Access, Information Inequality, and Different Ability

1. Watch the MediaSite video on “Access, Information Inequality, and Different Ability” and post your thoughts on your blog.

Different Ability

I agree completely with the sentiment that the term “different ability” has some advantages over “disability” especially as it shows that each person’s different abilities have value. I think that the AP style guide still uses “disabled” and I will use that term in the following comments.

I have had significant interaction with people who have disabilities but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a person who is blind use a computer before. I was very impressed with that and it was clearly from a few years ago. I know that Microsoft has done some really great things for accessibility but it was fascinating to watch someone use it and teach others to use it.

I was impressed by the library (Coventry branch?) that emphasized access for people who are deaf. It was fun to hear about the various ways they catered to patrons who are deaf and those interested in learning sign language. The student in the class who worked there sounded proud (rightfully) of that emphasis.

In the school library where I work, we have good wheelchair access with an open layout and wide aisles. It is possible for those who use wheelchairs to use our tables and computers. I am not aware of any services we could offer to students who are blind or deaf, but I am certain we would have the support of the school system should such services become necessary.

Information Inequality

When Dr. Roland asked what all of the places with the highest illiteracy rate had in common, I immediately thought of 2 things: war and corruption.

There are those that would tell you that war helps build economies. No. Never has and never will. No.

Additionally, development workers have concluded that many nations simply can’t be improved until corruption is dealt with.

I know we would all like to see education improve and we see it as a key to reducing illiteracy as well as having many other positive benefits. Decades of donations made to impoverished nations has not substantially changed things as a whole although there are certainly some of the intended individuals who have been helped. I love hearing about stories such as John Wood’s Room to Read and others like it. It seems that people are learning (or more correctly re-learning) that smaller is often better when it comes to these kinds of projects. The more local a project is and the more involvement from those who will most benefit, the more efficient the spending and the more optimistic we can be about outcomes.

I’m reminded of what I learned about Andrew Carnegie’s philanthropy in establishing libraries in the USA where one of his requirements for those receiving money was that they spend a certain percentage of it on materials of local interest. He found that it made people more committed to their new library and development workers and donors have found something similar to be true in building schools and libraries in the developing world today.