UD is setting everyone up for failure, absolutely! No one is the same and every disability is a particular case so we need to focus on accommodating and alleviating as many of these cases as possible which would be far more productive and effective than actually trying to generalize the whole population and creating a far too generic design that no one will abide by in the end.

It just goes back to your English class where your teachers talks about how specification and certain details are what's going to make your work stand out or it's going to make all the difference. Well the same goes for tech writing for the disabled because the more detail orientated we get with trying to help with as many specific cases as possible, the more advance or technology/work will become. We need to bring attention to the particular and quit this universal notion that isn't really best for anyone.

If tech writers were given the chance to work with an individual with specific needs or a disability, than it definitely would change the mind of the writer or at least make them take into consideration what things they could do to help those with disabilities whether it's adding audio or using bolder colors. The extra effort needs to be made.

I agree with this paragraph because there is no such thing as a UD because it just cannot help everyone with as many specific disabilities as there are out there in the world. It's definitely an idea and more like a process, but it also seems like it's not going to go anywhere because people with disabilities need specific technology for their individual cases. There is not solution with a "one size fits all" notion attached to it. You're never going to meet everyone's needs but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help accommodate as many specific cases as possible.

Those with disabilities didn't ask for their burdens and much less want help all of the time. They want to be able to be independent and produce a life for themselves like any other individual around them. It's unfortunate that public funding has been restricted and hasn't allowed for more research into developing more advance technology for those with disabilities.

Focusing on a design that is far too broad and tries to cover far too many types of people is eventually going to do quite the opposite and leave a lot of people with specific types of disabilities out. Disabilities aren't all the same and most of them are complex or have more issues on top of them. Generalizing all disabilities into one universal design isn't effective. We need to be able to find a way to modify or design for each particular case.

This paragraph was interesting to me because I'm constantly hearing from the older generation how the "gold old days" with pen and paper were far more benificial than the technology that is being used today. As a tech writer and English major, I have no problem sitting down with a pencil and paper and jotting down my ideas. There's a nostalgic feeling behind it that brings me back to my pubic education days. But it's important to take into consideration those with disabilities who cannot hold a pencil or find trouble writing on paper whether they are blind, have lost an arm, etc. Technology is here to assist them and UD isn't specific enough to make that possible.

This quote is so true because at some point in our lives, whether we are losing our sight to old age or become ill and cannot walk, we will acquire some form of a disability and only then will you realize how important it is to have a specific resolution for it.

UD is a myth. Fact. The idea of creating this broad and general tech world where needs of those who are disabled are only met by the tip of the iceberg and those with far more complex disabilities are still left out. Again, a "one size fits all" kind of technological world isn't ideal for anyone because we all have some kind of disability at one point or another in our lives that should be alleviated by technology. At the end of the day, it's main purpose is to assist.

This article is mainly trying to prove how universal design isn't exactly practical or achievable. Though people with disabilities have every right to access the same information or resources like the rest of us, they are different and those differences hinder them from being able to have easy access. The idea of creating a technological world where everyone is accessing information the same way. It's impossible! One of the authors, Rick, is disabled himself and goes on to state how dysfunctional a lot of universal design is because it's too general and broad and doesn't really help anyone really. There should be programs or technology within UD to meet the specific needs stemming from a specific disability.

This passage was quite interesting since it seems that with every advance in technology there is a need for some to hearken back to the "good 'ol days". For those who are not white men without disabilities, those days weren't really all that good.

The "calls to re-embrace physical books, pens, and paper" may seem normal to me, but to someone who cannot see or a veteran without any hands, using a pen and paper because that's what your grandfather used as a correspondent in French Indochina doesn't really help. According to Rick there is a dispute between the efficacy of using hand written notes and digital notes. To me those who would want to make hand written notes a form of best practice are not thinking about audiences with disabilities. Similar to the Schryer article, the notes that are taken may be read or used for research by someone who wasn't the original author. Notes that are taken with a pen and pad will automatically be unusable to the blind. Someone who is blind would be able to use a voice recorder to take in the same information without losing any of the information in the process. That of course can depend on the content they are recording.

