Tag: Accessibility

How we talk about disability

Posted on by Jen

Note: Originally posted on https://jenrohrigdesign.com/

The way we talk about disability matters but the complicating factor is that different people and different groups have different preferences. People with intellectual disabilities tend to prefer person first language and the concept of “see ability not disability”. This is because of the long history of being dismissed and looked down on by everyone including those with physical disabilities. If you’ve ever used the phrase “I may have a physical disability but my brain is fine” you’ve contributed to. On the flip side people with physical disabilities and some developmental disabilities (like autism) tend to prefer identity first language and usually (but not always) don’t find the use of the word disabled offensive. Some don’t like to use the word disabled but instead prefer to only use the name of their identity – Deaf or Autistic for example. None of this is 100% true all of the time but in general it’s a good baseline to understand.

When we talk about accommodating disabilities there is often a focus on the deficits that the accommodations are helping with. This individual can’t hear so they need closed captions or ASL interpreters; this individual can’t walk to they need a wheelchair; and so on. This is especially true in education settings for children who have IEPs. Because of the way school systems focus on their budgets they tend to focus on how much something will cost. This results in parents having to fight to get the accommodations their child needs by emphasizing their disabilities in order to prove that the need exists, instead of being able to focus on how the accommodations would help them succeed in school. This battle often repeats each year because school administrations will want to take away accommodations if they see an improvement. The argument the school will use is that the child has improved so the accommodation obviously isn’t needed anymore, ignoring that the child is doing better with the accommodations and taking them away would mean not doing as well.

Because there is such an emphasis on deficits in education there ends up being a push for “seeing abilities not disabilities”. It becomes especially true for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities as they fall behind their peers in school. Sometimes this is the case before they even start school when doctors tell parents that their children won’t amount to much because of their disabilities. So naturally organizations like Special Olympics will focus on proving what people with intellectual disabilities are capable of doing rather than what they can’t. Special Olympics is of course focused on sports so there is an emphasis that sports don’t see disability. There’s nothing really wrong with this thinking in a general sense. It is important to see that a person can be capable of things and not make assumptions based on their disabilities. That’s why people act so amazed when a person with Down Syndrome completes a Marathon. There’s an assumption that they can’t possibly run a marathon, when the truth is they often can with enough training and enough support just like anyone else.

Of course limitations will always exist (even without disabilities in the mix). The key is not allowing other people to enforce false limitations on a person, but also acknowledging the real limitations that exist. Because, ignoring a disability completely will cause harm if not acknowledged. It’s also a problem when people say “if this person with a disability can do this why can’t you?” ignoring that everyone’s abilities actually are different. That’s why my preference is to see the disability along with the ability. I’m still hard of hearing regardless of having a hearing aid. My hearing is not 100% – there will still be times I don’t hear something and people will need to repeat themselves. I also still need closed captions to watch videos or TV shows – the sound is not clear enough to hear everything and there is usually background noise. So yes I still need people to “see my disability, not just my abilities”. But I do think we can change how we talk about our disabilities so that it’s not always about the deficit. Just saying I need people to repeat themselves or captions should be enough without having to explain that I am hard of hearing. There shouldn’t be a reason to have to prove anything. Access needs should be understood and accepted across the board.

Additional Reading

“I Shouldn’t Have to Dehumanize My Son to Get Him Support: Instead of focusing on the challenges facing disabled people, we should emphasize goals.” – by David M Perry at “The Nation”

“The Problem of Intellectual Ableism” posted by me on this blog.

“About Limits” posted by me on this blog.

“Against Technoableism” Review

Posted on by Jen

“Against Technoableism: Rethinking Who Needs Improvement” by Ashley Shew

When bioethicist and professor Ashley Shew became a self-described “hard-of-hearing chemobrained amputee with Crohn’s disease and tinnitus,” there was no returning to “normal.” Suddenly well-meaning people called her an “inspiration” while grocery shopping or viewed her as a needy recipient of technological wizardry. Most disabled people don’t want what the abled assume they want—nor are they generally asked. Almost everyone will experience disability at some point in their lives, yet the abled persistently frame disability as an individual’s problem rather than a social one.

In a warm, feisty voice and vibrant prose, Shew shows how we can create better narratives and more accessible futures by drawing from the insights of the cross-disability community. To forge a more equitable world, Shew argues that we must eliminate “technoableism”—the harmful belief that technology is a “solution” for disability; that the disabled simply await being “fixed” by technological wizardry; that making society more accessible and equitable is somehow a lesser priority.

This badly needed introduction to disability expertise considers mobility devices, medical infrastructure, neurodivergence, and the crucial relationship between disability and race. The future, Shew points out, is surely disabled—whether through changing climate, new diseases, or even through space travel. It’s time we looked closely at how we all think about disability technologies and learn to envision disabilities not as liabilities, but as skill sets enabling all of us to navigate a challenging world.

