[nabs-l] Braille Vs Technology: is there room for onlyone intown?

[Jedi]

Marc,

Maybe it's just me, but I think there are a few more issues at work 
here than just a discussion on literacy. So far, I've noticed several 
themes in the discussion including the definition of literacy, the 
definition of independence, attitudes about blindness, the advantages 
and drawbacks of different techniques for gathering information, 
expectations of the blind versus expectations of the sighted, whether 
or not the Federation is a dogmatic organization, and some 
defensiveness on the part of non-Braille readers. I'm not saying that 
any of these aren't worthy topics for discussion, but I suspect that 
our literacy discussion has been convoluted by all these other 
intertwined issues such that we may have a really hard time actually 
defining literacy. I also suspect that this issue of literacy is an 
emotionally charged topic in our community. In that case, whatever 
definition I propose will be utterly useless to you unless we take all 
of the other issues into account. does that make sense?

For me, literacy is the ability to take written symbols, process them, 
and make meaning from them. That doesn't mean that aural reading is bad 
or inferior and that those who rely on auditory methods are inferior 
and unsuccessful. I do believe that knowing how to process written 
symbols is important and that everyone should be able to do so at any 
time. The exceptions, of course, are disabilities that alter one's 
ability to do so and/or if one lives in a society where oral traditions 
are favored over written traditions for transmitting most kinds of 
information. I believe that knowing how to read and listen to books and 
the like is extremely important and quite necessary. I am, as are many 
Federationists, dismayed that we even have to have this discussion in 
the first place. If sighted folks are given the opportunity and 
encouragement to utilize their full range of abilities and methods for 
gathering information, so should we. And unfortunately, that's not 
happening for reasons ranging from blindness attitudes to myths about 
braille and from the actual history of Braille use to the power 
conflicts that dominate our community. That's what the Braille Readers 
are Leaders campaign is all about regardless of how you analyze the rhetoric.

Respectfully,
Jedi



Original message:
> Jedi,

> I think your comments reflect a sort of black and white understanding of
> literacy.  First off, Patterson, as I recall, can read print if it is
> magnified and he uses his good eye.  Since he can read, it stands to reason
> that he can write.  I'm not sure about the woman, but I would be very
> surprised if she were unable to write at all.

> The problem is that people are throwing around a very loaded word,
> illiterate/illiteracy, in a casual manner without offering any sort of
> definition.  If illiteracy means the inability to read or write, then anyone
> who can write is not illiterate, since they would not lack the ability to
> read *and* write.  If this understanding of illiteracy is correct, then far
> fewer blind people are actually illiterate than cannot read Braille (i.e.,
> the number of blind people who are illiterate is much smaller than the
> number of blind people who cannot read print or Braille).  This is because
> many people are able to write without being able to read Braille.

> Secondly, I don't know how you are defining reading.  Clearly, it is not how
> most sighted people define reading (the visual processing of symbols into
> associated meanings) since this would exclude Braille.  Now you could expand
> this definition to say that reading is the visual or tactile processing of
> symbols into associated meanings, but this really strikes me as a bit ad
> hoc.  Why is it that only these two senses can be used for reading?

> Your definition of reading seems to be the following: take symbols, process
> them, and make meaning out of them.  Well, give me a printed book, an OCR
> program, and screen-reading software, and I can do just that.  My guess is
> that you too, as a Braille reader, would have to convert a printed book into
> an alternative format if it were handed to you, so conversion into an
> alternative format doesn't make the process any less legitimate.

> Here's the research that I would like to see.  Let's assume that reading
> activates a certain portion of the brain, and let's also assume that reading
> Braille activates the same portion.  What I would like to know is whether
> reading using a screen reader activates that same portion.  Don't be so
> quick to dismiss the idea.  I can tell you that when I use a screen reader,
> I imagine the words that I used to see when I read print.  This doesn't
> happen when I listen to a human voice.  Reading using a screen reader and
> listening to a human voice are not the same experience for me personally,
> and I suspect that the part of my brain that used to be activated when I
> read print is now being activated when I use a screen reader.  If this is
> true, and I know there are a lot of assumptions here, would this not
> demonstrate that one can read using ones sense of hearing? And I say why
> not; why would reading be limited to the senses of vision and touch.
> Remember that up until tactile forms of reading were invented only a few
> hundred years ago, the idea of reading using any sense other than vision
> would have been ludicrous.