In my opinion, it seems as though education is moving further and further away from traditional books and paper as well. Newspapers put their content online and publishers can put novels on a Kindle. By doing this, newspapers and traditional publishers, while moving away from a traditional form of information consumption are also opening themselves up to other audiences that could be impaired. Fonts can be made bigger and words can be read aloud, improving the reading experience for those with bad vision or those with no vision at all.

I also agree that that UD is not achievable. This will be a large cost for all businesses to make everything have a universal design. This also will not allow any room for error anywhere in the world. This unrealistic goal will create a uniformed design that will make society boring quite complicated to say the least.

This backs up my claim that the need for people is still a necessity.

I believe that Bednarska may have made a good observation but on the other hand technology does sometime fail and it does sometimes need to be updated, which does take time. Creating a need for the assistants and note-takers. Will it become a dying profession because of the technology possibly?

This will be an interesting read. Here, you have a disabled academic who may be able to interpret first hand how he uses and understands universal design with his claims.

Way to contradict that initial claim that UD is a myth. He complains about not being able to read the document in written English but it wasn't created for people with out disabilities...

http://dsdj.gallaudet.edu/

this website is truly amazing. It has widgets of videos of people using sign language to help navigate through out the site. Technology like that should embody every site for all deaf web users.

Jonathan is really not here for Universal Design his rhetoric is quite comical in the way that he uses comparisons for it(UD). It seems as if the more you read his claim is becoming for opinion based vs. factual even with his citations being included in the text.

When Jonathan states that "UD is a myth..." I look forward to seeing what he means by this claim.

Essentially, "Universal Design and Its Discontents" debates the advantages and shortcomings of a Universal Design, or a design technology that would be able to effectively convey rhetoric to a universal audience. The article is presented in an online position paper, an interesting choice of mode that is very accessible to many of the academic discourse community; this keeps with the accessibility theme of the discussion. The bulk of the article discusses the inclusion of communication for the disabled community, such as the ASL community. Essentially, while UD is an interesting research and compelling supposition (of something that can be very helpful), I am reluctant to say that it can become a reality.

Like the Albers article from Unit One, I believe that UD is definitely a dynamic concept because communication is constantly evolving. UD would probably shift the rhetoric of media closer to being more accessible for a wide audience demographic. It would definitely be an interesting supplement to develop in the future.

I sympathize for these people because I understand that it is difficult for people to develop a reliable, working aid for their disabilities. Furthermore, institutions focused on "progressiveness" and profit are reluctant to spend more than necessary on these developments; they'd rather spend money on somebody who could potentially work just as hard but without the aid. Could this be a stigma towards people with a disability? Generally, people classified as disabled in anyway are stereotyped as being less able/healthy than people who aren't. Could this reluctance be partially discriminate?

I concur. While I do acknowledge that there's merit to traditional handwriting (handwriting is better for memory), I also acknowledge that people of different contexts and situations may find reading and writing difficult. For example, many bilingual people are able to rattle off in their second languages, but are very slow to read and comprehend what they've read.

In reference to my post, a lot of this could be due to context.

This is another case of interesting mode choice. I really admire how they created an interdisciplinary study with Applied Linguistic elements; it really shows their dedication to the topic. I would really like to know how the academic discourse community responded to their rhetoric. Is their research widely accessible, though?

Rather than thinking of people with disabilities as "others", we should be helping them by creating more accessible technologies and information, but also by creating a dialogue about what would make their lives easier and how they live with a disability and see if we can create something out of their experiences. As technical writers, we aren't always going to have the answers even know what questions to ask. Going to someone and listening to them and their experiences is essential to making the best possible product for the public or any consumer.

