[nfb-talk] A different perspective on money

[T. Joseph Carter]

Laura, the different lengths of bills are quite common as I understand it,
and in fact this might be the most common tactile identification method
employed around the world.  The problem is that the $1 bill might be too
long to make it practical--it would have to be the shortest bill to
discourage certain shenanigans Mike Freeman was mentioning last week.

My point was simply that we're changing our currency every so often as it
is, so the next round might as well include something like this, because
it would make life a little easier for us blind people, and it may
actually serve to increase rather than decrease the expectations sighted
people have for what we can do.  They will know we can identify the money,
so they will tend to assume that we can.  This is a good thing.


We are wasting a lot of bits worrying that sighted people will think we
can't deal with paper things, but the nature of how people think already
causes that problem.  We tend to think about how we'd do things, not about
how other people might do them.  Since we tend not to teach the skills of
blindness to the sighted public, the only time they're likely to be able
to guess how we do it is when the method is mind-numbingly obvious.

Why is it you think sighted people are so keen on giving us APS crossings?
If they ask themselves, "how would I get across this street if I couldn't
see," the answer they invariably come up with is that they'd need some way
to hear the light so they would know they could cross.  That the traffic
itself is a much better and safer indicator of crossing safety is beyond
what they can imagine.

And even if they can imagine that, you get situations where, to the mind
of the sighted person, the method of using nearside parallel traffic
breaks down, such as a T-intersection.  Many O&M professionals believe
that we need an APS at those T-intersections because we haven't got any
parallel traffic if we're crossing the through street.


The way I see it, we do three things in the National Federation of the
Blind.  You can't put them in a priority order because success in one
depends on the other two, so the order is arbitrary:

 - We provide support and training to blind people so that they can
   achieve their full potential.
 - We try to correct the misconceptions of the sighted public about the
   things we can and cannot do.
 - When all else fails, we work to level the playing field through both
   legislation and the courts.

Our goal is a productive and contributing population of blind people.  For
many of us, that means employment.  For others, that means freedom from
artificial restrictions placed upon us by well-meaning but misguided
people.  Probably, it means something just a little different to each of
us, but we in the Federation recognize many of the same things need to be
done in order to get us there.

I don't think we have agreement on this issue.  I think most of us do
agree that tactile identification of money is rather less important than
making more of it available to us through gainful employment.  However, if
jobs as cashiers become more readily available to the blind as a result of
a redesign of our currency, then it will have been a good thing.

The decision in this case benefits us, even if the ACB's excuses for why
it is so important do not.  The notion that we can't handle money until it
is "made accessible" need to be challenged because it directly conflicts
with our mission.  To be able to work as a cashier without requiring a
piece of technology that might fail or become obsolete the next time the
US Treasury redesigns our money is a worthwhile goal that we should be
supporting, in my opinion.


On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 06:09:27PM -0500, Laura Eaves wrote:
> Hey all --
> I just chatted with a South African guy on skype and asked what the money 
> access was like there. He said that the different denominations of bills 
> were the same width but different length, and due to some legislation, they 
> are supposed to have tactal markings, but that this failed miserably as the 
> dots get compressed quite quickly.
> 
> Now having money different lengths sounds sufficient to identify it, to me 
> anyway, as all you need is a little, very low tech, measuring appliance. (He 
> actually sais they have those there.)
> So I guess SA counts as a blind friendly country. My friend is a braille 
> proofreader, btw.
> 
> Thoughts? I like the idea of different length bills as that obviates the 
> need for high tech identifiers and can still be put in vending machines.
> Comments welcome.
> --le
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Kori King" <koranking at cox.net>
> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 1:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] A different perspective on money
> 
> 
> These are great comments! And I, too, have slightly amended an initial
> thought of mine when I stated that I could see where people might feel that
> by altering the currency, it sends a message to the public that "those poor
> blind people now have a way to tell their money." The requesting of this
> change in currency might indeed put forth this impression for some, but like
> others have expressed, to paraphrase, it can indeed add confidence to the
> issue of dealing with money, although yes, it's true that sighted people too
> can be cheated. And I agree with the point made by some on the list that
> employment opportunities could open up. I also, however, find it interesting
> the possibility of people trying to counterfeit the money anyway and still
> end up possibly causing someone to think it's a particular bill denomination
> when it's another. So, I feel that whatever way this change comes about, if
> at all, we can convey to people that this is not something we can't live
> without, but it's an additional and perhaps better adaptation of what we've
> already been able to manage. Take care.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "T. Joseph Carter" <tjcarter at bluecherry.net>
> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 7:43 PM
> Subject: [nfb-talk] A different perspective on money
> 
> 
> > I've been sitting on the fence about this for about a week, but I think I
> > just fell off of it today based on a perspective I hadn't considered.
> > First, for anyone who hasn't been keeping score thus far (people who know
> > the score can skip the next three paragraphs):
> >
> > We don't actually NEED to be able to identify individual notes to use
> > them.  We have access to people and technology for this purpose.  Sure,
> > there's some inherent dependency in this, but it really is a minor thing,
> > and the risks are pretty low overall.
> >
> > The question remains, however, whether or not an adaptation should be
> > made.  Many Federationists do not believe so either because they are
> > comfortable with their current techniques.  Others fear dangers both real
> > and imagined in trying to fix what doesn't seem all that broken.
> >
> > Still others, most of whom could not be dismissed as ACB people causing
> > trouble on our lists (again), believe that our currency is broken, and
> > that there are numerous examples of how to fix it.  Fixing it is the right
> > thing to do, even if there are other things we'd call priorities.  Perhaps
> > the ACB managed to finally do some good.  (Unless those dangers mentioned
> > above are more real than imagined, of course..)
> >
> >
> > I stumbled onto a very good comparison to a group of people with other
> > disabilities: People who use wheelchairs.  Those who use manual chairs and
> > have the upper-body strength to do it can learn techniques for dealing
> > with steps and curbs safely.  Nearly all of the rest could find ways to
> > deal with curbs.  Installing a curb cut is expensive.  Making them a
> > universal fixture is incredibly expensive, and highly visible as being
> > done specifically for them, even though there are more moms with baby
> > strollers using them than people in wheelchairs.
> >
> > Does their existence cause the general public to think less of people in
> > wheelchairs?  Katie's experience is that people can at least imagine her
> > working in an office setting where she'd be expected to be mostly seated
> > anyway, whereas they couldn't imagine how I could do the same work.  How
> > is she going to get up the curb so she can get to work?  The general
> > public would answer, "Easy, she'd use the curb cuts!"  Well obviously,
> > since they are universal and easy to use, she would.  The fact that she
> > could do it without a curb cut is irrelevant because she doesn't have to.
> >
> > The cost of making them nearly universal was high, but in most cases it
> > was not paid solely for the sake of wheelchair users.  Most of them were
> > installed when work was being done on those intersections.  If they're
> > going to be messing with the intersection and sidewalks, they might as
> > well add curb cuts while they're there to reduce the cost of doing it.
> >
> > Just because Katie does not absolutely require curb cuts doesn't mean she
> > shouldn't have them.  And just because we do not absolutely require a
> > currency that we can identify without vision doesn't mean we shouldn't
> > have it.  The same cost-cutting mechanism can be employed (as discussed
> > elsewhere), and should be.  The transition will be slow and gradual, and
> > while it's going on we're all just going to have to use the skills we
> > already have to the best of our ability.
> >
> > It should happen, though.
> > _______________________________________________
> > nfb-talk mailing list
> > nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk