[nabs-l] Universal Design
Joe Orozco
jsorozco at gmail.com
Mon Aug 16 23:46:39 UTC 2010
Hi Marc,
You pose an interesting notion. I don't know where I sit on aspects of
universal design like audible traffic signals. I myself have not found them
exceptionally useful, but nor did I find the NFB's active protest in
Portland eight or nine years ago all that necessary either. I am of the
opinion that people have a choice to use or not use available resources.
My fear with this is not so much the scope to all persons as much as the
availability. I believe the NFB follows a methodology to help persons to
adopt to their environment no matter where they might find themselves,
whether they should venture into a different city or a different country.
Universal design seems like a daunting endeavor that would require a change
in the way we think fundamentally, not just the way we perceive individual
tasks. I don't know that I disagree with the notion of universal design
exactly. I just question the feasibility, and again I am concerned with the
immediacy of training all blind individuals regardless of skill level to
confront and successfully maneuver their environment.
This reminds me of an article a group of us debated once about an apartment
complex designed specifically for persons with disabilities complete with
textured walls, hand rails and all manner of amenities. To some this home
appeared to be the ideal setting, but as you may have guessed, I was
vehemently opposed to it for the false sense of confidence it established
and the bubble-like environment it promoted. I may be missing this concept
of universal design altogether, but I genuinely believe it would be
difficult to make people with disabilities catch up to the rest of society
by creating certain standardized norms. There is too much of a gap, and in
the meantime more people fall through the cracks.
Still, the notion is an interesting one, and I'll admit to feeling curious
about its consequences.
Best,
Joe
"Hard work spotlights the character of people: some turn up their sleeves,
some turn up their noses, and some don't turn up at all."--Sam Ewing
-----Original Message-----
From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org
[mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Marc Workman
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 7:34 PM
To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Blind man sues Wienerschnitzel over
run-in with tree
Jedi,
I prefaced my comment by saying that it was not directed at
you. I wasn't
objecting to what you said so much as the idea contained in the
couple of
sentences I quoted from you, and idea that was contained within
the comments
of many others.
Regarding what you say about universal design, that the NFB is "about
creating a universal design that honors the capacities of blind
people while
meeting our accessibility needs rather than creating a design
that assumes
that we have more needs than we really do", this strikes me as
a problematic
way of understanding universal design. The question I would ask is:
capacities and needs of which blind people?
The problem is that blind people, like all people, have a
tremendous amount
of variation in the capacities they possess. A blind person that is
otherwise able-bodied, who has been blind for a long period of
time, who has
received a lot of training, who is intelligent, confident, and so on is
going to have a different set of capacities than the person who
is newly
blind, has had little training, has mobility difficulties, and
is hard of
hearing on top of it, and considering how many lose their
vision in old age,
don't think this picture is that out of the ordinary.
So, who do we look at when we are fighting for universal design
that honours
the capacities of blind people without exaggerating their
needs? Do we look
at the capacities of the members of this list, or do we look at the
capacities of blind seniors?
The problem I see with your understanding of universal design
is that it
isn't really universal. For it to be universal, you can't limit its
application to a group of people that possess a certain set of
capacities
and needs.
Responding to Joe who asked for more specifics on universal design, I
understand it as a guiding principle, and ideal towards which
we struggle
without actually attaining it, something like equality,
freedom, or justice.
Basically, as I stated, you design institutions, products, processes,
services and so on so that they are as accessible as possible to the
greatest number of people with the greatest variation in
abilities. One
slightly more concrete way of thinking about this is that it involves
providing access to information in multiple ways. So at a controlled
intersection, the changing of the light is information that is only
presented visually. Universal design would promote the inclusion of an
audible and even a tactile signal that conveys the visual
information in
alternative ways. We obviously will never make everything completely
accessible to everyone, but that is what makes it an ideal.
It's something
towards which we ought to strive.
When things are universally designed, they include features
that many many
people will not actually make use of. A large number of blind
people may
not need an audible signal, but some of course will, at the
very least, find
one very useful. And the concern seems to be that people will
assume that
because some blind people have difficulty getting around
without adapting
the environment somewhat, then all blind people must need these
adaptations,
and then this leads to negative attitudes, discrimination,
unemployment and
so on. For my objections to this line of argument, see my last post.
In closing, I want to leave you with a quote from Jacobus
tenBroek, a fellow
Albertan I might add. It suggests to me that tenBroek would
support the
fight against unnecessary obsticles that prevent us from
travelling in the
manner in which we choose, including the issue that sparked
this debate. I
also think it's a nod towards universal design, the kind that's
actually
universal.
tenBroek writes: "No courts have held or even darkly hinted
that a blind man
may rise in the morning, help get the children off to school,
bid his wife
goodbye,and proceed along the streets and bus lines to his daily work,
without dog, cane, or guide, if such is his habit or
preference, now and
then brushing a tree or kicking a curb,but, notwithstanding,
proceeding with
firm step and sure air, knowing that he is part of the public
for whom the
streets are built and maintained in reasonable safety, by the
help of his
taxes, and that he shares with others this part of the world in
which he,
too,has a right to live" (1966, 867-68).
tenBroek, Jacobus. 1966. The right to live in the world: The
disabled in the
law of torts.California Law Review 54: 841-919.
Best,
Marc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jedi" <loneblindjedi at samobile.net>
To: <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Blind man sues Wienerschnitzel over
run-in with tree
> Marc,
>
> I feel that my comments were taken out of context somewhat. I
was trying
> to give both sides of the issue a fair hearing. It's true
that bringing
> attention to the incident in the way it's being done might in fact
> solidify negative perceptions of blindness; anyone who has
been blind a
> while shouldn't miss that possibility unless they've been
hiding under a
> rock a while. Whether we like it or not, the public tends to view us
> through their own speculations of what their lives might be
like if they
> were blinded immediately without realizing that they have
considerable
> gaps in knowledge regarding blindness. What I also said is
that the tree
> could have served as a legitimate obstacle for this
particular blind man.
> Though I didn't say it directly, what I meant is that perhaps
he does have
> a cause to seek remedy even if a lawsuit may not be the best
way to handle
> things. In my opinion, this incident is much like the woman
who spilled
> hot coffee in her lap and sued McDonnald's.
>
> Maybe I'm wrong, but what I hear you saying is that NFB
philosophy (or at
> least your understanding of it) seems to be out of sync with
universal
> design principles for the reason of not wanting blind people to look
> incompetent. I don't think this is the case. I think the NFB
does support
> (and fights for) universal design, but we're also about creating a
> universal design that honors the capacities of blind people
while meeting
> our accessibility needs rather than creating a design that
assumes that we
> have more needs than we really do. Does that make sense?
>
> Respectfully,
> Jedi
>
>
> Original message:
>> I'm not very surprised, but nevertheless still disturbed, by
a majority
>> of
>> the responses to this article. Based on one reporters
account of this
>> story, we have rediculous proposals insisting that blind
people ought to
>> walk around holding one arm in the air, we have unjustified
claims about
>> how
>> fast the person must have been walking, we have unfounded
assumptions
>> about
>> what this person may have tried to do before escalating to a
law suit,
>> and
>> we have highly speculative claims about how this one
incident is going to
>> set every confident, independent blind person back 20 years.
>
>> Jedi wrote the following, and this is not directed at Jedi;
she only said
>> first, and with brevity and clarity, what many others said
afterwards.
>
>> However, suing could set a bad precedent as it > would
reaify the notion
>> that obstacles of any kind are hazardous to > blind people
because we are
>> blind; the public may take this incident > and generalize it to all
>> obstacles whether they're really an > inconvenience to
one/all of us or
>> not.
>
>> I would raise three objections to this line of thinking.
None of them
>> are
>> devastating, but, taken together, I think there is good
reason to not be
>> completely convinced that people who fight these sorts of
battles are
>> doing
>> us all harm.
>
>> 1. We shouldn't be so quick to think that we can predict how any one
>> individual, let alone the so called public, is going to
react to these
>> sorts
>> of stories. Someone reading the story might respond more to
the fact
>> that
>> the person was travelling in the community independently,
she might focus
>> on
>> the person's willingness to stand up for what he believes, she might
>> begin
>> to think about her own front yard tree with its low hanging
branches, or
>> most likely in my opinion, she won't think twice about it,
assuming she
>> reads it at all. The point is that there is a lot of speculation
>> involved
>> here, and we should be cautious in the face of so much speculation.
>
>> 2. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is this
thing called
>> the
>> public, and the public generalizes from the experience of
one person and
>> applies it to all of us blind people. The public believes
that we all
>> need
>> help getting around all these obsticles, and eventually this leads to
>> discrimination and unemployment. Should we base our
positions on what we
>> judge to be right, or should we base them on how the public
will react to
>> them? Probably the response will be to say that we should base our
>> positions
>> on both what we think is right and how the public will
react. Fine, I'm
>> not
>> saying we should ignore public reaction, but in the face of so much
>> speculation, see objection 1, where public reaction is highly
>> unpredictable,
>> it should play only a very minor role in deciding what sort
of activities
>> we
>> should engage in.
>
>> 3. Even if the public does develop negative misconceptions
based on these
>> sorts of stories, this doesn't mean that people can't be
educated. Why
>> couldn't it be the case that by fighting to remove these
barriers, we
>> suffer
>> a short-term increase in negative conceptions for a decrease of such
>> conceptions in the long term? Get blind people out in the
community, and
>> that's how you will change attitudes. The more people that
feel they can
>> comfortably and independently travel throughout the
community, without
>> having first spent 8 months intensively studying the latest
>> hand-in-front-of-face technique for detecting over-hanging
obsticles, the
>> more people you will have out in the community, the more
relationships
>> will
>> be developed, and the more likely you are to change attitudes.
