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

[Jedi]

Marc,

The number one philosophical principle that guides my opinions on this 
issue is that the environment, with a few exceptions, isn't poorly 
designed for blind people in the first place.

Respectfully submitted
Original message:
> I'm not sure, Steve, if the criticism of over-simplifying these issues
> includes this particular discussion, but I can say that I'm genuinely trying
> to gain a deeper understanding of the thinking on these matters.  Perhaps
> there is no uniform NFB position, which is fine, perhaps the best we can do
> is put forward our thinking on the matter and see if we can get a better
> sense of why people hold the positions they do.  I'd be happy with that.

> I probably don't have to say this, but I will.  This is not an exercise in
> NFB bashing.  If I were an american, I'd almost certainly be an active NFB
> member.  I've even travelled from central Alberta to a national convention
> in Dallas and enjoyed it very much.  I became active in the blindness
> movement in Canada after attending that convention, and I'm now on the
> National Board of one of the many advocacy organizations here in Canada.
> For me, this is primarily a philosophical discussion, much like if we were
> discussing equality or independence.  People cannot possibly all agree on
> what exactly equality means, nor should we, but it's a discussion worth
> having all the same.

> I also would rather avoid getting bogged down in specific instances that
> carry a lot of emotional weight.  The problem I find is that it is very
> difficult to discuss this stuff purely in the abstract.  It is much easier
> with a concrete example, but unfortunately, using a concrete example usually
> requires simplifying the specific case to some extent.

> You say we do need to weigh the costs of altering the environment, which
> come in the form of perpetuation of negative stereotypes etc, against the
> benefits.  I don't want to sound naive.  I recognize the potential for these
> costs.  I just can't let the possibility that someone will misinterpret what
> I'm doing stop me from doing something that I otherwise believe is right.  I
> also think that steps can be taken to minimize or eliminate the negative
> possibilities.  These steps come primarily in the form of education.  I
> don't think we're going to come together on this one.  It might be the first
> place where people simply disagree with one another.

> I'm not sure that believing in universal design as a principle that should
> govern the design of environments, products, and services necessarily
> requires us to stop examining costs and benefits.  For me, the belief in
> universal design is like the belief in equality or autonomey.  We all want
> equality for blind citizens.  You say yourself that we all want equal access
> to education but that what constitutes equal access will differ in specific
> cases.  I think universal design is similar.  It is an over arching
> principle like equality or independence that we should always be striving
> for.  We won't always agree on the best way to achieve it, but we should all
> work towards it in the best way we know how.  I don't think the NFB, in
> general, believes in universal design in the way it believes in equality and
> independence, at least not when it comes to the built environment.

> The point about environmental changes not allowing us to fully develop our
> skills is an excellent one.  At least, I can totally understand why someone
> would oppose changes on these grounds.  My initial thoughts are to say that
> universal design and excellent blindness training are compatible, but I know
> this doesn't quite get at what your saying.  I also want to say that if I
> didn't have to spend as much time developing my skills to deal with a badly
> designed environment, I might be able to spend my time on more interesting
> and important things like studying and spending time with friends and
> family.  I could see you saying that I will learn the hard way that not all
> environments can be universally designed, so by making some environments
> easier to navigate, I'm setting myself up to fail in environments that are
> harder.  I guess I would say that's how things are today, so nothing really
> would change except that the number of places where I need to bust out my
> top skills would be minimized.  So we would still need great training
> centres, which is perfectly compatible with universal design, and there
> would still be places where you would need to employ higher-level skills.

> I admit that I'm not entirely satisfied with the response I've just offered.
> I need to think more about it.  I know I'm not comfortable with the idea
> that we should leave the environment badly designed so that it forces us to
> acquire and maintain better skills.  If you take it to the extreme, it
> actually raises the possibility that we should make the environment harder
> to navigate so that we are forced to acquire and maintain better blindness
> skills.  I know that's not what you're saying, but it seems like a plausible
> implication of the argument.

> Finally, I will point out that universal design is compatible with
> specialized services.  I believe that universal design is simply, to the
> greatest extent possible, designing things in ways that take into
> consideration differences in ability, skill, training, intelligence, etc.
> There are more detailed definitions, but I think that one will do.  So
> whenever it is not possible to design something in a way that will meet
> everyone's unique needs, then special adaptation is perfectly acceptable.
> The goal is to minimize the need for special adaptation.  There is no reason
> special adaptation cannot exist if necessary.

