More Apps & Accessories

/

Back in May, I did a couple of blog posts about Apple products for people with disabilities:

Apps For That?
May 11, 2016

Apps For That? Follow-Up
May 24, 2016

It looks like Apple has again rearranged some of its disability-related products, so I want to link to them and share that with people who read this blog:

Operating System Accessibility

An overview of built-in accessibility features of Apple’s computers and mobile devices.

iOS Moble App Store

Apple still maintains a list of scores of mobile device “Apps” designed to be helpful to people with disabilities.

iPhone Accessories - Home Automation

This is where Apple lists third-party add-ons that control household appliances through the iPhone and iPad.

iMac Accessibility - Accessibility

Apple has added a collection of attachments that help disabled people control and interact with Macintosh computers.

I am an Apple person, so I naturally gravitate towards Apple products. One of these days I do plan to write about similar products from other companies. Please feel free to comment below about non-Apple products you use or know about that make computers and mobile devices accessible, and that turn off-the-shelf technologies into adaptive solutions for people with disabilities.

Weekly Reading List

/

Disability reading from last week …

Six conditions that are ‘as bad as or worse than death’
Adam Boult, The Telegraph, UK - August 6, 2016

It’s probably tempting for those of us familiar with disability to condemn this study, on the premise that even asking which disabilities are “worse than death” is, by definition, offensive and harmful. However, I think it’s useful to measure the exact shape and extent of this kind of deadly ableism. At least the study’s authors acknowledge the problem: “… researchers noted that, as none of the patients had experienced the conditions described in the survey, they may have misjudged how they would feel in such circumstances.” That’s putting it mildly. I also think it’s worth noting that “living in a nursing home” is also considered “worse than death,” which I would hope gives long term care policy-makers some appropriate pause. I wonder how that figure compares with “needing everyday paid care assistance in your own home?”

Victims of Sagamihara massacre at disabled facility are forever nameless
Philip Brasor, The Japan Times - August 6, 2016

There was quite a lot of debate last week about whether what to make of the fact that parents of the disabled people murdered by a former caregiver at a facility in Japan have decided not to let the victims’ names be released. We want to respect families’ wishes in these matters. At the same time, keeping the victims anonymous blunts the impact their deaths should have on the public consciousness, and in a way, robs them again of their inherent dignity and personhood. There’s no getting around cultural differences here, too. Is disability really that much more stigmatized in Japan than it is in “The West?” If so, should we condemn that, offer a different cultural understanding of disability, or leave it be? These are thorny issues, but either way, it hurts not to know their names or anything about them.

Scott Silveri's 'Speechless' is more than 'the disability show'
Chris Barton, LA Times - August 4, 2016

Based on this report of a Television Critics Association summer press tour panel, the creators and actors of “Speechless” know what they’re doing and are on the right track to make a really good show featuring a significantly disabled character. I’d like to know more about what Mica Fowler plans to bring to his performance as a disabled actor portraying a character with a very similar disability. I also wish Chris Barton didn’t feel it necessary to say “special needs” instead of “disability” in his article. Still, I am hopeful this new show will succeed when it premieres in the Fall.

Harry Potter and the Inaccessible Book
Karen Hitselberger, Claiming Crip - August 1, 2016

Equal access is important … essential really … irrespective of the nature of the thing that is or isn’t accessible. Karen does a great job of arguing why Harry Potter books, in particular, are so meaningful for disabled people, but there’s no need to justify the demand for an audiobook edition. If it’s offered to the public at a fair price, it should be available to the public in accessible formats, including audio, at a fair price. Banks, post offices, and schools must be accessible. So must movie theaters, fast food joints selling unhealthy food, and dive bars and strip clubs, too. It’s a pretty simple principle.

Jobs Report Offers Mixed Message On Disability Employment
Shaun Heasley, Disability Scoop - August 5, 2016

As the article crucially points out, it’s going to be awhile before we are able to track and fully understand employment / unemployment figures for Americans with disabilities. For one thing, most people I think are still confused about the difference between the “unemployment rate” and the “participation rate,” and how the two figures relate. And we’ve just not been collecting comparable data for long enough yet. Still, we should probably note and remember that at some point in 2008, someone in the U.S. Labor Department decided it was important to collect this data. Small administrative changes like that can be easily overlooked, but have a real long-term effect. I wonder if there are other, similarly useful data collection measures we should be doing that we’re not?

Disability Etiquette in 3 Questions

/

Because we can never have enough guides to Disability Etiquette ...

I’ve been wanting to write a post about "disability etiquette" for quite awhile. Mainly, I want to try to come up with a simple set of guidelines that covers the essentials of what we consider “disability etiquette.” First, I think we have to be clear about what “disability etiquette” is for.

