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

[Carrie Gilmer]

It may be that Patterson can read and write but print is terribly
inefficient for him to read as much as he needs to. Patterson has himself
described his difficulties fairly often as the whole "over assimilation"
(his term) meaning his parents went so far as to make him feel he "should
not" be blind. That is another story. The definition of success is often
fuzzy and subjective.

Ms. Sloate said in the article that when she "writes" she gives dictation.
If one can not read at all it is very difficult to imagine how they would
write. It made me wonder about alot. How does she do email? I thought about
privacy too. And just because she may earn a fortune I don't think that
equates to everything in her life being as great as one might imagine. I
still think her opinion on Braille and also reading in general is not
credible as she has no experience with it. 

It is asked why only the two senses could be considered reading. Maybe you
have something~maybe in the future we will find that all touch screens and
audio and buttons and digitized is superior. Ray Kurzweil thinks we will
just have computer chips in our brains and it will be interconnected to
knowledge and product labels etc ad-infinitum. But I really doubt it, and if
so we are a long way off from a complete change over. Then I wonder if all
the written history will be forgotten if humans get to a place where no one
remembers what symbols mean as far as language goes.

In all of human history most cultures strove to write down messages,
histories, religion, knowledge. Why, if oral was sufficient? Were we
devolving going from oral to written? Braille is written, it is just
embossed or raised; it is the same. Now tho oral can be "saved" and played
again later or played back this is true. But it comes in someone else's
voice and cadence. Editing is a challenge. It is interesting that Braille,
when first developing the code, was frustrated and nearly failed to adapt
the system he had found because it was based on sound. Once he let go of
that it came to him and all fell together.

Marc you can not be a test case or example because you already know how to
read and knew it well. You are a reader and you can never go back and not be
one, even if you can not see the print anymore. You may lose some of what
you don't use in skill if you never pick it up again but you can never get
to a place from childhood where you never learned to read. Your experience
is not the same for comparison with someone who has only learned language
orally. I have never met someone who knew how to read, either print or
Braille who wished they hadn't. There was a study done and presented in the
article on those who only knew reading by sound. Their ability to present
thoughts in writing was severely harmed.

My son often did his calculus while reading the Braille/Nemeth text with his
left hand and writing in pen/pencil with his right. Sometimes he did math on
the computer. But like Chelsea's experience he could conceive better and
things made more sense when he could get his hands on the thing. This
combination in math was the most efficient for him. He "combo's" all the
time. We fought hard to get him Braille and for him to become proficient and
he is glad for it and uses it all the time. It is only a usable tool because
he learned how to use it. In 11th grade a reading specialist evaluated him.
She turned her back so she did not know what he was reading. Print (large)
or Braille. In print he had many errors and his cadence was slow halting and
repetitive. In Braille he was smooth and flowing. Finally in 11th grade the
school admitted he should be a Braille reader. Why throw away or ignore a
perfectly usable and frequently desirable tool?

I heard a discussion this morning on public radio between brain specialists.
One thing they mentioned was Dyslexia. They had learned that dyslexics use a
different part of the brain and that is why reading is so hard. But they
also learned that they can be re-trained and when they do they use both
sides of the brain and are able to read "normally" eventually if they
practice. 

In my opinion when reading text in print or Braille there is a convenience
and pleasure and perhaps even an aid to comprehension and ownership of the
material as one is getting it in one's complete control. That is I often
wait on a word or phrase or go back over it or stall out and ponder, that is
difficult to do orally. It is also in our culture and society a cornerstone
in making one overwhelmingly more likely to be employed. Many Braille
readers here and elsewhere state that while they love their technology it
has not totally replaced either the need or pleasure of reading
professionally and privately.

And finally I disagree that Dr. Jernigan would be yielding about reading and
writing not being literacy. He was a prolific reader and writer. To say his
sometime use of sighted guide is a comparison is incorrect. He could travel
independently with a cane. His view of someone who only chose to ever go on
the arm of someone I think might be very different. He himself started the
revolution in training and rehabilitation centers including training the
newly blind. Braille and reading "again" has been a core component of the
recipe. I think he might have some dogma here. 

And because Sloate has such a unique total circumstance I think she is a
very poor example of everyone can do just fine being solely auditory/oral
without negative employment or other life impacts. 

Carrie Gilmer