[nabs-l] No Braille? No Literacy!

Sun Apr 26 04:38:38 UTC 2015

Hi all. To be clear, I often take in information by listening, both as
a matter of availability and efficiency. However, the fact that
listening can sometimes be a useful substitute for print doesn't
negate my original point: We don't consider listening to be a viable
substitute for print reading in the sighted world, so why should we
change our standards and allow blind people to read by listening
alone? We could just replace all print material in the world with
text-to-speech, but we don't, because we place cultural value on the
written word, and most sighted people process information better when
it is read. Even "auditory learners" in our society are expected to
read at least some print unless they have a severe reading disability
(and even then, they are expected to read road signs and the like). It
needn't be any different for the blind.
And, my point about refreshable Braille being more affordable than
hard copy Braille was from the production perspective, not the
consumer perspective. If a school district could choose to hire a ton
of transcription or buy a few refreshable Braille displays, the latter
option would cost less. I also hope that in the coming decades, the
cost of refreshable Braille will go down.
Arielle

On 4/25/15, Michael D Ausbun via nabs-l <nabs-l at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> Hello Ben,
> 	It has been a while! I remember discussing this with you at the Nevada
> state convention back in November, and I apologize if you already answered
> these questions for me before:
> (1)	In the instance where an individual is an auditory learner, and not a
> kinesthetic learner, would you still dismiss auditory intake as literacy?
> Essentially, having the ability to read the braille would be a form of
> kinesthetic learning, because you are physically translating the symbols,
> whereas someone who is an auditory learner would have more difficulties
> processing the information, even if they were able to read the braille,
> because they just learn better through auditory means.
> (2)	Would not an interpretation of auditory symbols be a form of symbolic
> interpretation? That is to say, if reading were merely the translation of
> symbols into language, would not listening to words be a quicker
> transformation of the interpretation of the symbols? True, the individual
> does not have to ‘read’ the original source material, but they still have to
> interpret the information, and organize it into comprehensible order within
> their minds.
> I think another important thing to remember, in the favor of braille being a
> substitution instance of literacy is, technology often fails, while braille
> rarely does. In other words, battery life of devices can be short, or
> electronic devices can be fried by water or other environmental
> disturbances. Conversely, braille could become warn after enough use, or if
> it is not taken care of; however, it is less likely to occur than the
> technology failing on people. I do not know, it seems to be a compelling
> reason to learn, if only because it provides more reassurance of sustained
> dependency…
> Respectfully,
> Michael Ausbun
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Ben Dallin [bendallin at outlook.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 8:36 PM
> To: Michael D Ausbun; National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> Cc: Joseph Hudson
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] No Braille? No Literacy!
>
> This is an interesting discusssion, and one I definitely have some opinions
> about. My guess is that some will think I'm splitting hairs, but I think
> there is an important difference between reading a book, and listening to a
> book, and the two expressions are not interchangeable. If you are listening
> to a book read by a human narrator or a computer, you yourself are not
> reading. Reading  involves translating certain symbols, whether they be
> print or braille, into language. That is being done by the narrator or
> computer if you are listening to a book. And let me be clear, if I have to
> get through a vast amount of material, I will listen to the material on a
> device where the speech can be greatly sped up. However, if I have my
> druthers, I will prefer to actually read the book in braille. I find I am
> more engaged with the text and my comprehension
> and recall improves. I am also able to project my own voice to the material,
> rather than hearing it through another.
> This is not to criticize at all people who would rather listen to books
> instead of read them. If someone cannot use print or braille however, they
> are still incredibly disadvantaged if they completely rely on audio, and I
> could not consider such a person to be literate, based  on the widely used
> and accepted definition. This happens in every day life, not just during a
> hypothetical catastrophe. Lectures and meetings, where it may be important
> to take down and read information, while still being able to listen to
> speakers or presenters, are prime examples.
> My take home message is simply that if you cannot read print, there is no
> way to be truly literate unless you know braille. Technology has given us
> access to much more material, some of it not available through braille, but
> I think it's not the same as reading,  and there could be  some dangers in
> equating listening with reading.
> The high cost of braille, whether being produced in hard copy, or in
> purchasing a braille display, may be a roadblock to wider literacy among the
> blind and is not a factor I had considered much, but it sounds like it could
> be true and hopefully technology, as it has done so far, will continue to
> provide opportunities for braille to become more available, as well as
> cheaper to produce.
