• Identity verification hurdles: A low-income applicant lacking a smartphone cannot complete a biometric e-ID check and is denied a bank account.
• Intermittent power/connectivity: A person in an area with frequent outages cannot renew a prescription that requires an online appointment.
• Trust and privacy concerns: A survivor of domestic abuse refuses to use an app that tracks locations and so avoids seeking legal aid.

These targeted examples map specific causes of exclusion to real, everyday tasks so solutions can be matched to the precise barrier (e.g., offline alternatives, device loans, assisted digital support, WCAG-compliant design, simplified language, privacy‑preserving ID options).

Selected references: W3C WCAG 2.1; Pew Research Center on digital divides; UK Government research on digital exclusion.