[nabs-l] should the blind adapt to the world, or should the world adapt to us?

[mworkman at ualberta.ca]

I was actually planning to ask a similar question myself on this list.  But,
for me, the question is as follows: to what extent should blind people fight
for changes to the way environments, products, and services are designed in
order to facilitate easier access?

I believe strongly in a lot of the tenants of NFB philosophy.  I think the
organization generally has a progressive attitude towards blindness, but
where we part company is on the issue of design.

If I'm correct, the NFB generally opposes alterations to the built
environment unless absolutely necessary.  So even the NFB says it is
appropriate to fight so that silent cars make noise, and this is because no
amount of training is going to completely eliminate the danger of quiet
cars.  In general, though, the NFB promotes better training over what it
perceives as unnecessary changes to the environment.  Audible signals is one
example, and I think accessible currency is yet another.  Let me say that I
know the reasons for the stances on audible signals and accessible currency
are more nuanced, but, as a generalization, it seems to me that the NFB
favours training over alterations that aren't necessary.  Correct me if I'm
wrong on this.

So the question is then, why oppose alterations to the environment.  Who
does it hurt when we fight to have environments, products, and services
designed with everyone in mind? And the answer that I've typically seen is
that it hurts blind people.  If  I understand the position, the NFB argues
that misconceptions and myths about the abilities of blind people are the
main barriers we face, and I won't argue with that, but then the argument
goes on to suggest that making changes to the environment only perpetuates
these misconceptions and myths.  Altering the environment makes the average
sighted Joe six pack think that we all need special treatment, we're
incapable of doing things like everyone else, etc etc etc.  So because these
adaptations/alterations actually do damage to us, it is necessary to oppose
them.  This is my understanding of the opposition.  Again, correct me if I'm
wrong.

Now, let's suppose that it's true that such alterations perpetuate
misconceptions and prejudice, which I think is actually debatable itself,
but even if true, don't we see the flaw in the sighted person's thinking?
The reason we should push for audible signals is not because we couldn't
possibly cross the street without them, it's not because we're inept and
can't do things like everyone else, it's because the people who originally
designed the thing called a controlled intersection screwed up.  They
designed it on the assumption that sight would be the main sense used to
determine when the light has changed.  Well that was a serious error in
design.  Both the sense of hearing and the sense of touch can also be
employed to detect when the light changes if only the designers had taken
into consideration these alternative ways of gaining information when they
originally designed it.  A very similar argument can be made about nearly
every environment, product, and service.  They are almost always designed
based on the assumption that only one kind of body will interact with this
environment, use this product, and receive this service.  We know that that
is a bad assumption.  People come with an innumerable set of differing
abilities, and design should, as much as possible, try to take these
differences into consideration.

So even if sighted people do misinterpret changes to the environment, it
strikes me as odd that we should put up with bad designs just because most
people interpret things wrongly.  Instead, we should push for universal
design of environments, products, and services, and we should do our best to
educate those who would misunderstand these alterations.

Let me say pre-emptively that I absolutely support the availability of
really good rehabilitation training services.  We completely lack adequate
rehab services up here in Canada, and I think the NFB has the right attitude
when it comes to the blind teaching the blind.  Nothing I say should be
interpreted as denying the need for excellent blindness skills.  But as I
said, I very much disagree with the NFB stance on universal design, and if
someone wants to show me where I've mischaracterized the position, or why
the position ought to be supported, I would really appreciate that.

Regards,

Marc

-----Original Message-----
From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org]On
Behalf Of alena roberts
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:44 AM
To: nabs; National Association of Blind Students mailing list; NFB of
Oregon mailing list
Subject: [nabs-l] should the blind adapt to the world,or should the
world adapt to us?


Should the world adapt to the blind, or should we adapt to the world?
This is the question I posed in my blog today. I believe that it
should be both. People with disabilities need to be given tools, but
we also have the right to participate in society which may mean
accomidating our needs. I would really like to hear other people's
opinions about this topic. Please visit my blog and let your voice be
heard. Thanks.

http://www.blindgal.com

--
Alena Roberts
Blog: http://www.blindgal.com/

_______________________________________________
nabs-l mailing list
nabs-l at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nabs-l:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/mworkman%40ualberta.
ca