I've been pondering this recently. We all have severe difficulty using new technology, which in turn causes significant financial uncertainty (unable to work on a new computer full-time), physical/mental wellbeing at risk due to exposure to 'bad' devices, isolation as a result of not being able to comfortably use new technology to keep in touch/socialise with others.
In the UK, one section at Citizen's Advice describes what counts as a disability.
An impairment doesn’t have to be a diagnosed medical condition. If you’re suffering from stress, you might have mental impairments - like difficulty concentrating - as well as physical impairments such as extreme tiredness and difficulty sleeping. It still has to have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on your ability to carry out day-to-day activities.
Your impairment doesn’t have to stop you doing anything, as long as it makes it harder. It might cause you pain, make things take much longer than they should or mean that you’re unable to do an activity more than once.
However there isn't even a name for our condition, just an aversion to modern screen lighting/rendering/dithering. Other charities such as LightAware have exposed the issues surrounding LED/Blue light, and I believe some people are receiving some form of entitlement/benefits from the state (at least here in the UK) as that condition is recognised. This dithering/rendering fiasco isn't recognised (yet).
I don't generally like to use the term disabled as that evokes images of a physical disability to me. Nether-the-less being unable to earn a living or even casually use technology has to be acknowledged as a severely life-impacting situation, which the state and scientific communities should sympathise with and try to work towards a solution. This whole transition for me in the last decade from 100% usable > 100% unusable technology has had a dramatic impact on my relationship with technology, and also financial/physical and mental implications.
What do you think?