[nfb-talk] Accessible currency in the best interest of the blind?
T. Joseph Carter
tjosephcarter at gmail.com
Thu May 15 12:24:58 CDT 2008
Steve,
I just replied to the question of currency usage, so I won't again.
I do ask though: Does any currency identifier sold last year support the
new $5 bill? Can they be updated, or are they now $200 doorstops?
If the Treasury Department is going to change the look of a new banknote
every two years or so, is this a realistic thing to keep plunking down
$200 every couple of years for a new reader?
Over on the ACB list, they mock the KNFB reader as a $2000 money
identifier, calling it our great solution to the inability of blind people
to read currency. Now I know that's oversimplistic, but we really do need
a solution that doesn't involve recurring costs. The so-called cheap
money identifiers, as far as I know, are not very fast, and generally
don't tend to support the latest bills on the market.
I have never heard about a paid upgrade to the KNFB reader, although if
you want the new smaller cellphone version my understanding is that you
fork over $2000 more. The thing is, our market is filled with very costly
upgrades, SMAs, and other ways to ensure that fixed income people can't
have the latest thing. I couldn't even afford the Keysoft 7.5 upgrade for
my BrailleNote, and one of the justifications for getting the thing was
that it would soon support RFB&D! Now it does, but only if I have the
cash. Buy Keysoft 7.5 or pay rent this month? hmm.
I don't consider any solution that is not reasonably fast, very portable,
and certain not to involve a recurring cost to be adequate. The current
line of note tellers don't fit the first, barely fit the second, and thus
far fail miserably the third. It's no wonder the judge didn't consider
that sufficiently accessible!
Joseph
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 04:01:37PM -0500, Steve Jacobson wrote:
> Joe,
>
> Not all of my note below should be taken as a response to yours. I do not assume that there is disagreement here, but your note together with those of last night
> have made me do some thinking.
>
> My concern is not so much in the "how," although that is certainly important, but more with the "why." Currency is something we've used for years with some degree
> of assistance. We now have some technology that can identify bills for us beyond the systems we have been using for years. There have been and still are talking
> identifiers, the free software for scanners, and of course the KNFB reading software. Certainly there are going to be advantages to identify bills directly as all of these
> other alternatives require an extra layer of technology and cost and they also take extra time. We have even supported making currency accessible during a
> redesign in the past, and my guess is that it will happen at some point. one wonders how long we will even use currency.
>
> However, given that we have gotten buy pretty well and there are already alternatives, what sort of measuring stick do we use to say that we should have
> accessible currency as a right under the law? My feeling tends to be somewhat similar to those expressed by Mike Freeman's in that if this suit is won, we may get
> sooner something that probably would have or at least could have been achieved without it, but it will bring with it the added perception that the redesign is being
> forced. In other words we don't gain very much but we have added potential negatives. If they lose without their case being thrown out, it could be used to
> undermine other applications of accessibility which may have a larger impact upon us. The effect of accessible currency on our lives is being blown way out of
> proportion, we stand to gain little with a victory, but we stand to loose more if the decision goes against them. To me, this is more of an issue of knowing what to ask
> for and how than whether accessible currency is possible. I realize there are probably some good arguments that I am overlooking that could come from a victory,
> but I am still concerned by the expansion of the feeling that we should demand things of society based upon right instead of need. I don't think that path serves us
> well in the long run unless we take some care in choosing which things are specific to blindness that are rights. I clearly believe that there are things we need and
> actually benefit society if provided to us through increased independence and participation in society, so I don't claim we should not ask for anything. To my
> knowledge, we are not asking that hybrid cars make sound because since they can be seen we have a right to hear them, we are asking for some degree of sound
> as a safety issue for everyone and to allow us to continue to function indepenently as we have done for years. Some may laugh at my example that we should hear
> them as a right because they can be seen, but there are those that argue that we should hear traffic signals, not because we need to hear them, but because since
> the government is providing information to sighted persons through these signs they are obligated to provide the same information to us. What, then, don't we ask
> for that results in any inconvenience for us? I think this is the real question. In both of these cases, we have taken a position that has been supportive but not with
> the insistance that we are talking about an absolute right. In fact, Need versus right seems often to be a sort of dividing line.