Is it meant to make social interactions less annoying and humiliating for disabled people, so our everyday lives suck a little less? Or, is it designed to make non-disabled people feel more confident interacting with disabled people, so they will interact with us instead of shying away?

Obviously, it’s a little of both, and I don’t think the two goals necessarily conflict. With both in mind, let’s take a shot at a three-point guide, structured by three very basic questions I think non-disabled have about us, and that we have about how we actually want social interactions to go:

Question 1:

Is it okay to ask a disabled person about their disability?

Answer:

It depends on the situation and how well you know the disabled person. If you’re a stranger or an occasional acquaintance, it’s hard to justify asking a disabled person about the specifics of his or her disability. Even if you know them pretty well, if you’re talking about work, or your last vacation, then it’s probably awkward and inappropriate to suddenly say, “You know, I’ve always wondered, what is your disability actually called?” On the other hand, if you are a wheelchair user in the emergency room because you’re violently ill, it’s probably okay for the nurse to ask for some details, even if he or she is a complete stranger.

If you’re not sure whether you know someone well enough to ask, think of an analogy. In a similar situation and level of acquaintance, would you ask whether someone is married or has kids? Would you dig further and ask if they are divorced or widowed? The better you already know and trust someone … and the better they know and trust you … the more it’s potentially okay to ask personal questions like that, including questions about a person’s disability.

Above all, think about why you feel the urge to ask. Do you have a truly practical need to know? Are you asking because you want to know them better as a person? Or, is it just insatiable curiosity, like an itch you’re just dying to scratch? If your motivation is more like the latter, it’s a good sign you should probably leave it alone.

What’s it all about? Appropriateness.

Question 2:

Is it okay to ask if a disabled person needs some help?

Answer:

Asking is the key. It’s almost always nice to ask. Problems arise when people dive in to help without asking, or when they ask, but then don’t listen, or overrule the answer.

If you ask a disabled person if they need help getting into or out of a building, and the answer is, “Yes!”, ask how you can help, and do what you can realistically do to help, according to the disabled person’s instructions. If the answer is, “No thank you,” or even “NO! GO AWAY!”, respect the answer, and don’t take it personally. That's right. Don't. Take. It. Personally. That can be hard to do if you’ve just been snapped at. But, if your original motivation was really to help, then it shouldn’t matter if the answer was polite, rude, or through gritted teeth. If you find yourself feeling personally offended, ask yourself whether your real priority was making the other person’s day a little easier, or was your actual goal to feel a little better about yourself. There’s nothing wrong with boosting your ego a bit by helping others, but things start to get out of balance when that’s why you offer people help.

Of course, if the disabled person takes you up on your offer, first ask how you can help and then follow the disabled person’s instructions. Don’t take “Yes, thanks” as your cue to take charge of the situation. That is exactly the sort of thing that causes many of us to resist help, especially from strangers, even when we probably really do need it. Also, following instructions is critical, even if you're sure you know what you're doing. The disabled person usually knows much better than you do how you can help them, and may also be more aware of the safest ways to do things for both of you.

What’s it all about? Control.

Question 3:

For real now, no messing around … which term should I use? Disabled Person? Person with a Disability? Physically Challenged? Special Needs?

Answer:

This one can frustrating, for sure. It seems like we are always changing our minds and can never agree even among ourselves which terms to use and encourage others to use. Given that reality, your best bet is to take a two step approach to terminology.

Start out using “disability” and “disabled” as your default terms. A lot of disabled people still don’t like “disabled” and “disability,” but it does seem to be the most universally understood and accepted term, applicable to all kinds of disabilities and across all cultures. Whether it makes complete sense to your way of thinking at the moment, it is the most widely accepted way of referring to physical or mental impairments.

If those words are accepted with no comment, you’re fine. If a disabled person objects though, and says they prefer other terms, then respect their preference, whatever it might be.

It’s worth noting that there is currently a debate going on inside the disability community between person-first language … where you say “person with a disability,” and identity first language ... where you say “disabled person” or just “disabled.” If you’re not disabled yourself, you really don’t need to worry about this. Just go with what the disabled person or people you are with seem to like better.

Above all, never lecture to a disabled person on why your preferred terms are correct, and the terms they prefer is wrong or misinformed. You might know something deeper and more significant about disability than a person who actually lives with disabilities everyday, but it's unlikely. In any case, telling a disabled person that they're doing disability wrong is just obnoxious. Don’t do it.

What’s it all about? Respect.

