Stuck on the Road
Yesterday I was walking home from doing errands at the grocery store, pharmacy, bank, etc. The snow was ankle-high, but thankfully the sidewalks had been shoveled, so that I didn't have to wade through too much snow. Coming the other way, presumably headed to the same shopping complex I'd just left, was a guy in a power chair. He wasn't on the sidewalk, though; he was in the road, hugging the curb, dodging 30-mile-an-hour traffic. He must've seen me looking at him because he looked back at me and explained, "It's the snow. I can't get to the sidewalk."
I was confused. The sidewalk had been cleared. Why was he still...?
Oh. As I walked further, I realized that the sidewalk had indeed been cleared; but at the curb cuts on both sides of each block, where the snow plow had left the usual piles, the snow crew had only scooped out a narrow pathway, about a foot wide, through each big pile of snow.
Needless to say, the average wheelchair cannot fit through a foot-wide gap; so my neighbor had been forced to trust luck and the judgment of the average Ohio driver--not exactly a good trade for being able to get to the grocery store.
I'm relating this incident because it reminds me of a very important fact: When you are working with accessibility, with assistive technology, or with services for the disabled, you absolutely need first-hand experience of using that technology or that service. Otherwise, you will inevitably miss vitally important things that can make what you were trying to do absolutely useless.
I'm a biomedical engineering student who wants to go into designing assistive technology. I have friends who use wheelchairs. The school I go to is wheelchair-accessible, and I see people taking advantage of that every day. And on top of all of it, I'm autistic, I have trouble filtering sensory input, and that means I almost never miss a detail, to the point that all that detail can overwhelm me. I had walked that stretch of road once already on the way to the store, and seen the way that the snow crews had made only a very narrow path through the piles of snow. And yet--I still had to be told straight out why you couldn't get a wheelchair onto the sidewalk.
Why? After all, you'd think that if anyone would notice, it would be somebody like me. But I have the one disadvantage that makes it almost impossible for me to gather every relevant fact: I don't use a wheelchair. I've never even sat in one for more than an hour. And that simple fact trumps every other advantage I might have when it comes to understanding accessibility.
You know what's scary? There are a lot of people like that--people who know a lot in their heads, but don't have the experience they really need--designing the vast majority of the assistive technology and accessible buildings and education and therapy and all kinds of things that disabled people use. They aren't disabled themselves, or else they don't have the same disability as the people they're designing things for. They've got the exact same disadvantage I had when I couldn't understand why my neighbor was in the road instead of on the sidewalk. And, in many cases, it seems they don't even really understand that they have this disadvantage at all.
If there's one thing that's the absolute most important factor in designing stuff that will be used by people with disabilities, it's that you've got to have people who have the disability in question working on the project. I don't mean a twenty-minute focus group. I don't mean a survey that gets mailed out and replied to by 3% of the recipients. I mean actually getting help from the people who are going to use your product or your service. They're the real experts on what they need; why in the world are people sitting back and saying, "Hey, I've got the degree; they're just the user"? Uh-uh. No. That's the way to design inaccessible buildings, unusable technology, and services that do more harm than good.
I didn't realize for some time that there were more people than just me who had identified this problem. Apparently, some people are working on changing it. There are some engineers who are using a "participatory design" strategy--involving everyone who will be working on or using a product in its design. And of course there's the "user-centered" approach, which can be anywhere from a meaningless buzzword to something actually approaching consulting the users as experts on what they need. But it seems not to be enough. Most of the time, it's still "I'm the expert; you're not; shut up and pay me."
I'm an engineering student, so of course it's from an engineering perspective that I think about this kind of thing, but there's a more general concept here: You should never, ever do something that involves disabled people without actually having people with that particular disability involved and active. How are you supposed to know what they need, if you don't ask them? That goes for doctors, teachers, therapists, employers--really, for everyone. After all, you'd have to be a hermit never to meet, work with, or work for someone with a disability.
On the disability-rights corner of things, there's the concept of "nothing about us without us"; and while that's usually brought up more in the context of law-making and self-determination, it goes for design too. If you're the one who's going to be making use of something, then you're the one who knows the most about what you need--not the engineer, not your teacher or your therapist, probably not even your parents or your doctor. If they don't ask you what you need, how will they ever know? The sad thing is that much of the time, people don't even realize they need to ask, and they're oblivious while we're all stuck dodging cars on the road because we can't get onto the sidewalk.
I was confused. The sidewalk had been cleared. Why was he still...?
