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

[Melissa Green]

Arielle,
That is a really good point.  Thanks for highlighting the distenctions.
I must say though that I don't believe we should have everything adapted for 
us.
You know some people want braille everywhere, and that just isn't feasible. 
That is why I try to support the things that do put braille on their 
products.
Melissa Green
Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our
possibilities become limitless
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Arielle Silverman" <arielle71 at gmail.com>
To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] should the blind adapt to the world,or should the
world adapt to us?


> Hi all,
>
> If the U.S. treasury decided on its own to make money identifiable by
> touch, I don't think anyone, NFB or not, would complain. I think what
> aroused the controversy is whether or not we should sue the treasury
> and call the current currency discriminatory, not whether or not we
> should have accessible money. This is an important distinction.
>
> Arielle
>
> On 6/19/09, Jedi <loneblindjedi at samobile.net> wrote:
>> well, the NFB isn't against universal design as a principle. i think
>> it's a matter of supporting design that doesn't support the
>> perpetuation of stereotypes and the like.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>> Kedi
>> 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%40samobile.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/arielle71%40gmail.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/graduate56%40juno.com
>

____________________________________________________________
Find information on Technical Schools and advance your career.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTOvBUADdbuJMObkR7LJDMv4yAGeLIlkvbGbqXCaO7AIGpMvgdQBk0/