Is there more to “disability etiquette” than these three things … Appropriateness, Control, and Respect? I’m not sure there is.

Shopping Strategies

/

One of the most energy-expending things I do on a semi-regular basis is shop for groceries. I enjoy a few aspects of grocery shopping, especially the part when I am almost done with it, but mostly it’s just a tremendous pain that forces me to confront my physical disabilities head on. I’m not tired all day after a big shopping trip, but I try really hard not to shop on a day when I have any other obligations.

Recently, I made three deliberate changes in how I lay in supplies for myself:

1. I order bulk goods online and have them shipped to my door. This works great for non-perishable foods I use a lot, physically large items, and very heavy items. For example: laundry and cleaning supplies, canned goods, cereal, snack chips, paper towels, toilet paper. I use Jet.com, an online retailer that ships for free, and also Amazon.com which also offers free shipping when you have an Amazon Prime membership. It’s a little more expensive than going to Walmart or Costco, but it more than pays for itself in convenience and sheer physical accessibility.

2. I maintain a running shopping list using the Grocery IQ iPhone app, and I try to eat away at it with small trips for just a few items that can generally fit in one or two light bags I can carry from my car into my apartment in one trip. It’s usually easier on me to do several short shopping stops like this than one big trip. If I'm already going to be out for something else, might stop and get just bacon and bread, checking those off my list and making it that much smaller for my next real shopping trip.

3. When I do have to do a very large single-trip shopping, I try to arrange it so a friend or paid aide will be available to help me carry all the groceries from my car into my apartment. I use the electric cart at my local big supermarket, so the actual browsing and choosing products doesn’t bother me that much. It’s the getting there, parking, walking in, getting out, and especially the car-to-apartment trip and putting stuff away that’s the real killer. A bit of help with that once a month is a nice thing, and even a good investment if you have to pay someone for it.

These steps accomplish two things. First, It makes shopping easier for me, less draining, more accessible. Second, and even more important, because these strategies make shopping easier, I am much less likely to procrastinate and go without important supplies. One thing about physical disabilities and chronic illness is that unfortunately, just not doing a thing is always a possibility. That’s certainly true for things we’d like to do, but also for things that, strictly speaking, we really have to do. And shopping is one of those things I have always found it relatively easy to put off, or do in a half-assed way that feels better in the moment, but is bad for me in the long run.

That’s why it feels remarkably great to have these strategies that have made shopping, to me, a much more feasible and even satisfying chore. It’s never too late to learn to adult, and to adapt.

Throwback Thursday

/

Three years ago in Disability Thinking: A Legal Victory For Choice
August 4, 2013

I wonder how Jenny is doing now? I wonder if she’s still living with the couple who were supportive of her. I wonder if her parents have gotten used to Jenny’s new life, or if they’re still bitter and afraid that something terrible will happen to her. I wonder how many more people like Jenny have exercised greater autonomy thanks to Jenny’s advocacy and the court’s decision.

Two years ago in Disability Thinking: Binge Watch: Classic Ironside
August 4, 2014

One of these days I probably will shut up about Ironside. It’s still one of my favorite TV depictions of disability though, and I still think it’s under-appreciated inside disability culture. That’s understandable. It’s a very old show, at least 3 generations back from the current generation of TV shows. And it looks it. Pretty much everything about it, from the formulaic plots, visual style, and strained efforts to keep everything light and frothy, smack of the kind of TV everyone’s grandparents enjoyed. It also has a fatal flaw in today’s standards of progressive TV. Chief Ironside is a disabled character played by a non-disabled actor. Still, Ironside is remarkable for how it normalized a pretty significant disability, and made it work in a decidedly mainstream show that was extremely popular in its day. At the same time, it occasionally dug into the deeper issues of disability in ways that very few current TV shows or movies ever manage to do. For the umpteenth time, I recommend watching Light At The End Of The Journey. It shows how Ironside’s disability is both a minor visual detail and, on occasion, an absolutely meaningful plot point.

Three Threats: 2. Police Violence

/

From a July 6, 2016 blog post:

“Over the next few days, I plan on writing a series of posts about what I believe to be three of the most dangerous and imminent threats to disabled people in America today. By "threats" I don't mean garden-variety injustices, or everyday ableism ... even though some days they seem to eat away at our souls. I'm talking about specific measures or trends that threaten our actual survival. And by "survival," I mean our economic viability, our physical and psychological independence, and our lives and safety.”

On July 11, I tried to describe and explain Populist Backlash. I planned to focus on "Re-Institutionalization" as the second of the Three Threats. However, while I am still quite worried that disability policy could, in the next few years, veer back towards a new segregation, instead I'm going to talk about a more imminent threat: the risk of injury or death in encounters with law enforcement.

