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.

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.

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.

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.