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

[mworkman at ualberta.ca]

Jedi said,

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.

That is true I think.  At least, it is harder for me to think of cases where
I've heard of NFB opposition in these instances.  Though, one could argue
that currency is akin to a product, not the same, just an analogous
instance.  Maybe I'll come back to that.  But I noticed that you only
included products and services while I always said environments, products,
and services, and my main argument, the one that interests me the most, is
about environments.  So while the NFB may support universal design of
products and services, it does not support universal design of the built
environment.  In some cases, not only does it not support it, it actively
opposes it.

Jedi said,

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.

Based on this statement, I think you would agree that the NFB does not
believe in universal design of the environment.  What you call
over-modification many would call universal design.  Also based on that
statement, I take it that the main reason for this opposition is due to the
negative impression that comes from these modifications, which is what I
suggested was the reason in my earlier post.  I have to leave out the part
in your assertion that modifications not only perpetuate, but stem from
misconceptions because I believe, in most cases, they can be justified in
terms of correcting a flaw in the original design, and therefore don't
necessarily come from misconceptions, though they may reinforce them.

So I'm left thinking that my original two claims were correct: 1) the NFB
opposes, either passively or actively, universal design of the environment,
unless such adaptations are taken to be necessary (e.g., quiet cars), and 2)
the main, if not only, reason for this opposition is the belief that such
modifications will perpetuate/reinforce negative misconceptions about
blindness.

My position was, and still is, that it doesn't make a lot of sense to oppose
something because others are likely to misunderstand it.  I think it makes
more sense to try to educate people about the need for universal design and
how a lack of universal design only serves to construct disability.  And
actually, given the notion that disability is socially constructed, which I
recall you accepted, I'm a little surprised that you would oppose doing
everything possible to eliminate environmental barriers that create
disabilities.  It's a belief in the social construction of disability that
leads me to disagree with the NFB on this very point.

I could go into the audible signals and currency, but I really didn't want
to get into that debate.  And I don't think anything you've said on those
issues refutes numbers 1 and 2 above; I think what you've said in fact
supports those claims.  In all three examples you mentioned (audible
signals, currency, and DVS), you talk about need/necessity.  Adaptations are
only justified if they are absolutely necessary, which is exactly what I
suggested.  What I would challenge, and I believe Alena questions as well,
is what counts as necessary.  Something that may not be necessary for you
might be necessary for someone with less training, intelligence, health,
youth, supports, and the list goes on and on.  Why not construct things in a
manner that requires less of these things? It's great if you have the
training, intelligence, health, etc, but why design things in ways that make
these necessary, and more importantly, why oppose redesigning things in ways
that would make them less necessary?

I'm primarily interested in why we should not advocate for universal design
of the environment simply because some people may misinterpret this as a
sign of blind people's weakness.  I also wonder about how you would respond
to the stuff about necessity, and closely related to that , I'm interested
in how you square opposition of universal design with a belief in the social
construction of disability, because I, and others I know, haven't been able
to square these two things.

Looking forward to a response when you have time.

Marc

-----Original Message-----
From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org]On
Behalf Of Jedi
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 6:25 PM
To: nabs-l at nfbnet.org
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] should the blind adapt to the world, or should the
world adapt to us?


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%40samo
bile.net

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

_______________________________________________
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