***

I was going to start with a carefully-assembled rundown of recent events to prove that this is actually an active threat, and not just an over-publicized series of unfortunate mishaps. Instead, I suggest simply reading the two articles linked below. The second one is also mentioned and linked in the first. Both together provide what feels like a complete overview of how police violence specifically affects people with disabilities, in ways that often combine with racial bias, sexism, hobophobia, and transphobia, but are also distinguishable from them.

Four Essays by People of Color on Disability and Policing
David Perry, How Did We Get Into This Mess? - August 2, 2016

Charles Kinsey's Story Is About Race. It's Also About Ableism
Finn Gardiner, Manuel Díaz , Lydia X. Z. Brown, Sojourners - July 27, 2016

These incidents are horrifying and almost always morally infuriating as well. It's terrible when disabled people are hurt or killed by police, and it's an outrage that there is almost always a mix of implicit biases, ignorance of basic facts about disabilities, and unjustified fear involved. But, does this really qualify as one of the top three threats disabled people face today? I think it does, and here is a rough sketch of why I do:

- Disabled people have probably always been at unique and distinct risk of police violence. Armed police expect people to look and behave in certain ways, and disabled people, by definition, often can’t conform, even when we want to. Deaf people may not respond to verbal commands. Autistic people may recoil from unexpected engagement or challenge. Physically disabled people can look or sound drunk or drugged. The risk has always been there. It just hasn’t been as recognized as it should be, by police or by disabled people themselves.

- An apparent increase in incidents, and more immediate publicity about them, makes us more aware of the possibility that catastrophic things could happen to us, specifically in encounters with police. This further erodes any sense of safety and acceptance we may have or think we have as disabled people. People who are disabled and black, or gay, or trans, or any combination of other oppressed identities may be more tuned into this danger. Many of us, though, live more sheltered, privileged lives in which our disabilities seem on most days to be relatively minor social inconveniences. For most of my life, it would have never occurred to me, a white, straight male, that police might one day drastically misunderstand me, leading to tragic consequences. Seeing this happen more often, and seeing how nonsensical it is when it does happen, has stripped away a good deal of my unconscious sense of invulnerability. I have always expected condescension. I have only recently begun to worry about my physical safety.

- There may still not be a high probability that any given disabled person will be hurt or killed by police. But any probability is too much, when the consequences are so dire.

- I say "probably," but I don't think we really know. It's a crisis if you know of a threat but have no real idea of it's size or likelihood. We know the consequences. We have some ideas about the causes. But that is about all we know, and that by itself is terrifying.

- Each new incident adds to a sense of danger that probably makes more actual incidents more likely to happen. Everyone is on edge, which does not help.

The main debate about this within the disability community is whether "better police training" can help, or whether it's a comforting but ineffective distraction from broader changes in policing. I think which is the right answer matters less than acknowledging that it is a serious question.

It is tempting, even seductive, to offer up an annual sensitivity training with PowerPoint handouts and call it a problem solved. If mandatory training can reduce the number of people hurt or killed, I'm all for it. Still, we can't separate out this slice of the wider problem of police violence and deem it somehow lesser, or easier to solve ... because it probably isn't. It's not only a serious threat to disabled people today, it's a long term one.

Weekly Reading List

/
Picture of two rows of multicolored books

Things about disability I read last week …

Americans with Disabilities Act
American Association of People with Disabilities - 2015

Last week was the 26th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Here the AAPD offers a beautiful review of the history of disability rights in America, emphasizing the disability activism that led to the ADA, and has continued ever since the law was passed.

My Son With a Disability Deserves the Same Opportunities as Everyone
Carol Glazer, Time - July 26, 2016

There’s nothing new or radical in this editorial. It presents the bare bones structure of the disability rights perspective on disability. It’s a package of ideas that are mostly already accepted by people who are at least minimally aware of the modern understanding of disability. It is written by a parent whose son has a disability … still the most widely accepted, high-credibility messenger on disability for a general, non-specialized, Time Magazine audience. Yet, while the message is obvious, even a bit weak from a disability activist perspective, it’s at least accurate, and still news to most readers who probably haven’t thought about disability for more than ten consecutive seconds at a time. There are good reasons for disability activists to be tired of parents appointing themselves to be our our public mouthpieces. But if they’re going to continue being part of the conversation, it really helps when they at least say the right things, as Ms. Glazer does in this article. She gets it.

