[laptop-accessibility] needs of blind users versus deaf users

[Seth Woodworth]

All of the audiobooks from Librivox that are going to be included on the XO
will have the corresponding text in the same package.  It's a trivial matter
to connect those two with some html, as the current content archive standard
calls for.

I agree with your comments otherwise, and I think that if OLPC isn't meeting
those requirements it's a matter of 'not yet' rather than 'not ever'.

Accessibility is still pretty new and unfinished on the XO.

On Jan 8, 2008 11:16 AM, <ashettle at patriot.net> wrote:

> Albert Calahan said: "For a long time now, I've thought that accessibility
> adaptations are kind of the wrong approach. That means trying to use audio
> to describe video, when the video is trying to describe some abstract
> internal state. Ideally one would skip the middle-man, going straight from
> the internal abstract state to the audio."
>
> When making adaptations or modifications to make the standard XO more
> usable by students with one disability (in this case, blind children), it
> is important to make sure we don't then make it less usable for students
> with another disability.  Deaf students would obviously be unable to
> access material offered purely in audio format.
>
> It does make sense to have a way to turn off the screen for a student who
> will never be looking at the screen anyway (e.g., because they're blind).
> And maybe a way to shut off audio for students who will never be using
> that.  And it also does make sense to look at more innovative, creative
> ways of presenting information that is more inclusive of a wider number of
> students who have very different learning strengths and weaknesses from
> each other: if audio genuinely works better for a particular content, sure
> go with that, then put in captions or a transcript or a video in whatever
> local signed language is used in a given country to make it accessible to
> deaf students.  I'm just raising this general point because sometimes I've
> seen people get so focused on making something accessible to one
> disability group who happens to be more visible to them (maybe they're the
> group who spoke out more, for instance) that they end up introducing
> features that exclude others.
>
> A somewhat separate point re, video versus audio etc.:  Do bear in mind
> that even non-disabled children will have a wide diversity in how their
> brains are wired to process new information and ideas.  Some students just
> naturally learn better when they HEAR new information: show it to them
> visually and they just won't absorb it even if nothing's wrong with their
> vision.  But other students just naturally learn better if they SEE new
> information: hearing it just isn't enough, even if they can hear
> perfectly.  Still other students need to be physically moving and learning
> things through the motion of their body.  And so forth.  So it's never a
> good idea to assume that all educational material should be converted to
> serve a single modality of learning because there would then be many
> students who are left behind wheter or not they're disabled.
>
> Or if I've misinterpreted or misunderstood please elucidate.
>
> Do we have any educational/pedalogy specialists on this list?  This is not
> really my field--just stuff I've read a bit here and there.  Would be a
> nice complement for this list I would think.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrea Shettle, MSW
> ashettle at patriot.net
> http://wecando.wordpress.com  (Blogging disability and international
> development)
>
> _______________________________________________
> accessibility mailing list
> accessibility at lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/accessibility
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/accessibility/attachments/20080108/ee620120/attachment.htm