> I think it might help to recognize that a process as complicated as reading
> cannot be easily reduced to either Braille or print.  Anyone who has read
> Crashing Through, the book about Mike May, or anyone who knows someone with
> a severe learning disability will know that reading is a very complicated
> process that requires more than the ability to see printed letters.  It is a
> process that no one really fully understands, and it seems entirely
> reasonable to me that reading using screen readers is possible, particularly
> for someone like me who read print until adulthood.

> I suppose my main point here is that the label illiterate has been applied
> far too liberally in this discussion, and an inability to read print or
> Braille does not necessarily make one illiterate.

> Best,

> Marc



> -----Original Message-----
> From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org]On
> Behalf Of Jedi
> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 12:50 PM
> To: nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Braille Vs Technology: is there room for onlyone
> intown?


> No offense mate, but they are unable to read and write. If you give
> them something in writing, they can't read it, can they? I don't
> honestly know if they can write. As one person has observed, it's
> possible to be well read and also be illiterate. No one is trying to
> put anyone down. Instead, people are trying to get at the idea that to
> physically read (take symbols, process them, and make meaning out of
> them), Braille is the best method for the blind. If we're talking about
> assimilating information, either Braille or audio will work. Most seem
> to agree that both skills are important. Where people are especially
> taking issue is when blind people aren't even given the opportunity to
> learn braille even though sighted people are given the opportunity to
> learn print.

> I have a question for you. Do you read Braille? It wouldn't matter
> except to say that your reaction to our discussion is quite violent and
> I wonder if you yourself are feeling attacked.

> Respectfully,
> Jedi


> Original message:
>> I cannot imagine calling clearly accomplished people such as the governor
> of
>> New York or the woman in the article "illiterate" as you did.  It is mean
>> spirited, self indulgent, and most importantly indicates a
> misunderstanding
>> of the meaning of the word illiterate.  The American Heritage dictionary
>> defines illiterate as follows:



>> 1. illiterate. adjective.

>> Unable to read and write.

>> Having little or no formal education.

>> 2. Marked by inferiority to an expected standard of familiarity with
>> language and literature.

>> Violating prescribed standards of speech or writing.

>> 3. Ignorant of the fundamentals of a given art or branch of knowledge:
>> musically illiterate. See Usage Note at literate.


>> It saddens me that it does not seem possible for us as blind people to
>> discuss blindness without personal attacks.  As long as we can be induced
> to
>> continue attacking one another we are doing the work of those who would
> like
>> to see us excluded from all aspects of society.  All they need do is sit
> on
>> the sidelines and watch the feathers fly.

>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Sean Whalen" <smwhalenpsp at gmail.com>
>> To: <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 8:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Braille Vs Technology: is there room for only one
>> intown?


>>> Let me first acknowledge the truth of what Mark has pointed out in terms
>>> of
>>> the anecdotal nature of much of the evidence proffered in support of
>>> Braille
>>> literacy increasing employment opportunities for the blind. I also admit
>>> freely that I have never dug into the numbers we so often bandy about in
>>> relation to literacy rates among the blind, literacy rates among the
>>> employed blind and the unemployment rate for blind individuals and do not
>>> know how carefully designed or well executed any of the studies from
> which
>>> we glean these numbers actually were.

