Please don't use the term "other-abled." It's euphemistic and patronizing. Everyone is "other-abled" or "differently abled." I am sure that your abilities differ from a professional basketball player, a chess grandmaster, a ballet dancer, or a prolific romance novel author. Disability is the lack of an ability that most people possess, especially one that is socially looked upon as necessary for "normal" integration in society and so requires accommodation in order to participate in daily activities. "Other-abled" also implies that in losing my mobility, I gained like, extra points to place elsewhere. I mean, sure, in GURPS it works that way, but it doesn't in real life.

And uh, yes, hackers with disabilities are an active community and work on many things both related and unrelated to accessibility? Both with and without other folks with disabilities? I actually find the idea that it'd be extra cool to bring a "blind guy and a deaf girl" together to work on a project rather patronizing. I think it would be extra cool for a blind guy or a d/Deaf girl to be able to work on whatever project they want in any hackerspace without feeling impaired or ostracized.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Phil Wolff <pwolff@gmail.com> wrote:

Several responses, not necessarily sequenced or connected...

Thanks, Ryan, for the quick education on ablism in tech. Cogent while preserving irk.

Ryan's "What if Google did a hackathon for disabled techies?" sounds like a great counterproposal. I could see Googlers going for it.

Does the intersection of other-abled people who are also hackers/makers exist as a community now? If not, perhaps this could be the seed for one.

Otherabled hackers might not necessarily want to hack on ability-related projects just because of their own differences. The blind guy and deaf girl hacking a robot-that-shoots-hoops together may be an outcome.

We believe hacking the world is something everyone can and should do. So blending hackers with non-hackers is part of that knowledge transfer, consistent with our values.

Goog's proposal fits nicely in the design-thinking model of designers/engineers working with "the customer" or "the user". In our space that practice sounds like privilege and the condescension of noblesse oblige. In their space that sounds like breaking down barriers between engineering culture and the people who'd actually use what's built; it's the way they work with many different constituents, overcoming their own biases and preconceptions.

The individual Googlers I've met are nice people, eager to engage and learn. It's less useful to talk about The Google Corporation when we'd be dealing mostly with a small team inside of Google on a limited scale. Perhaps holding that one little team accountable for all of Google's missed opportunities would accomplish less than building a trusted relationship where they participate in our world, listen and learn from it, and embrace some of our values over time. Like anything else, which path creates the most options and opportunities for us, in good conscience?

_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss

Currently Reading