4 Responses to The new accessibility

  1. As a wheelchair user that needs someone to push my wheelchair for me I don’t see how a super-fit wheelchair user zooming at super sonic speeds comes anywhere close to representing the realities of my disability. It had never occured to me that the old logo was dehumanising but it does occur to me that the revised logo places unreasonable expectations on many less physically-able wheelchair users like myself. There seems to be a common assumption now that all wheelchair users are either complete vegetables or super-humans of paralympian abilities when the majority fall somewhere in between. New logo or old it isn’t going to make my life any easier. Perhaps instead of the logo their energies would be better spent tackling the physical and social barriers that make life harder for people with all kinds of disabilities instead.

    • paulbrodie says:

      I agree, the time and energy spent trying to make things “politically correct” could be better spent on defeating issues that actually impact peoples lives. I really think this was a case of people using a social issue to vaunt themselves.

      As with possibly all of the issues that fall into the spectrum of being politically correct, superficial treatments never address the underlying issue. Whatever social stigma, or actual lack of functional accessibility for public places, that applies to anyone with limited mobility or using a wheelchair, probably isn’t the result of a simple logo design. If the logo didn’t cause it, a new logo probably won’t fix it.

      Thanks for commenting and bringing your personal perspective and experience into the discussion.

  2. John in Davis, CA says:

    All buildings are accessible? Not if built before the early 90’s when the ADA was passed and major renovations were made subsequently, or are historical landmarks. Most private homes and apartments built before 1992 are not accessible unless required to by making significant modifications to the entrance of the building, or the owner decided to make them accessible. New private housing does not have to have accessibility except for the common entrance area of multi-family buildings, and most privately built condos or apartment buildings do not require accessible living units. No ghosts are involved.

    • paulbrodie says:

      I was joking, playing with the words involved. If you take it literally, what does it mean to be physically accessible? I take it to mean that it can be accessed physically as opposed to mentally, or spiritually.

      What I was saying was that if the building couldn’t be accessed physically, then it couldn’t be built, because building requires physical access. I can’t think and make a house be built. That’s all I was saying, just a bit of satire or sarcasm, or being a wise guy is all.

      I think people should say what they mean rather than coat it with some type of politically correct sugar-free syrup. Physically accessible is supposed to mean that it is wheelchair accessible, or more convenient than stairs for other forms of mobility impairment, but that isn’t clear. Just say the standard “handicap accessible” or “wheelchair accessible” or “ramp and elevator available instead of stairs.” That was the commentary I was hiding in my jokes.

      Sorry for the confusion, but thanks for commenting!

What do you think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s