Why I Decided to Stop Writing About My Children
Elizabeth Bastos, New York Times - July 29, 2016

I only realized that the writer’s children aren’t disabled after my third reading, because the journey Ms. Bastos describes tracks so well with one of the biggest complaints disabled people have right now about “special needs parents” who go very public about their experiences. Maybe the fact that she can’t lean back on this “advocate” role helped her not only confront her past habits, but confess them as fundamentally wrong. Disability, I think, provides an excuse to parents who might otherwise lay off revealing their children’s private lives in public forums. They have this extra sense of mission, like their confessionals are some sort of public service, and not, fundamentally, selfish or needy. And it all does seem to start with this notion that babies aren’t people, that children are two-dimensional creatures, and yes, that disabled children never gain that third dimension. Every “special needs parent” blogger needs to read this and get radically, bravely honest with themselves, as Elizabeth Bastos has done.

Charles Kinsey's Story Is About Race. It's Also About Ableism.
Finn Gardiner, Manuel Díaz , Lydia X. Z. Brown, Sojourners - July 27, 2016

I don’t want to get into the habit of calling every other hard-hitting editorial I read about disability issues “the best thing I’ve ever read” on whatever subject is at hand. Still, this one is uncommonly great. It covers a very wide range of totally related and very much “in the news” phenomena, and does so with just the right mix of activist terminology, (to be accurate), and plain language, (to be understood). You don’t have to be a university-level sociology student to understand this piece, but if you are, you won’t find it over-simplified. Unlike many such writings, I can also easily imagine some white, privileged, conservative folks finally being persuaded to take these problems seriously … especially some of the (I suspect) many disabled people who have not yet fully accepted that police violence is an issue that affects them, too.

See Around Britain app to help disabled people plan trips
BBC News - August 1, 2016

Here is yet another smartphone app that hopes to provide comprehensive accessibility information for people with disabilities. This one focuses on photos, which is a little different from the crowdsourced accessibility rating apps we usually see, like my favorite, AXSmap. Incorporating photos does seem like a natural progression for this model, since smartphones all have cameras now.

Weekly Watching List: Convention Speakers

/

I have so many thoughts about the party convention speakers with disabilities we saw over the last two weeks. Instead of trying to make some definitive statement about what this sudden increase in disability representation means, I’m just going to post all of the available videos here, and suggest a few things to think about when you watch them.

1. The chronological list starts with Brock Mealer, who spoke at the Republican National Convention. As far as I know, he was the only speaker with a disability at the RNC, and certainly the only one who spoke about anything related to disability as a topic. If I missed someone, please tell me and I will gladly add them to the list.

2. The main question within the disability community seems to be whether the disabled speakers at the Democratic National Convention were signs of real political progress, or just weapons used to exploit one of Donald Trump more distinctive weak points. My thinking leans towards authenticity. I think the breakthrough people are talking about is more or less real. However, I also believe that a disabled speaker can be both authentic and “used" by candidates who may or may not fully understand or buy into disability issues. These positive and negative "spins" are not mutually exclusive.

3. Or, maybe this was all just politicized "inspiration porn." Again, I think something can have inspiration porn qualities, and also be genuinely empowering and substantive at the same time.

4. Individual reactions to these speeches and their meanings are also influenced by pre-existing feelings about the political parties and candidates involved. If you’re a Hillary Clinton hater or skeptic, it takes extra effort to appreciate the historic significance of the DNC's speakers with disabilities. And if you can’t stand Trump, it’s hard to see any value in Brock Mealer’s talk about his injury and rehabilitation. Maybe the best we can do is maintain a bit of loyalty to any disabled speaker, and try to at least entertain the thought that they are at least there because they want to be, and saying things they really believe, whether it completely works for us or not.

5. What is right response to Donald Trump’s offensive mockery of a disabled reporter last fall? It seems likely the DNC's inclusion of disability had something to do with rubbing Trump's nose in the incident, but how significant is Trump’s mockery? How is it connected to disability policies that can help or hurt disabled people much more profoundly than moral outrage and hurt feelings? How can we take non-disabled observers to the next step, from shocked sensibilities to a functional knowledge and interest in actual disability issues?

6. In other words, if this is a real breakthrough, where do we go from here? How do we capitalize on it, regardless of how pure and principled ... or compromised and sullied by partisan politics ... these convention appearances may have been?

Watch the speeches in the clips below, and share your reactions in the comments:

Brock Mealer

I did leave out speeches by non-disabled people who mentioned disability, including Hillary Clinton's Acceptance Speech. That's well worth listening to as well, particularly for the ways she talks about disabled people and disability issues. Here's a beautiful reflection on this by Ingrid Tischer, #CripTheVote: You Have Hillary Clinton to Blame for This Blog Post.