Another benefit of universal design spoken by someone who identifies as a disabled person. These narratives should be the ones that are heard loudest and first. Knowing the author reaffirms my belief that universal design is the right thing to strive for.

Again, I completely understand where Godden in coming from. Having accessible information is the right thing to do as to not withhold information from potential consumers. But it is always important to consider the individual vs the general. Even though universal design is beneficial for everyone, it doesn't mean everyone would want to use that technology. (But that doesn't mean we still don't try as creators.)

I understand that point that Godden is trying to make: one technology shouldn't be placed higher or overshadow a previous technology just because it is more accessible? Some people still use pen and paper even through typing up notes can be more accessible to more people. It's all about considering the audience, I believe, and asking the appropriate questions. Consider what the consumer wants before anything else.

I find that this ideal will always hold true, for the world holds thousands of languages, yet people fail to convey their exact ideas with each other even in the same language. People are all different, and contexts vary across culture. Even if Universal Grammar were plausible (a common language inherent in all humans- as suggested by Noam Chomsky but disproved of by Daniel Everett), rhetoric would still have the issue of conveying the same meaning. For example, if everybody were to speak a single language, then contextual differences may make it difficult for two culturally clashing conversationalists to understand a dialogue- such as Shinto Buddhism to a Catholic. Even in English, it is difficult for colloquialism to translate across other native English speaking countries. Essentially, while Universal Design is a "Utopian ideal" and could bring about accessibility for a wider audience (as Andrew McClure stated ), I believe that it just isn't possible as of now or any near future endeavors.

This is the first time we are reading about accessibility from a person that labels themselves as "disabled" which I think is something to consider heavily. I believe that hearing the voices of the minority is always the first step when confronting an issue. Knowing that this author identifies as disabled has definitely got me interested in what he has to say.

After reading the Williams's piece, this seems really harsh. The idea of universal design is so important to digital creation and providing information to all people. And Williams proved that accessibility is a good thing and can "contribute to higher levels of education and perhaps higher levels of income as well."

I understand where Hsy is coming from, really I do. But it sounds to me that he's complaining about not being included or able to understand a piece of publication. While it is important to consider audience in all possibilities, this was a journal for people interested in Deaf Studies, who would know ASL. They would be the primary audience. The secondary audiences would be included Hsy, and yes, they did not accommadate for him...but isn't that what most people with impaired sight feel when looking at screens? Or hearing impaired people when they see a video without subtitles? If Hsy actually knows how it feels to not be accommodated, I find it highly problematic that he can still say that universal design is a myth. If the DSDJ thought about universal design, he would have been able to listen to video clips or read the transcript just fine. Universal design is all about not excluded any potential audience, not just the disabled audience.

But if we all will end up with disability at one point in our lives, why wouldn't we try to be accessible so we won't be neglected when it's our turn? I find this argument to be very grim and concerning. If disability is inevitable for all of humanity, then we should try harder to commit to universal design, not try to devalue it.

I assume that he makes these statements with the intent that he will either prove or debunk them.

This is the mode and main idea. In comparison to an academic paper or pdf, this mode seems much more accessible to any communications-related community; the tone seems a lot more informal and inclusive. I assume that they intend to make the audience outreach go beyond the academic community.

Universal Design eliminates people from the workforce. Like this section of the article says, " voice recognition software for the visually impaired could be seen to eliminate the need for assistants and note-takers"(Godden and Hsy). One benefit of universal design is the idea that it could get rid of some of the stressful jobs that some people have to do. Universal design is also accessible to everyone. It is also less reliant on people. Disabled people don't have to worry about relying on another person's help. They can figure it out, and do it by themselves. Everyone can live to be more independent on themselves.

