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

[Joe Orozco]

Hello,

Before anything else, let me give my own examples of where Braille comes in
handy.  I use Braille to take notes during meetings if for no other reason
than Braille is a shorthand method that allows for quicker data capture.  I
also use Braille to deliver speeches.  It makes better sense to allow my
fingers to process my talking points and devote the balance of my attention
to gauge the mood of the audience.  On my spare time I use Braille to play
D&D.  My group moves at a fairly good clip, and for me it makes sense to be
able to quickly scan a character sheet than to have to search and retrieve
an electronic file while trying to keep track of everyone else's moves.
When it comes to nonfiction I also prefer Braille because I like to make
sure I retain the data and fully process the spelling of complex words,
perhaps the reason I choose Braille for standardized exams.  Braille comes
in handy when learning a new computer language, because the success of a
compilation can sometimes hang on the presence or absence of a single
quotation mark.  This all can be done electronically, but in my own personal
case, I find Braille to make things somehow more solid.

Two things:

First, the Braille I now use primarily comes from my own production.  I am
grateful for Web Braille for the books I can access on my notetaker, but
high school was the last time I had routine access to Braille resources.  It
is expensive to have things reproduced in Braille, and Braille books
themselves are bulky and cumbersome to carry around.  Notetakers are
ridiculously expensive.  If you are not a client of a rehabilitation agency
you have to rely on your income, but your own income may not necessarily be
enough to front the cost of a six thousand dollar unit.  You could invest in
a netbook and purchase a Braille display, but Braille displays are also sold
at a small fortune.

Second, it is difficult to make a case for Braille beyond high school
because there are alternatives.  People can record meetings and later use
software to convert the speech to text.  The mobile phone is slowly moving
into the center of our daily interactions.  Did anyone ten years ago suspect
we would be able to snap a picture of a printed page and read that document
using speech?  Mobile technology is becoming so pervasive that we have to
threaten to sue universities for using the currently inaccessible Kindle in
their classrooms to transmit instructional materials.  In other words, there
may have been a time when Braille was absolutely crucial, but that is the
question today, isn't it?  Crucial versus efficient, and how can you
possibly convince someone who does not see the benefits of Braille to use a
system they deem inefficient when compared to their mobile device?

But, fine, let us assume that I am completely wrong, that at the end of the
day I absolutely have to pick one side over another, and let us further
assume that the side I pick is Braille.  It was the ACB who successfully got
the Social Security Administration to provide their materials in Braille.
What are we as the NFB going to do to build off this momentum?  Should we
perhaps lead a national campaign to ensure that all restaurants have Braille
menus?  That cup lids be Brailed as McDonald's has been doing?  That all
doctor offices provide medical records in Braille?  That the manuals that
accompany every product I purchase be embossed?  Add to this the advantage
of Braille receipts, concert tickets, transit fare cards, ATM screens,
airport terminal monitors...  Of course you sense my sarcasm, but we cannot
completely seal the case for Braille until we improve the environment where
Braille would exist, because right or wrong, right now the bulk of Braille
is dominated by what the blind request versus what the public automatically
provides.  What is the overwhelming incentive for someone to learn Braille?

It is sad, I think, that the use of Braille may eventually come down to
something as commonplace as choosing between using the cane versus using a
dog to get around.  Yet, until we do something more compelling, or until we
take a different tone, people are going to weigh Braille with technology and
ultimately choose the most convenient of the two.  I do not think people who
do not read Braille should be offended by those of us who choose to use
Braille in our lives.  If they're offended, perhaps it is guilt, but on this
item I am strongly against a "take no prisoners" approach.  I also do not
take a literal interpretation of literacy, because as far as literacy is
concerned, you need to be able to read and write in a certain language, and
when people type they are using their understanding of letters and
punctuation of a language to convey a message.  It is not as though they are
talking into a microphone and allowing a program to string their sentences
for them, at least not in most cases.

So, in the meantime, I think perhaps our best approach might be to tell
people in a nicer way that there are benefits of Braille.  There is much to
be gained and nothing to lose from taking the time to learn a new method of
writing.  Let's get a pen pal thing going to help beginners appreciate the
benefits of Braille in an interactive manner.  I am not at all amused by
this harsh reality nonsense people are trotting out, because reality says
technology is the sweeter of the two choices.

Joe Orozco

"A man who wants to lead the orchestra must turn his back on the
crowd."--Max Lucado 

-----Original Message-----
From: nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org 
[mailto:nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Sean Whalen
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 11:52 PM
To: nabs-l at nfbnet.org
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/jsorozco
%40gmail.com
 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of 
virus signature database 4749 (20100106) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
 
 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4751 (20100107) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com