>
> The subject of voting machines was brought up in this argument at one point. As someone else stated, I don't get real excited about accessible voting in terms of
> what impact it has on my life. However, the difference is that accessible voting was specifically written into the Help America Vote Act and into many state laws. At
> this point, to not have accessible voting violates existing law whether one feels it is a right or is necessary. Some will claim that accessible currency is part of existing
> law as well, and that is certainly what part of the lawsuit is trying to establish, but it is not a matter of legal opinion whether accessible voting is part of the law.
> Nevertheless, I have seen and had to work through considerable backlash to accessible voting so I know such backlash is not a figment of the Federation
> imagination. We will work through it, but it is a factor.
>
> It is going to bee very important as we move ahead to have a clear idea of what we ask society to do for us and what we try to find ways of doing for ourselves.
> This kind of analysis isn't going to be simple, but we are not going to be well served if we stop asking the question.
>
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 11:36:21 -0700, T. Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> >Alan,
>
> >Only inasmuch as curb cuts changed the perception that people in
> >wheelchairs can actually get from one place to another. Those things
> >didn't really change overall perceptions of people in wheelchairs, just
> >the idea that they now could go from one place to another.
>
> >Prior to it, wheelchair users tell me they were constantly faced with
> >employers who couldn't figure out how they'd get to work, so wouldn't hire
> >them. This despite the obvious: They had shown up for their interview, so
> >they managed somehow, obviously! In the short term, it didn't really
> >change other attitudes at all. In the long term, it really hasn't done
> >much to remediate major ignorance and prejudice. It has helped a lot of
> >people grasp the notion that a person in a wheelchair is just a person who
> >can't walk.
>
> >Arguably, the perception that we can now identify our own currency isn't
> >going to have as big an effect as the perception that wheelchair users are
> >somehow magically able to get to work now that they have curb cuts. By
> >itself, it's not eye-opening enough to have quite that much effect. The
> >effect is not small, and it's billions upon billions of dollars cheaper
> >than putting curb cuts on every intersection!
>
> >As to the size of the effect.. For months after the introduction of the
> >new bills, over the course of several years as each new denomination is
> >released, a sighted person looking at the new money is going to have the
> >opportunity to think something like: It's a little shorter so blind
> >people can tell it's a $10. All it took for someone who can't see to know
> >what this is is to be a little shorter than a $20.
>
> >This of course keeping in mind that I only favor a currency change
> >following the rollout schedule already in place where our currency is
> >updated every 10-15 years, one bill every several years. Doing otherwise
> >makes the cost prohibitive. Doing it this way we get it almost for free.
> >I say almost because the money will be spent and the currency refreshed
> >whether we get a more blind-friendly currency out of it or not.
>
> >I assume there will be some added costs for accelerating the printing
> >schedule somewhat so that the old bills can be taken out of circulation
> >sooner, and there may be additional costs in the design phase. Most of
> >those costs are spread out over the better part of two decades, so they
> >don't amount to anything significant per-year based on my best figuring.
>
> >Of course, I favor a tax subsidy for vending machine owners over several
> >years as well to cover 80% of the cost of updating their machines, because
> >I also believe the dollar must be included in the revision. But then, the
> >dollar should be done last, which allows business owners time to use the
> >tax breaks to financial advantage to make up the remaining 20% if they
> >can, and time enough to actually get their machines updated for the new
> >bills.
>
> >The particular adaptation I support is the one that maintains the current
> >size of the $100 bill and gradually shortens the bills. The dollar would
> >be a little less than two-thirds its current size when the transition were
> >finished. No new cash drawers needed, though after the transition is
> >complete the internal divider structure of new cash drawers may change in
> >time.
>
> >I've been thinking about this for years now. I'm a nerd, what can I say?
>
> >Joseph
>
> >On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 05:26:51AM -0500, Alan Wheeler wrote:
> >> Joseph,
> >> I can see your point, but I have my own reservations. Will accessible currency *REALLY* change perceptions of the sighted that much?
> >>
> >> I only ask because I've seen people who, no matter what technology or other aspects of life as a blind person they are educated about, still walk away with all
> their misperceptions and misconceptions intact. To a degree, accessible currency might be nothing more than a band-aid on a broken leg.