I find the examples that Clark uses to describe the idea of universal design to be very interesting. He uses examples like a unicorn, Holy Grail, or earthly Paradise to describe it. I think that describing universal design like that is a little over-exaggerating. Although it is impossible to make something that helps everyone, it is not that hard to make like the examples the person in this statement thinks it is. No one has ever tried to ever reach the goal. This is the reason why I believe that Clark thinks this way.

Universal design is the idea of helping every person no matter what their ability is. But this statement says, "Rob Imrie interrogates the limitations of the universal subject that UD posits, nothing that "UD rejects design that fails to respond to, and interact with, everyone irrespective of their socio-cultural status and bodily capabilities and capacities""(Godden and Hsy). The main idea of universal design is to help everyone of every kind no matter who they are or what there capability is. But why does Imrie say that it rejects the idea to interact with everyone. I believe that this statement is not true or it is just what one person thinks about the idea. Universal design is supposed to interact with everyone and help everyone in a sociable environment.

I disagree with this statement. I believe that reciprocity is a universal subject. Reciprocity means the exchanging things for mutual benefits. Why does this statement say that, "it should not need to flatten us out into a universal subject in the process."(Godden and Hsy)? Is it saying that is should not be considered universally? Is it saying that the idea of universal design should not be reciprocated? Why not? Universal design would only help people and make their lives better. It is not going to harm anyone. I think that universal design should be brought outside of the world. It will do good things for everyone.

Failure of universal design, does not mean that we have failed to recognize every single person in the world. I think of failure of being one step closer to success. We learn from our mistakes. Failure helps us recognize what we have done wrong, so that we can improve on it the next time we try something. We will be able to do what we need to do with caution, and realize that nobody is perfect.

I understand that the goal of UD is problematic because; that would require the world to be of no mistakes and everyone would be living in their own perfect world, but that doesn't mean that it's going to harm anyone. UD is an impossible goal to achieve, and I'm pretty sure everyone is aware of it, but it will be helpful to everyone. UD would make everyone's life a whole lot easier. We're not saying that we should change every product or every product that we make from now on has to flow with the idea of universal design. If every product in the world went with the idea of universal design, then the world would be too perfect and people would be too scared to live in it. I am just saying that some projects along the way could be thought with the idea of being universally designed.

UD often fails because; it doesn't have a particular audience. All objects, resources, or tools have a particular audience. I do believe that UD is not possible since, it is hard not to focus on a particular audience. If products didn't have a specific audience then, it might fail in the real world or no one would ever notice it. Universal design is a difficult idea to cover, since you have to think of every kind of person while making your invention.

Why is Rick against the idea of universal design? He is a disable academic, so shouldn't he be for it? Universal design can do many good things for us. It might be impossible for inventors to think about every kind of person when making their object, but I believe that they already made a few objects that could be made for everyone. For example, in the previous article that I read called: " Disability, Universal Design, and the Digital Humanities" it talks about an automated garage door. Automated garage doors close by themselves with just a click of one button. I believe that everyone can or is able to use this kind of tool. It's a tool that can make everyone's life a whole lot easier.

With the acceptance of UD failing, we can understand how to incorporate it into society. Nothing is perfect. Similar to stereotyping and prejudice, we have to accept that people will be biased no matter what. We can try until we are red in the face, but we will always have a prejudice towards people. We simply must accept it and hope to catch ourselves when we make these judgments and get to know the person. Hopefully we can inact that concept with UD.

The more we work with these people, the better off we are. I can't help but think of Stephen Hawking and how he is able to function in society with the help of technology. Although, he is not one hundred percent able bodied, he is still valued in society because he has technology that allows him to speak. Without that technology, we would not have known how smart and beneficial he is to society. I am sure there are so many people who could benefit society but they do not have the means or access. With UD, we can try to make that happen.

I believe everyone has value in society and if we do not allow them the same access that any abled-bodied person would have does not seem fair. It is a major setback because of their condition. If we do not even the playing field, they will face much more difficulty and will be seen as lesser human beings, all because society makes it so. The fact that the author says that there is no such thing as a text that meets everyone's needs is true, but we should work towards a text that includes as many people as we can.