Oh. As I walked further, I realized that the sidewalk had indeed been cleared; but at the curb cuts on both sides of each block, where the snow plow had left the usual piles, the snow crew had only scooped out a narrow pathway, about a foot wide, through each big pile of snow.
Needless to say, the average wheelchair cannot fit through a foot-wide gap; so my neighbor had been forced to trust luck and the judgment of the average Ohio driver--not exactly a good trade for being able to get to the grocery store.
I'm relating this incident because it reminds me of a very important fact: When you are working with accessibility, with assistive technology, or with services for the disabled, you absolutely need first-hand experience of using that technology or that service. Otherwise, you will inevitably miss vitally important things that can make what you were trying to do absolutely useless.
I'm a biomedical engineering student who wants to go into designing assistive technology. I have friends who use wheelchairs. The school I go to is wheelchair-accessible, and I see people taking advantage of that every day. And on top of all of it, I'm autistic, I have trouble filtering sensory input, and that means I almost never miss a detail, to the point that all that detail can overwhelm me. I had walked that stretch of road once already on the way to the store, and seen the way that the snow crews had made only a very narrow path through the piles of snow. And yet--I still had to be told straight out why you couldn't get a wheelchair onto the sidewalk.
Why? After all, you'd think that if anyone would notice, it would be somebody like me. But I have the one disadvantage that makes it almost impossible for me to gather every relevant fact: I don't use a wheelchair. I've never even sat in one for more than an hour. And that simple fact trumps every other advantage I might have when it comes to understanding accessibility.
You know what's scary? There are a lot of people like that--people who know a lot in their heads, but don't have the experience they really need--designing the vast majority of the assistive technology and accessible buildings and education and therapy and all kinds of things that disabled people use. They aren't disabled themselves, or else they don't have the same disability as the people they're designing things for. They've got the exact same disadvantage I had when I couldn't understand why my neighbor was in the road instead of on the sidewalk. And, in many cases, it seems they don't even really understand that they have this disadvantage at all.
If there's one thing that's the absolute most important factor in designing stuff that will be used by people with disabilities, it's that you've got to have people who have the disability in question working on the project. I don't mean a twenty-minute focus group. I don't mean a survey that gets mailed out and replied to by 3% of the recipients. I mean actually getting help from the people who are going to use your product or your service. They're the real experts on what they need; why in the world are people sitting back and saying, "Hey, I've got the degree; they're just the user"? Uh-uh. No. That's the way to design inaccessible buildings, unusable technology, and services that do more harm than good.
I didn't realize for some time that there were more people than just me who had identified this problem. Apparently, some people are working on changing it. There are some engineers who are using a "participatory design" strategy--involving everyone who will be working on or using a product in its design. And of course there's the "user-centered" approach, which can be anywhere from a meaningless buzzword to something actually approaching consulting the users as experts on what they need. But it seems not to be enough. Most of the time, it's still "I'm the expert; you're not; shut up and pay me."
I'm an engineering student, so of course it's from an engineering perspective that I think about this kind of thing, but there's a more general concept here: You should never, ever do something that involves disabled people without actually having people with that particular disability involved and active. How are you supposed to know what they need, if you don't ask them? That goes for doctors, teachers, therapists, employers--really, for everyone. After all, you'd have to be a hermit never to meet, work with, or work for someone with a disability.
On the disability-rights corner of things, there's the concept of "nothing about us without us"; and while that's usually brought up more in the context of law-making and self-determination, it goes for design too. If you're the one who's going to be making use of something, then you're the one who knows the most about what you need--not the engineer, not your teacher or your therapist, probably not even your parents or your doctor. If they don't ask you what you need, how will they ever know? The sad thing is that much of the time, people don't even realize they need to ask, and they're oblivious while we're all stuck dodging cars on the road because we can't get onto the sidewalk.
Also, I wondered if you saw the piece on '60 Minutes' this past Sunday about the folks with 'super memory', who remember everything about each day of their lives. I remember (no pun intended) when I was at the age that many of the super memory people were being able to remember intricate details of events and conversation. But I started playing hockey and boxing in my teens ...
Anywho, I really enjoy your posts and hope you enjoy the holiday season!!
hi
(Anonymous)
Re: hi
Re: hi
If you grow up in a world where autism is considered to be an illness, you don't really get exposed to the idea that autism can be used to your benefit. All you ever hear is that it's an obstacle and you've got to overcome it. Really, is it so surprising that encouragement can come in the form of "don't let this get in the way of your life"? That's exactly what you'd say if all you've ever been told is that autism is an obstacle and there's nothing good about it; that the best thing you can do about it is ignore it and work harder.