Review

This was a really good book – though it’s really meant for non-disabled people who don’t already know about the various issues discussed in the book. Most of the information in the book is stuff I’m already aware of as a disabled person. I wear a hearing aid and I know all too well that technology doesn’t fix everything. I’m still deaf if I don’t have them on or if the battery is running out or any number of situations. They also don’t work well in all situations because they amplify all sounds not just speech. So I’m always going to have difficulty in loud crowded situations. The book talks a lot about these kinds of situations where people assume everything can be fix with technology and that people won’t be disabled anymore. That’s not going to happen. Technology can do a lot of good things but there is a huge issue of people acting like technology can fix everything so there are no more problems for disabled people. Which results in people getting angry when people don’t use the technology.

Book Details

The book cover is green and yellow with images of various assistive technology displayed all over the over. There are wheelchairs, hearing aids, canes, crutches, wheelchair vans, medication, glasses and more. The title is written near the top left and subtitle near the bottom right with the authors name to the left.

Author’s Website
Ashley Shew
Publisher / Date
W.W. Norton, September 2023
Genre / Topics
Essays, Disability, Accessibility
Page Count
158
Completion Date
January 13, 2024

Why Bother Making Things Accessible?

Posted on by Jen

Note: Originally posted on https://jenrohrigdesign.com/

A lot of people will ask that question because for the most part they go through their lives without needing to think about how difficult things can be. Sometimes even when they do experience some difficulty they’ll think “that’s just the way the world is” without considering if it could be better. Sometimes the only reason why things are at least somewhat accessible is because it’s the law.

A blot post from AssistiveWare asks Why isn’t the world accessible in the first place? for Global Accessibility Awareness Day.

If we believe that accessibility is important and we should be implementing it, why don’t we already consistently and thoroughly account for disability in design? Is it just a knowledge gap, or is there more at work?

In my previous post The ADA at 32 I talked about how many people don’t really have a full understanding of the limites of the American’s With Disabilities Act. They will talk about how things are “illegal now” or to simply “call the ADA” to report issues. Things can and should be made better and it’s a struggle to get people to understand why things should be improved for all of us. I also included a few links in that post about how the ADA does not go far enough.

My answer to “why bother?” is “why not?” – I mean honestly why not make things accessible to everyone? The problem is as I said above the majority don’t even see the problems that do exist. It isn’t a problem for them so they don’t bother thinking about it. As a result accessibility depends on people actually fighting for it and continuing to make noise about the various issues that exist.

Accessibility Benefits Everyone

But let’s look at it another way – accessibility isn’t just for disabled people, when done correctly it can benefit everyone.

Why Designing For Accessibility Helps Everyone written by Daniel Abrahams at Access Innovation Media:

Automatic doors can also save businesses money – they open only when needed, they cut down on energy waste which directly implies a reduction in heating costs plus no fingerprints on the doors either so no need for extra cleaning.

Getting Accessibility Right

We still need to make sure things are accessible to all those who need it. Often accessibility is denied without thought because someone believes it isn’t worth the cost or the time. Sometimes it’s about a lack of awareness of what is needed or assumptions being made about the types of accommodations that should be offered.

For example I’ve seen situations where only a sign language interpreter was offered and when captioning was requested as well it was denied because “there’s an interpreter provided” – which ignores the fact that many who are hard of hearing don’t know sign language and still need captioning. Of course there’s also the assumption that automocati captions are good enough without realizing just how bad auto captions are.

Another example is in webinars the sound quality may be bad and when it’s pointed out people are directed to the captions that exist. The problem with this is that people with cognitive issues may not be able to read the captions and are depending on good sound quality.

In both examples any attempts to point out issues are dismissed because people believe what they have done is enough.

About Competing Accessibility Needs

Competing accessibility needs do exist. Sometimes making things accessible for one group will make things inaccessible for another. Attempts to mitigate the problems should be made but it should also be acknowledged that it isn’t always possible. There are things that should be done to address the issue however.

Understanding Competing Accessibility Needs by Brooke Winters at Thinking Person’s Guide to Autism:

It may not be possible to make every single event accessible to every disabled person but there are steps we can take to make sure that every disabled person has events that are accessible to them.

Final Thoughts

Accessibility is always a work in progress and I believe we should always try to do better. We should notice when things are difficult and we should make noise about it when possible. It’s important to remember that the Americans With Disabilities Act often depends on disabled people to voice complaints about inaccessibility before anything is done. Nothing changes unless someone says something so people should say something.

The ADA at 32

Posted on by Jen

Note: Originally posted on https://jenrohrigdesign.com/

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was created in to prohibit discrimination against disabled people. At least the ADA was intended to prohibit discrimination – many places are still inaccessible and discrimination still exists 32 years later. Many businesses have spent the last 32 years, and money, arguing why they shouldn’t be forced to change their buildings rather than changing them. Employers still use “not a good fit” to cover a multitude of sins. Even when employment is granted accommodations are routinely denied for a number of reasons or the person ends up fired. The general public doesn’t seem aware of the issues – instead arguing “it’s illegal!” Or “Call the ADA” without realizing the burden is on the disabled person to sue the employer or business that is violating the law.

