8 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2016
    1. 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 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.

    2. but sometimes existing technology can be inadequate

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

    3. 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

      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?

    4. RICK: As a disabled academic reflecting on the intersections between Universal Design and Digital Humanities, I make two claims: 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.

      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.

    5. As a hearing person who does not know much ASL, I find it intriguing that a commentary section on the topic of audism or “audiocentric privilege” does not provide a link to a PDF that I can read in written English (perhaps one might appear in the future).

      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...

    6. Deaf Studies Digital Journal


      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.

    7. I’d say UD is a motivating fiction or tantalizing impossibility: unicorn, Holy Grail, earthly Paradise, whatever.

      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.

    8. In my thoughts on Universal Design (UD) as a nondisabled person engaged with disability theory and Deaf culture, I make two counter-intuitive claims: 1. UD is a myth; and 2. Inaccessibility can be socially productive.

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