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Apr 25, 2015, at 7:18 PM, Michael D Ausbun via nabs-l
>> <nabs-l at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>>
>>    I am going to play devil’s advocate, here, mostly because I disagree
>> with the common conception of ‘literate.’ Before I begin, however, I want
>> it to be clear that I believe, having the ability to read braille is not
>> only important, but also vital for any visually impaired individual’s
>> success. With that said:
>>
>> The definition of literate, as according to wikctionary is, “Able to read
>> and write; having literacy,” or “Knowledgeable in literature, writing;
>> literary; well-read.”
>>
>>    I believe, as per the first definition, it is clear that in order for a
>> blind person to be literate, they must be able to read braille. After all,
>> their eyes cannot, in most cases, read print, and as was pointed out, in
>> order to know the fine-rules of grammatical construction, a person must
>> have first-hand knowledge of what it looks like (no pun intended).
>>    With that said, however, I believe the first definition is archaic and
>> thus, quickly becoming the subsidiary definition. I, myself, know how to
>> read Spanish, German, Computer, Symbolic logic (which, I have found
>> actually has its own braille code), Chinese, English grades one and two,
>> and nemeth code. Even so, I much prefer to listen to all of my books. It
>> makes the reading less exhausting, while allowing me to be more done. For
>> example, just today, I have read seven books, all of which are more than
>> three hundred pages long. I do not know of a sighted or blind person, who
>> could duplicate that via print or braille.
>>    The largest problem with accepting listing as a form of literacy comes
>> in the form so a person having readily accessible means. That is to say,
>> it is very possible that something drastic might happen, where electricity
>> is removed, causing a person to no longer have access to their device,
>> which would make them incapable of either definitions (1) or (2). Then
>> again, if that happens, a braille reader would be at the same
>> disadvantage, because sighted people would be far too busy to emboss
>> things via a Perkins braille, and without their assistance, blind
>> individuals could not produce their texts either.
>>    I am probably just being cynical, but I still see, regardless of the
>> strives we have been able to make, a necessary dependency upon those who
>> can see. Certainly though, this will not always be the case. I suggest
>> that, as a community, we do not weigh the two forms of information-take in
>> against each other, but instead advocate for a combination of the two.
>> Braille and auditory reading.
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: nabs-l [nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] on behalf of Joseph Hudson via
>> nabs-l [nabs-l at nfbnet.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 6:51 PM
>> To: Darian Smith; National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] No Braille? No Literacy!
>>
>> Hi Darian, well I agree they do have devices to make real horrible, it's
>> finding the right one that works for you and if piece of audio technology
>> is what works for somebody like myself that's what we're going to stick to
>> a Weber grill display works better for somebody else, then that's what
>> they're going to stick to. In my case, I will stick to my Mac, my iPhone,
>> and my iPad.
>> Joseph Hudson
>> I device support
>> Email
>> jhud7789 at gmail.com <mailto:jhud7789 at gmail.com>
>> Face time and iMessage
>> jhud7789 at yahoo.com <mailto:jhud7789 at yahoo.com>
>> Office phone
>> 641-715-3900 x34315
>> Emergency line
>> 641-715-3900 x5887652
>> Skype
>> joseph.hudson89
>>
>>> On Apr 25, 2015, at 7:15 PM, Darian Smith via nabs-l <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> I think Arielle brings up some valid points here.
>>> The one point I would question is how technology has served to make
>>> access to braille more  affordable?
>>>
>>>  Maybe this is the case in relative terms, but until most anyone who
>>> wants access to braille can go out and get a  device    that makes
>>> braille portable I don’t think I could agree with that particular point.
>>> Darian
>>>> On Apr 25, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Arielle Silverman via nabs-l
>>>> <nabs-l at nfbnet.org <mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all. I don't understand why there's any doubt that Braille literacy
>>>> is needed for literacy. The way I see it, we expect all sighted people
>>>> in nearly all cultures to be print literate. Why would we expect less
>>>> from the blind? If a day comes when listening is considered an
>>>> acceptable form of literacy for sighted people, then I might change my
>>>> mind, but for now I think it is a simple matter of whether or not we
>>>> believe blind people should achieve the same literacy standards. If
>>>> blind people should hope to communicate in writing with anyone else,
>>>> we need to know spelling, capitalization, written grammar, and
>>>> punctuation rules. The fact is we can get these from Braille but not
>>>> from listening alone. Furthermore, Braille is the only reliable way
>>>> for us to access any written material we want to read aloud to
>>>> somebody else, whether that be our young children or our audience at a
>>>> professional conference. It's extremely hard to read a prepared speech
>>>> or a storybook aloud to others while listening to it. If we hope to
>>>> meet the same standards of written communication, and translation
>>>> between oral and written modes, as our sighted peers, then we need
>>>> Braille. I also get really annoyed when people try to say that
>>>> technology has "replaced" Braille. Technology actually makes Braille
>>>> infinitely more portable and affordable than it was before.