I completely agree with this statement. We should all be working to improve the accessibility of our digital communication. We all grow old, we could potentially get into an unfortunate accident to where we become disabled, anything can happen and we should be working at improving technology. Whether it is a suggestion or developing an entirely new software.

This article is disproving the idea of UD. The first author, Jonathan mentions that UD is a myth and inaccessibility can be socially productive. We can try to include disabled people in the way we function in society but we also have to accept their differences. The author goes on to discuss ASL and some of the inaccessible features such as lack of audio or captions in video clips. The second author, Rick is a disabled academic who speaks from personal experiences. He says that UD and the resistance to digital tools both posit a universal subject; and DH needs to balance its embrace of UD with further attention to the particulars of embodied experience.He goes on to say that everyone is different and with UD, we are basically trying to get everyone to be the same or operate the same.

The world will never be perfect and the sooner we understand that, the closer we will be at achieving a better society. We have to accept our differences and go from there. I don't think we should label disabled people as disabled. I think there should be a better term to describe their differences because it makes them seem as if they are lesser. The author says "disabled/extraordinary/eccentric bodies," as another way of phrasing the challenges people must face. It's a better way of phrasing their differences.

It is important that we accommodate for disabled people. Not everyone wants to ask for another person's help. Everyone wants some sort of independence and to completely rely on someone else can be hurt one's pride.

Unfortunately, technology is imperfect and can fail us so sometimes people have to ask for help and that is fine, but there should be an effective way of providing assistance for those disabled.

In the previous article by George Williams I mentioned that if you don't have a specific audience, it becomes extremely hard to reach people. To be forced to accommodate for all audiences can confuse the audience on what your purpose is.

I've always wondered how people who were blind could go see a movie or video or something visual. I know there are ways of speaking about what is going on in a scene like a book would describe something. However, I don't necessarily think there would be a completely genuine accessible way for blind people to watch a film, which would mean that Universal design is a Utopian concept.

It is almost impossible to please and accommodate everyone. It would be lovely to include everyone in all digital communication, but there are so many different factors that can affect the way a website functions.

This quote is very sad, but it is also true. I agree with this quote that if everyone does live long enough then, disability is a trait that we all inhabit. It all depends on how well we take care of ourselves. If we take good care of ourselves for a long time then, we might not inhabit any disability. If we don't take good care of ourselves then, we might become disabled. But like this statement says, "disability conjures an elusive future"(Godden and Hsy). Disability appears to be difficult to remember or recall. This means that if we do dwell on disability for a long time, it will get harder to remember how acquired it.

The author's opinion in this article is totally different from the previous article called: "Disability, Universal Design, and the Digital Humanities." This article states that it is impossible to make a device that is accessible in every language and in every sensor, motor, or knowledge. The other article("Disabilities, Universal Design, and the Digital Humanities") encourages inventors to make designs that are universal. In other words, it encourages people to make designs that are pleasing to everyone. I believe that both of the article are correct. While it would make the world better for everyone to live in if all designs were universal so that everyone could have access to them, it is also not very realistic to believe that people can make designs that satisfy everyones' needs at the same time. Not every inventor is going to think about everybody in the world while making their invention. They are only going to focus on a particular audience because, if they did focus on everyone then, they would never succeed in making their new device or tool.

To me this is one of the more interesting and saddening quotes of the article. Robert McRuer notes that as we age all of us will eventually succumb to one disability or another. This reminds me of the saying, "...we start dieing the day we're born". That hits home for me as well since I've seen my own vision degrade over the years. When I do not have my glasses on, I rely on familiar shapes and my memory of what certain words look like since I can't make out each individual letter.