(Anonymous)
Re: hi
But anyway, what I found offensive was the idea that you shouldn't care about the disabled if you aren't.
In some places even pedestrians can barely pass: before they redid the sidewalks in my street, I had to walk sideways if I was carrying a bag, otherwise it would hit the rearview mirrors of the parking cars.
The book "The Psychology of Everyday Things" by Donald A. Norman should be required reading for all designers. If you have not yet read it it is worth a read.
(Anonymous)
no design without us
I receive accommodations for testing, and I've mentioned this to teachers and administrators over the years. It's always my problem, not theirs. Apparently, turning off the overheads and bringing my own desk lamps isn't always an option. Doctors can prescribe Adderall, but not an incandescent bulb.
Why can't schools poll folks who used testing accommodations when setting them up? I mean, yes, we're students, not doctors, but most doctors don't have ADD/LD, etc., because the accommodations necessary for us to get through school haven't been widely accepted for that long. (Yes, ADA is 20 this year, but colleges and universities were resistant to accommodations as recently as eight years ago--eight years to get through college/med school means almost no doctors exist who went through a program with testing accommodations.)
This means that, if I want to go to law school, which is an option, I have to either hope the testing-center lights aren't that bad, charm my way into using a desk lamp, or wait until someone does a study on the effects of certain fluorescent lamps on folks with ADD/LD.
Yes, it's not a huge deal. But I keep wishing more doctors and therapists actually had ASD/ADD/LD or related problems themselves. It helps in treatment. For instance, my doctor has back problems, and he's become -really good- at treating patients with back problems: he knows personally how a bad back can mess up your daily routine. I'd like that kind of support for what I have.
Thanks for listening, and I hope you have splendid holidays!!!
L
hi
Re: hi
Re: hi
What autism is, is something genetic that makes your brain wire up differently while it's growing--thus the term "neurodevelopmental disorder". There's only thing known to re-wire the human brain, and that's learning. Now, while the autistic brain can't be re-wired to be neurotypical, it can be re-wired to be more efficient. You can, for example, learn to interpret facial expressions more efficiently; and it will change the way your brain shows up on an fMRI. (Seriously, it does. They did this cool experiment where people learned to juggle, and it changed their brains in a really microscopic, but detectable, way.) Brains also heal after injury and re-route around damage, of course; but in this case there's been no damage or injury, just atypical development.
In any case, please do re-evaluate the scientific value of what you're reading: There are so many pseudo-scientific "treatments" that seem logical at first glance but don't stand up to rigorous testing.
(Anonymous)
Re: hi
Re: hi
Mercury poisoning may not create autistic people, but it can hardly be good for anyone. Remember lead in gasoline and paint? It was harmless until enough science independent of the industry was done, and it was found that a very small amount of lead would affect neuro development in a significant way.
There is a subset of people with autistic symptem who were hitting their development benchmarks, were starting to acquire language, and then at around 1+ years, became non-verbal. Something happened.
Re: hi
Regarding the childhood disintegrative disorder group--We know of one disorder that works like that; Rett syndrome involves loss of speech and motor skills and is considered to be either on or related to the autism spectrum, and it's 100% genetic (with a known mutation that accounts for it). So just the fact that CDD-type autism has an onset later than infancy doesn't make it a non-genetic disorder...
Re: hi
"Q. In recent years, many parents have blamed vaccines for causing autism. That theory has been discredited by recent research. What do you think?
There's one study that still hasn't been done. There's a type of autism where the child gets language... can say a few words... and then loses it. There's a regression at about 18 months or 2 years. That subgroup needs to be studied separately. Until that study is done, the book is not closed.
Q. So you think it's possible vaccines could play a role?
I'm leaving that open. That study has to be done. I've brought that up with some of the top experts and they get very silent. That's all I'm going to say about it."
This matches our experience with our daughter. No loss of motor skills. Something just turned off her ability to learn language. The Language Acquisition Device, (if it exists) accounts for the ability of infants to acquire "crib languages". She eventually acquired language but the progression was what you would expect in an adult learning a second language.
Until I read the quote above I had no idea she was part of a group or a syndrome and I have no desire to defend or attack the drug companies over it. We have long since moved on. It may just be one of them things that happen occasionally.
Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/1
Hi