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

[Jedi]

Marc,

I don't think that the NfB is against universal design. I doubt that 
you'll ever hear anyone say that making products and services 
user-friendly is a bad thing.

I also think you're right about the audio signals and accessible 
currency issues. they are nuanced and complicated. but since you asked, 
I'll give you and the rest of the list the down and dirty of it all.

With audio signals, the NFB never exactly opposed them altogether. 
Instead, the NFB said that audio signals need to be put where the blind 
think they're necessary based on our collective experience, our honest 
needs, and with the understanding that many street intersections can be 
accomplished by the average blind person given the right opportunity 
for good training. The NFB is not in support of audio signals on every 
corner for two reasons. first, they would drown out necessary 
environmental cues that we can already hear. Second, they're obnoxious 
when placed on block after block. If you don't believe me, visit a few 
neighborhoods in Seattle where it's been done. Yes, the NFB does 
believe that overmodification of the environment both comes from and 
reinforces the idea that blind people are severely limited because we 
can't see.

As for accessible currency, we never said no to that either. We were 
frustrated with the ACB because, for good or ill, the ACB claimed that 
non-accessible currency discriminates against the blind. Furthermore, 
we've been using currency without accessible markings for a long time. 
For most of us, getting a sighted person's help or using a bill 
identifier of some kind has been no big deal. If the treasury were 
outfitting the bills anyway, then why not include accessibility 
features? but because the ACB said that the money should be totally 
reoutfitted because the blind are being discriminated against was our 
big deal. So now, the government has to redo all the bills, [probably 
all the vending machines and the like, and the list goes on.

In general, the NFB favors technology that gives us access but for all 
the right reasons. If sighted people are the ones determining what 
access looks like, they're likely to make the wrong things accessible 
based on lack of education. For example, they'll make sidewalk signals 
chirp but may not think about the need for accessible touch screens. 
That kind of thing. So really, what it comes down to is that 
accessibility discussions need to be intelligent and based on real 
need, not stereotypes. If you do that, I doubt you'll get much argument 
from the NFB.

there are gray areas like DVS. Again, we never said no to that, either. 
We just didn't think it was terribly necessary to force the issue 
except where we really need the information. But, if people wanted to 
provide it, we'll help them do it.

As for me personally, I feel it's appropriate to ask for help if it's 
more efficient than whatever techniques are available to me or if I 
just can't do it at all for some reason. Otherwise, I feel it's my 
responsibility to adapt to the world as is. What annoys me is when 
sighted people presume to know when my techniques are inefficient or 
just not able to do the task simply because they can see and are used 
to doing things visually.

Respectfully Submitted
Original message:
> 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


> _______________________________________________
> 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/loneblindjedi%40samobile.net

-- 
Email services provided by the System Access Mobile Network.  Visit 
www.serotek.com to learn more about accessibility anywhere.