>>> All this being said, I absolutely believe that Braille, for persons who
>>> are
>>> unable and have never learned to read print, is a necessity and not
> simply
>>> a
>>> tool in a toolbox. I qualify this because Marc was once again, I think,
>>> correct in drawing the distinction between those who learn to read print
>>> and
>>> go blind later in life and those who are blind from a young age and never
>>> learn to read via any medium. For somebody who read print and achieved
>>> literacy, Braille is an incredibly useful tool that can make some tasks
>>> easier and more efficient and allow one to recapture the pleasure of
>>> reading
>>> to oneself, but for those who never learned to read print, Braille is the
>>> only path to literacy. So, barring any complicating factors such as
>>> additional disabilities, I firmly believe that all blind children and all
>>> non-print-reading blind adults must be expected to learn to read Braille.
>>> Accepting anything less is to give the stamp of approval to lower
>>> expectations of the blind among the general public. When Joe Sighted is
>>> illiterate at age 25, we all recognize this as a big problem. It is no
>>> different for the blind, it's a big problem.

>>> I also agree with Joe, to a degree, that it is not a simple as Braille
>>> literate equals employed. But I think that it is beyond dispute that
> being
>>> able to read is a crucial skill for nearly any job seeker to have.
> Braille
>>> is not "the difference", but all else being equal, it certainly puts
>>> somebody who can read it at a great advantage over somebody else
> similarly
>>> situated who cannot. Just assume for a moment that the numbers we so
> often
>>> cite are close to accurate. 30 in 100 blind people are employed. Of those
>>> 30, 24 of them are able to read Braille. WE don't really know what the
>>> literacy rate among the working age blind is, but if it is under 50%,
>>> which
>>> it almost certainly is, you can do the math and see that there is
>>> something
>>> going on here.

>>> I myself have been blind all my life. In elementary school attempts were
>>> made to teach me to read print with the severely limited vision that I
>>> had.
>>> I did not learn to read. What I was doing was more akin to decoding;
>>> agonizing over each letter to discern what it was and then piecing it
>>> together to make a word. At age 25 I learned to read Braille. Braille has
>>> proved useful in finding employment not only because of the specific
> tasks
>>> it makes easier on the job, but more so because of the fact that it has
>>> made
>>> me literate. Literacy means knowing how things are spelled and how
>>> punctuation is used. Literacy means being able to express yourself in
>>> writing in a manner that accurately reflects your level of intelligence.
>>> Sure, it is nice to use a Braille display to access and take notes in
>>> meetings where speech output would be distracting. Yes, it is great to be
>>> able to use an outline or notes when addressing people publicly. However,
>>> these are simply instances where Braille is a tool, and in my opinion the
>>> best one, to get the job done. There are other ways to perform these
>>> tasks.
>>> Where there is no substitution for being literate is in communicating
> your
>>> ideas in writing. In college, I would hand in work of supposed high
>>> academic
>>> quality with the most egregious spelling and punctuation errors in it.
> Who
>>> can take that seriously? Yes there is spell-check and you can arrow
>>> through
>>> character by character to find out how words are spelled and things are
>>> punctuated, but this approach means you only learn when you know you
> don't
>>> know. When you read, you pick things up naturally along the way and
>>> assimilate them.

>>> Of course it is true that some illiterate blind people like Laura Sloate
>>> and
>>> the Governor of New York have achieved the pinnacles of financial and
>>> professional success. More power to them. I could point you toward people
>>> who have become very successful without completing a high school
> education
>>> let alone a college degree. Will anybody stand up and argue based on this
>>> fact that bachelor's and advanced degrees don't lead to more and better
>>> employment prospects for those who hold them?

>>> Literacy is absolutely essential for professional opportunities and
>>> Braille
>>> is the only means by which to achieve it if one does not read print.
> Blind
>>> people who don't know Braille are certainly not inferior people, but they
>>> are absolutely working with an inferior set of skills, and if Laura
> Sloate
>>> would like to debate the point, I would gladly do so, regardless of how
>>> much
>>> money she makes.


>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/dennisgclark%40sbcgl
> obal.net


>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.lists%40gma
> il.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/loneblindjedi%40samobile.net

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