[nabs-l] Visual vs. Non-Visual Training

[Salisbury, Justin Mark]

Dear Liz, et. al,

     The issue that I was bringing up about the Carroll Center and visual vs. non-visual techniques is that they always, always, always prioritized visual techniques and would only resort to non-visual techniques when they couldn't find a visual technique that they deemed effective for me.  They taught me all of the cooking skills visually, but the visual techniques that they taught me for cooking are so exhausting that I can't use them without going to sleep right afterward.  Thus, that bit of training was ineffective.  I believe that, for any legally blind student at a blindness skills training center, that student needs to leave that program knowing at least one non-visual technique for every skill taught.  Learning visual techniques is fine, but it is wrong to substitute visual techniques for non-visual techniques.  

If you are curious about my level of vision, I have tunnel vision and am legally blind because of my reduced visual field rather than significantly compromised acuity.  I was fully sighted until just before my 16th birthday.  I can read regular newspaper print if it lands in my tunnel.  I can often identify people if they are in my tunnel, and I react accordingly if I do.  I don't ignore clear visual cues that I get, but I never depend on my vision if I can help it.  

My understanding of why we are given the title "legally blind" is that our vision is compromised enough that it is not a dependable sense for us.

Justin

Justin M. Salisbury
Undergraduate Student
The University Honors Program
East Carolina University
salisburyj08 at students.ecu.edu

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”    —MARGARET MEAD