10 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2016
    1. 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

      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.

    2. Eccentric and extraordinary bodies have the potential to puncture the illusion of the universal that UD champions, disorienting and, more importantly, reorienting how we conceive of access and equality.

      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.

    3. In their opening “Access Statement,” Yergeau et al. acknowledge that “Universal design is a process, a means rather than an end. There’s no such thing as a universally designed text. There’s no such thing as a text that meets everyone’s needs. That our webtext falls short is inevitable.

      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.

    4. As Robert McRuer notes, disability does not designate a subset of humanity but a spectral prospect that haunts everyone: “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.

      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.

    5. INTRO:

      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.

    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.

      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.

    7. I feel deeply and urgently the need to be less reliant on other people, but sometimes existing technology can be inadequate—it can break down, be unreliable, or may just be a poor substitution for human help

      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.

    8. in practice UD often fails to attend to the particular as it espouses the universal

      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.

    9. Since ASL is a kinetic language using embodied actions including manual gestures and facial expressions as grammar, Flash Video clips are crucial for content.

      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.

    10. edia 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).

      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.