So after our last two classes and examining the visuals that go along with disability, I was thinking about the question: if we have certain guidelines to address disability and illness in writing and language, why don't we have guidelines for the visuals? Or, better yet, why don’t we use the guidelines for written text (better known as “text” for Katy and Christy…) and implement them into the visuals?
Part of the problem is probably what I raised in class on Friday: where do you draw the line between being realistic and sensitive? I can’t answer this question, but I’ll tell you something that doesn’t seem to comply with RTC’s guidelines or probably any guidelines for disability: the “Accessible Parking” visual: a person in a wheelchair. You all know what I'm talking about. It’s in every parking lot-- In the world (Well, every parking lot that sets aside accessible parking anyway, which is not at all an international concept). And you know what it’s actually called? The International Symbol of Access. But it emphasizes a person with visual disability. I find this interesting.
I also want to bring up some of the guidelines-- "avoid negative labeling," "emphasize abilities, not limitations," and "bypass condescending euphemisms..." but yet the proper term is still disability, emphasizing not what is able to be done but instead that something is not able to be done. It seems to me that if an organization is going to make these claims towards trying to better the situation, they should do it 100%, not only insofar as convenience will let them. Disability is an easy term to use, but still does not comply with their own standards. Just food for thought...
This is something we should take up for the gender unit--more of the visual rhetoric. Just like the wheelchair icon on placards, consider men's and women's restrooms. What's the difference in the signs for them? Usually, the man's a man, and the woman's a man with a dress.
ReplyDelete