>>>> Best, Arielle
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/25/15, Joe via nabs-l <nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>>>> <mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org> <mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>>>> <mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org>>> wrote:
>>>>> I wish my cable company would feel the same way about not making me
>>>>> pay
>>>>> that
>>>>> kind of money. LOL
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Musings of a Work in Progress:
>>>>> www.JoeOrozco.com/ <http://www.joeorozco.com/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Twitter: @ScribblingJoe
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: nabs-l [mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org
>>>>> <mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org>] On Behalf Of Joseph Hudson
>>>>> via nabs-l
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 5:04 PM
>>>>> To: Mabelin Ramirez; National Association of Blind Students mailing
>>>>> list
>>>>> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] No Braille? No Literacy!
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, what same time I agree with you but one thing that you have to
>>>>> understand is that it takes money and manpower in order to produce the
>>>>> documents for the braille. Not everybody, and knows how to produce
>>>>> things
>>>>> in
>>>>> braille. This is why I'll rely on email for my Electric bill, and my
>>>>> cable
>>>>> bill. Because I don't want to have to have my company payout that kind
>>>>> of
>>>>> money.
>>>>> Joseph Hudson
>>>>> I device support
>>>>> Email
>>>>> jhud7789 at gmail.com <mailto:jhud7789 at gmail.com>
>>>>> <mailto:jhud7789 at gmail.com <mailto:jhud7789 at gmail.com>> Face time and
>>>>> iMessage
>>>>> jhud7789 at yahoo.com <mailto:jhud7789 at yahoo.com
>>>>> <mailto:jhud7789 at yahoo.com>> Office phone
>>>>> 641-715-3900 x34315
>>>>> Emergency line
>>>>> 641-715-3900 x5887652
>>>>> Skype
>>>>> joseph.hudson89
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 25, 2015, at 3:56 PM, Mabelin Ramirez via nabs-l
>>>>>> <nabs-l at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I honestly think that braille should be put on all documents that we
>>>>>> blind
>>>>> folk receive. Because think about this for a minute, we won't always
>>>>> have
>>>>> sighted peers around us.
>>>>>> We can't always depend on sighted folks all the time to read things
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> us.
>>>>> Plus the scanning apps we sometimes use aren't very accurate when it
>>>>> comes
>>>>> to printed material. This should also apply in schools as well.
>>>>>> I'm just voicing my opinion on this.
>>>>>> If anyone disagrees that is fine.
>>>>>> All of us have our own opinions.
>>>>>> This is just my thought on the matter.
>>>>>> Take care all,
>>>>>> Mabelin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> nabs-l mailing list
>>>>>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>>> nabs-l:
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/jhud7789%40outlook
>>>>>> .com
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nabs-l mailing list
>>>>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org <mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>>>>> <http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org>
>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>>> nabs-l:
>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/jsoro620%40gmail.com
>>>>> <http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/jsoro620%40gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nabs-l mailing list
>>>>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org <mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>>>>> <http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org>
>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>>> nabs-l:
>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/arielle71%40gmail.com
>>>>> <http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/arielle71%40gmail.com><http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/arielle71%40gmail.com
>>>>> <http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/arielle71%40gmail.com>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nabs-l mailing list
>>>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org <mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org> <mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>>> <mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org>>
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>>>> <http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org><http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>>>> <http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>> nabs-l:
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/dsmithnfb%40gmail.com
>>>> <http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/dsmithnfb%40gmail.com><http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/dsmithnfb%40gmail.com
>>>> <http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/dsmithnfb%40gmail.com>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nabs-l mailing list
>>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org <mailto:nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>>> <http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org>
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>> nabs-l:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/jhud7789%40outlook.com
>>> <http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/jhud7789%40outlook.com>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nabs-l mailing list
>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nabs-l:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/mausbun%40unr.edu
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nabs-l mailing list
>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nabs-l:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/bendallin%40outlook.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nabs-l:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/arielle71%40gmail.com
>