Here’s an article that details a few examples: Advocating for ‘tough issues’: ADA enforcement often falls to people with disabilities

During the pandemic many of the accommodations that disabled people had been asking for years were granted only because everyone needed them. Some examples include being able to work from home, virtual doctor visits and other events that became virtual. As soon as everything started opening up again those accommodations were taken away. People were encouraged to return to the office, and many of the virtual options were discontinued as soon as in person events could happen again. But the fact that the accommodations were granted only shows that it is possible to have that kind of access.

The ADA has always been under threat – many lawsuits have gone through the courts, some that could have led to the ADA being gutted because certain groups felt that the ADA required too much from business and employers. Because of recent actions by the Supreme Court disability rights lawyers are increasingly hesitant to file lawsuits because they fear it will give the court a reason to gut the ADA. Read the article at MSNBC.com – “How this Supreme Court is setting back disability rights — without even trying” by Eric Garcia, MSNBC Opinion Columnist

Back in July 2020, Cal Montgomery, wrote a blog post “I Will Celebrate ADA30” in which he noted additions problems with the ADA:

“But the ADA represents a hollow promise. It was never meant for all of us. It was always intended to protect some disabled more than others, and still other disabled not at all. And the independent living movement, which plays an enormous role in cross-disability agenda setting, has focused on the kind of “one and done” accessibility that is coded into the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) (and even then only some people’s “one and done” needs are addressed) rather than the ongoing work of negotiating the fluctuating and complex access needs of individuals, groups, and communities.”

The ADA may have done a lot to improve the lives of disabled people in the 90s but it never went far enough and these days it seems like it could be gutted at any time because certain groups don’t believe others should have access to anything.

Be sure to also read: A Letter to the Americans with Disabilities Act on Its 32nd Birthday by Sandy Ho posted earlier this week.

The moment that photo captured, your passage, was just the beginning. As we both know by now, the first step in every struggle for civil rights is necessary but hardly enough.

The Language of Disability

Posted on by Jen

Note: Originally posted on https://jenrohrigdesign.com/

Person First or Identity First Language

A while ago I took some courses in accessible design related to the Americans with Disabilities Act. One thing I noticed is the emphasis on person first language. Person first language is well intended and is still preferred by many people with disabilities – most often people with intellectual disabilities. But there is also a growing number of disabled people who prefer identity first language – most often autistic or deaf people. There’s a lot of debate over which is preferred and why people prefer one over the other.

I’m aware a lot of teaching manuals for accessibility and disability still push person first language. I’m also aware that it can be hard to adjust when you’ve been told by those in authority which to use. In the end what really matters is the preference of the individual. One of the issues that comes up with person first language is the tendency of non-disabled people to insist that it must always be used while ignoring the voices of disabled people who say otherwise. Disabled people or people with disabilities have the right to make their own choices. That’s the point that seems to be overlooked in the instructions.

The blog post “Identity First Language” by Lydia Brown goes into further discussion about identity first language vs person first language. There are also several links at the bottom of the post three different preferences including using both interchangeably which I’ve been trying to do with this post. Note that many of the links now link to the web archive as the original blogs have been deleted.

A Brief Mention of Disability Euphemisms

My opinions on the use of euphemism in place of disability could be a whole other post. The short version is I believe euphemism are another well intended thing that ends up feeling condescending more often than not when non-disabled people use them. Others may disagree but that’s how I feel. Again it’s important to listen to others about how they want to be referred to. If another disabled person prefers a euphemism use it. I’m aware some of them were in fact created by people with disabilities which is why I’m not completely against them. It’s the way they’re used, not that they exist that’s the problem.

What Does Ableism Mean Anyway?

Something I’ve also noticed over the years is the lack of awareness about ableism and what it means. I can mostly understand the average person not knowing about it, but it bothers me that anyone who works in disability or accessibility related fields doesn’t know what it means. There are different ways to explain what ableism means:

From Access Living’s “Ableism 101” article:

Ableism is the discrimination of and social prejudice against people with disabilities based on the belief that typical abilities are superior. At its heart, ableism is rooted in the assumption that disabled people require ‘fixing’ and defines people by their disability. Like racism and sexism, ableism classifies entire groups of people as ‘less than,’ and includes harmful stereotypes, misconceptions, and generalizations of people with disabilities.

I also like Talila A. Lewis’ or TL’s “Working definition of Ableism“:

able·ism /ˈābəˌlizəm/ noun A system of assigning value to people’s bodies and minds based on societally constructed ideas of normalcy, productivity, desirability, intelligence, excellence, and fitness. These constructed ideas are deeply rooted in eugenics, anti-Blackness, misogyny, colonialism, imperialism, and capitalism. This systemic oppression that leads to people and society determining people’s value based on their culture, age, language, appearance, religion, birth or living place, “health/wellness”, and/or their ability to satisfactorily re/produce, “excel” and “behave.” You do not have to be disabled to experience ableism.

TL’s poist “Longmore Lecture: Context, Clarity & Grounding” provides more detail about TL’s working definition and the connection to racism.

Final Thoughts

The language of disability can be tricky because different people will tell you different things and you will see conflicting messages. My hope is that people start taking the time to figure out where the message is coming from and respect individual choices. I also hope that people start learning more about ableism and how it impacts disabled people. Learning never really ends and there’s always changes.