When we as technical writers are creating content whether for the web or any kind of print media, we need to be conscious of potential disabilities. When we write for the web, some of that content may always be on the web. People will age with the content. What could have been clear and effective writing in the present, could be confusing or even wordy in the future. There may be no solution to making sure our content is just as effective now as it will be 50 years from now. By planning for as many disabilities and trying to reach as many audiences by using every mode possible, we as writers could get close this Utopian ideal. As I learned from a Lynda.com tutorial, good writing is already SEO optimized. I believe that applies to all writing. Good writing is good writing. Shakespeare lives on because his content was good enough to outlive changes in language. By accounting for disabilities we too can improve the chances of our writing outlasting ourselves.

When I'm performing chores around the house, I like to have something visual on in the background. Usually that takes the shape something on Netflix, usually The Office or some kind of sporting event. However, sometimes I get adventurous and I will put a movie on that has subtitles. I then find that when I am sweeping the floor I can't just listen to the noise and speech and understand generally what is going on. I have to keep looking up to read the subtitles. Then I stop cleaning.

I thought of this when I read this quote by Jonathan. There were video clips during the discussion but those who were hearing impaired would have trouble understanding the content when they can't hear what is being said, especially if that audio is voice over. While I'm not trying to compare my difficulty to theirs, a user's interaction with the video content can be hampered without proper attention to something as simple as subtitles. I find it interesting that even hip hop concerts are beginning to incorporate ASL translators too sign the lyrics of the song. This is something I find massively impressive as some rappers rap faster than others. This way even though there are no subtitles, someone who is deaf can understand what is being said and follow along.

As people become more conscious of those with disabilities I look forward to see how languages like ASL could be incorporated into more public events in the future.

I find this passage interesting since Jonathan was confronted with his own "audiocentric privilege" by attending a DSDJ event that was geared primarily for those who speak American Sign Language and he, as a non-ASL attendee, was left out of many of the proceedings due to his lack of linguistic (American Sign Language) understanding.

We spend so much time thinking about how someone who is deaf is left out, but very rarely are we personally experience what this is like in real life. Traveling to other countries I have come close to this feeling since I did not speak Italian or French (the French didn't appreciate me trying to speak German) and was left out of conversations, billboards and television. Like I assume a deaf person would, I needed to pay attention to facial movements and hand gestures.

Something that could help us all is to try to attempt to watch a video without sound, take notes and see if we come close to figuring out what the actual film is about without listening. This again could apply to our website since any video we could use, could benefit from having a video that is accessible to the deaf by adding subtitles and transcriptions, which also increase optimization.

I find this passage interesting in that Ron Mace explains what it is that we technical writers are trying to do. He explains that in (information) architecture, all products and environments need to be "usable to the greatest extent possible..." He also mentions and I agree, that this connects very well with the article by George Williams.

The idea of universal design is to include as many audiences as possible. We may never reach them all, but in the pursuit of that lofty ideal we will find the most success as technical writers.

I also like that Mace uses the word "environment". This is a great way to describe how we interact and will continue to interact with websites for example, in the future. In creating this content, we are creating an environment that should be usable to multiple audiences. By creating an environment for just one small audience we are creating content that has bad usability and will eventually become obsolete as users find better and more efficient ways to communicate.

Universal Design is a necessary ideal when trying to appeal to as many audiences as possible. I like how Yergeau et al acknowledges that universal design is a "means rather than an end". In both readings, I believe that the ideals of universal design to reach all audiences may be impossible, but the pursuit of it is worth the trouble. He also goes on to explain that there will never be a text that is all things to all people. I believe that this means we need to strive to achieve universal design, but also know in the back of our minds that it may be impossible. Since the purpose of technology is to assist humans, our job is to assist those humans by doing our best to apply the concepts of universal design to our work. There may always be someone that is left out of our designs, but as long as we try to include as many people as we can we will find ourselves included on the team as well as employed.

I think this is a great quote about how the world has and does view those with special needs. As a past history major one always has to research a little more when the word "eccentric" is used. Often that word can describe a whole litany of conditions when used in older texts.

