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

[Arielle Silverman]

Hi all,

I'm really tired and so will provide only a brief  response here--will
elaborate more later. I won't try to speak for the NFB, but will share
my personal opinion and a new angle on this issue. I am personally in
full support of universal design principles and practices. I don't
think that having universally accessible systems in place perpetuates
prejudice or misconceptions. However, I do think the critical question
is "How much should we fight for environmental modifications?" rather
than "Should the environment be changed?" In answering the former
question I do think that fighting too much is what can hurt blind
people. This is because we have  limited energy, time and resources.
Whenever we choose to fight more on one issue, I think time, money,
and energy that could be spent on another issue is taken  away. That
kind of trade-off  is really what we're facing here.

Again, more on this later, but it gives you something  else to think about.

Arielle

On 6/19/09, mworkman at ualberta.ca <mworkman at ualberta.ca> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/arielle71%40gmail.com
>