> Thanks for the interesting observations.

> Marc

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org]On
> Behalf Of Steve Jacobson
> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 8:05 AM
> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] should the blind adapt to the world,or should the
> world adapt to us?


> Over the years, this is a subject that has seemed to me to be often
> overlooked and oversimplified for the sake of making arguments.  I don't
> claim to know all the
> thought processes behind all members of the NFB who feel that our positions
> are generally correct, but I do know my processes and at least my tendency
> to look at
> universal environmental design negatively is based only to a small degree
> upon the image that some aspects can perpetuate.  Having said that, I
> believe that
> perpetuating a negative image needs to be considered and is not worth it if
> the gain isn't significant.

> The first thing that bothers me about taking positions based upon universal
> environmental design as portrayed here is that is allows us to stop
> considering what are
> the gains and the losses.  To take a position simply because it is believed
> we have a right to it without considering the costs and the benefits won't
> serve us well in
> the long run.

> Second, we operate within a society that assumes by default that most
> activities cannot be performed unaided by blind persons.  Certainly there
> are exceptions,
> we're all good at music, for example, but in general the assumption is that
> most things suggested are thought not to be something we can do.  As a
> result, we often
> believe we can't do many things until we see others doing it or until we are
> pressed to push ourselves a little.  Much of this "pushing" happens for many
> of us in
> adjustment to blindness training and through our exposure to other
> successful blind people.  The result of some of the "pushing" that happens
> is that we find that
> many things we think are difficult to do turn out to be an everyday
> happening after a time.  Some of what we must "push" to do is not truly due
> to it being difficult, but
> rather, a result of having to push against society's and our own beliefs of
> what we can do.  If we are not careful of what we build into an environment,
> we will build
> into it those things that society believes we cannot do, minimizing our
> chances to develop our own skills.  Beyond that, we are part of society, and
> as such, those of
> us who are lucky enough to be tax payers should be concerned as to whether
> the money spent is something that truly makes our lives better.

> What about the fact that some of us need certain help while others of us do
> not?  This is again a problem faced by all society and it is not one with
> simple answers.
> To try to come up with a universal design in an environmental sense that
> meets everyone's needs is not necessarily the way to go.  For some needs, a
> universal
> design will never be adequate and the needs will have to be met through
> specialized services.  To think we will solve all problems through a
> universal approach will
> likely reduce the chances of some groups having special needs from getting
> the specialized services that they need.  In some cases, creating a
> universal approach
> that tries to meet everybody's needs will either be too expensive or not
> serve anyone effectively while providing a false sense that everyone is
> truly better off.

> What I believe we in the NFB have tried to do is to try to look at many
> larger issues individually rather than taking the position that since
> sighted people have it, it
> must be provided to us.  This philosophy may well be something we all agree
> applies to specific larger issues, but I do not personally believe it is a
> general rule to
> follow for every issue.  For example, my guess is that we all would agree
> that blind people need to have as equal access as possible to education.
> However, that
> does not mean that every aspect of education will be handled in the same
> way.  For example, most printed maps cannot simply be raised or made tactual
> as is.  They
> are simply too complicated.  We are going to need to get information
> filtered in some way to extract the educational value that we need.  We need
> equal access, but
> equal access isn't always going to be the same access.  There are other
> environmental issues that are similar where broader access doesn't imply
> that all access at
> all levels will be exactly what sighted persons get.  We need to define what
> we need in some cases or figure out how we can adapt to make a solution most
> effective.  We have to think ahead.  Some on this list will learn the hard
> way that some of the services provided by colleges to provide equal access
> prevent one
> from developing skills necessary in many employment situations.  The same
> can be true of other solutions to access that adapt the environment in some
> cases for
> short term or specific gains but don't take the longer view of how they
> might affect us.

> I think this is a very important and interesting topic and hope there is
> more careful discussion without getting too bogged down in specific issues
> that have emotional
> baggage that make them hard to discuss.

> Best regards,

> Steve Jacobson

>  Original message:
>>> 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/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/steve.jacobson%40vi
> si.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.