[nfbwatlk] Braille Monitor

[Debby Phillips]

One of the things that has changed over the years is this.  There was a time when I could walk in to a restaurant and ask for a Braille menu and though they rarely had one, they at least knew what I was asking. For.  N  Now people don't know what Braie is.  Kind of funny but sad too.    Peace,    Debby from my iPhone

On Mar 3, 2013, at 9:45 AM, "Becky Frankeberger" <b.butterfly at comcast.net> wrote:

> Ok, I am a little behind reading my Braille monitor.  "But boy howdy" A
> phrase I shamelessly stoll from Buddy), look who is in the Braille Monitor.
> 
> 
> 
> Becky 
> 
> 
> 
> [PHOTO CAPTION: Buddy Brannan]
> 
>                         Is Braille Still Relevant?
> 
>                              by Buddy Brannan
> 
> 
> 
>      From the Editor: Buddy Brannan is a member of the National Federation
> 
> of the Blind and serves as the vice president of the Erie chapter of the
> 
> National Federation of the Blind of Pennsylvania.
> 
>      Most of the articles printed in the Braille Monitor are written
> 
> specifically for our magazine; some we reprint from other publications.
> 
> Some items come to our attention through email posts and, though not
> 
> intended as articles, they articulate something so important that it should
> 
> be captured and shared with our readers.
> 
>      The following email remarks by Buddy Brannan, which were circulated
> 
> in June 2012, reflect the frustration some of us feel acutely when a method
> 
> for reading and writing using the sense of touch is greeted with skepticism
> 
> while a method for getting information through the eyes is accepted without
> 
> question. Here is one blind man's reaction to the notion that audio devices
> 
> may be robbing the sighted of the ability to spell while simultaneously
> 
> being proposed as the way to free blind people from the need to learn
> 
> Braille.
> 
> 
> 
>      Perkins just asked in an email they sent out if Braille is still
> 
> relevant in a high tech world. They said the answer was a resounding yes,
> 
> as it certainly should be, but here is my response which I sent to Perkins
> 
> and posted to my blog:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
>      First, do I love my Perkins Brailler? Of course I do. I don't really
> 
> want to talk about that, though. Rather I want to address the question you
> 
> posed: is Braille still relevant in a technological world? Of course you
> 
> got the answer, and in my view the correct one, but what disturbs me is
> 
> that the question was even asked in the first place. I think it is the
> 
> wrong question. In short, what happens if you replace the word "Braille"
> 
> with the word "print"? Does the question change? Does the relevance of the
> 
> question change with the medium? Does the answer change? What about the
> 
> perceptions of the question--do those change?
> 
>      A couple of weeks ago, I was a fill-in host on the Serotek podcast,
> 
> where we discussed an article about the decline in spelling skills among
> 
> today's youth. However, I didn't take away what was probably the intended
> 
> message of the article. I took away a double standard. Now that it's
> 
> sighted children who use print and are losing the ability to spell, form
> 
> proper sentences, and so on, we have a tragedy, and our electronics-centric
> 
> lifestyle is to blame. Think of texting as the most often blamed culprit.
> 
> Yet where was this outcry for our blind kids twenty years ago, when as now
> 
> we were told that talking computers and recorded textbooks are good enough?
> 
> Double standard? Why is it, do you suppose, that learning to read print and
> 
> having access to print are essential to teach sighted children the
> 
> fundamentals of grammar, spelling, and punctuation, but such skills are
> 
> adequately taught to our blind kids with talking computers and recorded
> 
> textbooks? Or is it that our blind kids and their skills and abilities in
> 
> these areas just aren't important enough to give the same amount of
> 
> attention or priority? Why is--pulling a number out of the air here--a 10
> 
> percent illiteracy rate among the sighted a national tragedy, yet a 10
> 
> percent literacy rate among the blind acceptable?
> 
>      If you gather that I'm angry, you're right. I am absolutely livid.
> 
> This is only one example of this double standard where blind and sighted
> 
> people are concerned. The thing is, it's a huge example, and it doesn't
> 
> even seem as though we ourselves always recognize it for what it is,
> 
> because we still ask questions like "Is Braille still relevant?" As long as
> 
> literacy is relevant to gainful employment, career advancement, educational
> 
> opportunities, and all the other things life has to offer, the answer
> 
> should be obvious.
> 
>      As I said, you're asking the wrong question. There are probably a lot
> 
> of right questions, but the one that comes to mind, setting aside the
> 
> obvious one, "Why is this double standard acceptable?" is, "How do we get
> 
> Braille into the hands of more kids and get more of our kids learning it,
> 
> and more of our teachers teaching it?" Let's start there; there's much,
> 
> much more that we should be asking as follow-ups to that.
> 
>      Parenthetically, I note that the word "Brailler" was flagged by my
> 
> spell checker. Moreover, it was autocorrected to "broiler." That speaks
> 
> volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfbwatlk mailing list
> nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbwatlk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org/semisweetdebby%40gmail.com