> >>
> >> Alan
> >>
> >>
> >> Hell was full, so I came back !
> >> ~~~
> >> Alan D Wheeler
> >> awheeler at neb.rr.com
> >> IM me at: awheeler1965 at sbcglobal.net
> >> Skype: redwheel1
> >> Don't be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what is the good, well-pleasing, and perfect will of God.
> >> Romans 12:2
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "T. Joseph Carter" <tjosephcarter at gmail.com>
> >> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:51 AM
> >> Subject: [nfb-talk] Accessible currency in the best interest of the blind?
> >>
> >>
> >> > Alan,
> >> >
> >> > I'll refer you to my own messages wherein I describe the impact on the
> >> > perception of sighted people that we blind folk can handle money without
> >> > getting ourselves ripped off. Regardless of the fact that we have some
> >> > ways to do it now, even if there's some technology dependency involved,
> >> > sighted people still sometimes ask me how it can be done.
> >> >
> >> > In a job interview, they may not ask. They may just assume you can't,
> >> > particularly if it's not a job as a cashier necessarily, but where
> >> > handling money might come up once in awhile. I'd rather them have an
> >> > over-simplistic view of how it would be no problem for me to do it than an
> >> > over-simplistic view of how they think I can't.
> >> >
> >> > I had a couple of other thoughts on it as well, but I think they don't
> >> > need to be repeated again. I do think an opinion on the issue without the
> >> > associated NFB-bashing is warranted, however.
> >> >
> >> > Joseph
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 07:07:00PM -0500, Alan Wheeler wrote:
> >> >> John,
> >> >> I may not have facts, but since the blind have survived, quite nicely without accessible currency, how can you back up the claim that accessible currency is
> in the "best interest" of the blind? I'm not arguing the point. I am merely asking you to back up your own statements. You ask me and others for facts, show us
> yours, we'll show you ours.
> >> >>
> >> >> Alan
> >> >>
> >> >> I tried sniffing Coke once, but the ice cubes got stuck in my nose
> >> >> ~~~
> >> >> Alan D Wheeler
> >> >> awheeler at neb.rr.com
> >> >> IM me at: awheeler1965 at sbcglobal.net
> >> >> Skype: redwheel1
> >> >> Don't be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what is the good, well-pleasing, and perfect will of
> God.
> >> >> Romans 12:2
> >> >>
> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> From: "John G. Heim" <jheim at math.wisc.edu>
> >> >> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 6:56 PM
> >> >> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Alan, I have all my outgoing messages in the outbox in my mail program. Do
> >> >> > you want me to repost them? Basically, the logic goes like this:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 1. As the leading advocacy group for the blind, the NFB represents me
> >> >> > whether I like it or not.
> >> >> > 2. Yetthe the NFB has done things that apparently are not in the best
> >> >> > interest of blind people, myself included. The primary example is coming out
> >> >> > against accessible money.
> >> >> > 3. When an organization that is supposed to be an advocacy group does things
> >> >> > against the best interest of those whom they represent, it is unethical.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Now, which part of that are you going to dispute
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We've spent the last month thrashing out point #2. I've been begging for
> >> >> > cold hard facts that might dispute it. None have been forthcoming. If you
> >> >> > have any, I'm still interested.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> > From: "Alan Wheeler" <awheeler1965 at gmail.com>
> >> >> > To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> >> >> > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 5:45 PM
> >> >> > Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Can you back up your claim that the NFB is unethical? I think that is
> >> >> >> mere opinion and baseless in fact.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > nfb-talk mailing list
> >> >> > nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> >> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> >> >> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfb-talk:
> >> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/awheeler1965%40gmail.com
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> nfb-talk mailing list
> >> >> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> >> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> >> >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfb-talk:
> >> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/tjosephcarter%40gmail.com
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > nfb-talk mailing list
> >> > nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> >> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfb-talk:
> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/awheeler1965%40gmail.com
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> nfb-talk mailing list
> >> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfb-talk:
> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/tjosephcarter%40gmail.com
> >_______________________________________________
> >nfb-talk mailing list
> >nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfb-talk:
> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/steve.jacobson%40visi.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfb-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/tjosephcarter%40gmail.com
More information about the nfb-talk
mailing list