>
>> Many of the comments thus far in this thread illustrate two
of the most
>> fundamental ways in which I think NFB policies are
misguided. First, the
>> failure to promote universal design. Universal design means creating
>> institutions, products, processes, services, and so on that are as
>> accessible as possible to the widest number of people,
without the user
>> having to possess special equipment or training. If
environment A is
>> only
>> navigable by some blind person who has been blind for ten
years, who has
>> had
>> training at an NFB Center, and who has no other disabling physical
>> variations, and environment B is navigable by someone
recently blind,
>> with
>> little training, and with a bad hip, then we should adopt
stances towards
>> design that bring us closer to environment B. It might be
true that, at
>> first, taking these positions causes that foolish public to
believe that
>> blindness equals incompetence, but this leads me to my
second concern
>> with
>> NFB policy: there is far too much concern with the variety
of ways that
>> the
>> public might think less of us. Of course public perceptions
matter, but
>> they are highly unpredictable, changeable over time, and
should not make
>> us
>> afraid to fight for what is right.
>
>> I've been preaching this sort of attitude for a while now,
and I don't
>> really expect to change anyone's mind, but there is another
perspective
>> to
>> this story that hasn't been aired fully.
>
>> Best,
>
>> Marc
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jedi" <loneblindjedi at samobile.net>
>> To: <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:30 PM
>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Blind man sues Wienerschnitzel over
run-in with
>> tree
>
>
>>> The tree could be an annoying obstacle for anyone, particularly tall
>>> people. And yes, it is true that tall blind people who
don't use guide
>>> dogs or some sort of hand guide device/echolocation are
going to miss
>>> those overhead branches. However, suing could set a bad
precedent as it
>>> would reaify the notion that obstacles of any kind are hazardous to
>>> blind
>>> people because we are blind; the public may take this incident and
>>> generalize it to all obstacles whether they're really an
inconvenience
>>> to
>>> one/all of us or not.
>
>>> Respectfully,
>>> Jedi
>
>>> Original message:
>>>> I thought this story was interesting. What do you think? Is the
>>>> lawsuit appropriate?
>
>>>> Arielle
>>>> Blind man sues Wienerschnitzel over run-in with tree
>
>>>>
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/50092926-78/tree-reynolds-wien
erschnitzel-suit.html.csp
>>>> By bob mims
>
>>>> The Salt Lake Tribune
>
>>>> Updated Aug 12, 2010 10:59PM
>>>> All Nathan Reynolds wanted was a hot dog. Instead, as the blind man
>>>> walked toward a Wienerschnitzel restaurant last year, he got a face
>>>> full of tree - and severe neck injuries.
>
>>>> Now, the 36-year-old Utah County man has filed a personal injury
>>>> lawsuit against the owners of the Wienerschnitzel at the corner of
>>>> North Temple and 800 West in Salt Lake City.
>
>>>> The complaint contends that on June 9, 2009, Reynolds -
who had been
>>>> on his way to the Utah School for the Deaf and the Blind -
got off a
>>>> bus near the Wienerschnitzel to get a meal. As the 6-foot-5 man
>>>> navigated toward the entrance with his cane swinging in
front of him,
>>>> he hit the tree, which the suit contends had encroached on the
>>>> sidewalk.
>
>>>> "The tree struck him squarely in the face and knocked him to the
>>>> ground," states the suit, filed Tuesday. "The tree was
allowed to grow
>>>> in such a way that it was impossible for Mr. Reynolds to detect its
>>>> presence by use of his cane."
>
>>>> The suit argues that because the tree was "rooted in the
ground far to
>>>> one side of the sidewalk and [had grown] diagonally across the
>>>> sidewalk," it had become a "clear hazard."
>
>>>> Reynolds seeks unspecified reimbursement for past and
future medical
>>>> expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering stemming from alleged
>>>> negligence in the maintenance of the tree.
>
>>>> Along with Grundmann Enterprises of South Jordan, the owner of the
>>>> eatery, Reynolds' 3rd District Court suit names Salt Lake
City Corp.
>>>> and five John Does as defendants. Reynolds seeks a jury trial; 3rd
>>>> District Judge Sandra Peuler has been assigned the case.
>
>>>> Daniel J. Grundmann of Grundmann Enterprises declined to comment
>>>> Wednesday, noting he had not yet been served with the suit.
>
>>>> Tom Amberger, vice president of marketing for Irvine, Calif.-based
>>>> Galaradi Group Inc., which runs Wienerschnitzel, also declined to
>>>> discuss the case. "We are unaware of this lawsuit and will
look into
>>>> it," he said.
>
>>>> Ed Rutan, city attorney for Salt Lake City, would not
comment, either,
>>>> citing the pending nature of the litigation.
>
>
>>>> __._,_.___
>
>
>>>> --
>>>> Arielle Silverman
>>>> President, National Association of Blind Students
>>>> Phone: 602-502-2255
>>>> Email:
>>>> nabs.president at gmail.com
>>>> Website:
>>>> www.nabslink.org
>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/loneblin
djedi%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/mworkman
.lists%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/loneblin
djedi%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/mworkman
.lists%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/jsorozco
%40gmail.com
More information about the NABS-L
mailing list