I also like the phrase that Rick uses, "Eccentric and extraordinary bodies have the potential to puncture the illusion of the universal..." People that have special needs are actually the people that can be the reason that the needle of technology is pushed forward. As Williams mentions, "All technology is assistive in the end." Some may look at those with disabilities as holding back efficiency by requiring assistance. But that assistance is what can push technology forward, especially when applied to universal design. By making technology easier to use for as many audiences as possible, we are improving not only the tech but helping puncture the illusion that Rick mentions in the above quote.

This is a definition that comes up again in William's article about Universal Design. Building physical and digital environments can provide barrier free access to people with disabilities. By doing this with Universal Design those with disabilities can operate more independently and rely on humans less. But Rick goes on to explain that at times, technology fails and humans can still offer assistance that technology cannot yet provide.

I can understand that when one goes through life with special needs, they may start to feel like a burden to the people around them. This guilt can force someone to use technology, especially if that person doesn't have anyone they can depend on to help them consistently. Technology can fill that gap. But as the author explains there are limitations, but those limitations are what will fuel future innovation.

American Sign Language uses embodied actions, manual gestures and facial expressions. Jonathan explains that all of these expressions are crucial in creating a system of grammar for those with speaking disabilities. He mentions that Flash Video clips are crucial for content. I'm not sure how exactly this helps, but in my own experience I have seen this help with autistic and disabled children from my time as a substitute teacher with Atlanta Public Schools.

During my day with an elementary level special needs class I noticed that at times the students could easily work on a task such as math for a few minutes, no longer, before losing interest or becoming frustrated. However, when they were placed in front of a computer and provided a video about math, they were not only immediately engaged, but visibly happier. Having taken this class thus far, I now find that experience even more interesting considering our reading assignment. When other modes of communication were presented to children with learning disabilities the same information that had minutes before been ignored on paper was now, it seemed, being learned and a more full comprehension accomplished.

In our strategy, we need to see where we might be able to add a video or a visual element that may help not only a child, but an adult as well. These children will eventually become adults and will need this type of assistance in the future. Since technical writers are in the business of taking something that is complex and making it simpler and easier to understand, it would behoove us think about this when possible in creating our content. Text only content is boring to most, but with someone who may be suffering from a learning disability it could be almost impossible to understand the material. This would be very frustrating if the content was a necessary part of their daily life.

I believe that Jane Bringold is correct in her assertion that Universal Design is a bit Utopian. The "Utopian Ideal" of Universal Design seems more theoretical than practical. I would compare this to translating languages in literature. There are words, phrases and feelings that may not exist in one language but are very important and intrinsic in another. To me, in translating different media to other mediums, there will always be something that is lost. Whether just watching a movie with no sound and subtitles or reading a book and then viewing the movie, elements of the original content will be lost for different audiences. Therefore striving for a that "Utopian Ideal" is not a worthless endeavor since it will bring us closer and closer to Universal Design and thus closer better comprehension of content. But there may always be a slight disconnect between mediums. So when applied to technical writing, I believe that our goal is to get as close as we can to Universal Design so that our content can be as inclusive and effective as possible. The more audiences the content can speak to, the more valuable that content can be. Also, the more valuable the creator/writer of that content will be...

This passage is quite interesting since I too after reading this article, had to confront my own "Anglophone privilege". While playing guitar with a band, I use my ears to listen to the notes of the bass guitar and the rhythm of the drums to find out where I need to come in. When I work I use my ears to listen to any and every noise related to a segway. I have a 6th sense now. I know every way a segway can sound when it hits something. I honestly can't imagine trying to do my job without my hearing. It would be possible, but much more difficult. This why I was very worried when I had a potential loss in hearing at an indoor gun range. WEAR HEARING PROTECTION. Or don't shoot guns.

But some people do have to perform their jobs without the use of their ears or eyes.