10 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2016
    1. Dominika Bednarska, for instance, examines how voice recognition software for the visually impaired could be seen to eliminate the need for assistants and note-takers.[14] This is, in fact, one of the great benefits of assistive technology and UD – by building environments, physical and digital, that provide barrier-free access, then People with Disabilities can function more independently, and with less reliance on other people.

      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.

    2. Joe Clark, a specialist in technologies such as captioning and audio description disabled internet users, maintains UD is a myth.[2] I’d say UD is a motivating fiction or tantalizing impossibility: unicorn, Holy Grail, earthly Paradise, whatever.

      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.

    3. In his critique of UD, Rob Imrie interrogates the limitations of the universal subject that UD posits, noting that “UD rejects design that fails to respond to, and interact with, everyone irrespective of their socio-cultural status and bodily capabilities and capacities.”

      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.

    4. Recriprocity could mean mutual care, of and for each other, but it should not need to flatten us out into a universal subject in the process.

      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.

    5. They caution that the inevitable failure of UD “is not a justification for failing to consider what audiences are invited into and imagined as part of a text.” Rather, the recognition of failure at the heart of Universalist paradigms can enable us to attend more closely to the particular embodied orientation of users and stakeholders.

      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.

    6. While we agree UD is an unachievable goal, we would argue that the goal itself is problematic and ultimately inadequate to the continuously evolving situation of not only the inclusion of more and more disabled/extraordinary/eccentric bodies into “normal” society but also the ever-shifting ableness of any body as it moves toward inevitable failure.

      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.

    7. While maximum accessibility is a laudable goal, in practice UD often fails to attend to the particular as it espouses the universal.

      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.

    8. 1. Universal Design and the resistance to digital tools both posit a universal subject; and 2. DH needs to balance its embrace of UD with further attention to the particulars of embodied experience.

      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.

    9. “If we live long enough, disability is the one identity that we all inhabit” (200).[3] In its deferred arrival, UD, like disability, conjures an elusive future.

      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.

    10. Media theorist Jane Bringold observes that UD is not a discrete goal but a “Utopian ideal” (47).[1] No platform will ever be accessible across every language (spoken, written, signed), every medium, and every embodied difference (sensory, motor, cognitive).

      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.