askablindperson - Tumblr blog

askablindperson · 1 month

Text

I do want to add one important clarification as a deafblind person that alt text is not inherently inaccessible to deafblind people, because many of us have enough hearing that we still use screen readers anyway if we have access to them, especially if our vision is worse than our hearing, but one can also access it using a refreshable braille display. Braille displays are very expensive, as are some screen reading software, so of course not everyone has access to those tools, but I did want to point it out.

Everything else in this post is entirely on point though and I 100% agree with all of it. Thank you for the fabulous explanation And for doing the work to teach folks how to do this more effectively!

Starting out with image descriptions: formatting

Plain text: "Starting out with image descriptions: formatting" in title text. end PT

Continuing my series about accessibility, I have decided to explain how an ID should be put in a post. I see a lot of people in here who already do image descriptions but aren't sure how to properly format them, or who format them in a way that isn't accessible. I decided to make a post to explain the basics on how to make IDs.

This won't explain what to write when you're making IDs; just how to properly put your ID in the post in a way that is accessible. For more resources on IDs, you can go to my "accessibility" and "reference" tags.

1. Text ID vs Alt Text

Plain text: Small title text saying, "1. Text ID vs Alt Text". end PT

A text ID is an ID you write on the body of the post, visible to everyone. Alt text, on the other hand, is an ID you code in along with the image, so it isn't visible for people with screenreaders, but people with it can click on the image and get that ID read out loud.

Tumblr offers the possibility to add alt text to your images, if you click on the three dots that appear on the corner of the image on mobile. Except... Oops, it doesn't always work

As with many Tumblr features, Tumblr alt text is known to glitch, and the entire alt text might disappear or not be available to users without the O.P necessarily knowing. The reasons for this range from "the post was edited later" to "reblogs ate the alt text" to "damned if I know". So, it is unreliable, and that alone is a reason why it should not be used

There are, however, other important reasons! Namely, that alt text isn't actually accessible to a lot of visually impaired people. This is because alt text can only be accessible via a screenreader, since the ID will only be available in the post's code. And not every visually impaired person uses a screenreader, including blind people

There are other accessibility features that legally blind and visually impaired people use, such as: bigger text, bigger display, high contrast text, the enhance button, color correction, and more. These people still need IDs (including of screenshots of text! They need these accessibility features to see text, so if you post a screenshot of regular text, they can't read it), but cannot see them if you only put it on alt text

Not to mention that some blind people cannot use a screenreader even if they preferred that to other accessibility features, because they are Deafblind, have auditory processing disorder, or simply cannot listen to something at the moment for whatever reason

Tumblr is working on a feature that allows alt text to show up in the body of the post so people can read it normally, but while it isn't available to everyone, alt text is not accessible. It is not accessible to Deafblind people, people with APD, and people who prefer not to use screenreaders, which is a choice they have the right to make. Therefore, using it is not a good accessibility practice and using plain text IDs is preferable

There is also an important argument, which is that alt text is designed to be invisible to sighted folks, and that in itself is problematic because it discourages people to think about accessibility, recognize when something is or isn't accessible, and start incorporating accessibility practices into their lives. I am a strong supporter of this argument, which is another reason why I don't think I'll ever advocate for alt text. This part, however, isn't a consensus. The other parts are

2. Placement of the ID

Plain text: Small title font that reads, "2. Placement of the ID". End PT

Imagine that Tumblr's newest glitch is that any images added to a post end up at the bottom. So you see a text post that makes use of several images, but every time there is an image in the middle, you just get text that says "image" and you have to scroll down, find the image in question, then scroll back up

This is the experience you are giving blind and visually impaired people when you leave your IDs at the bottom of the post

Folks, when you add an image (or more) to a text post, you don't put it in a random place, do you? You put it in the ideal place for someone to comprehend your text. There is a logical, comprehensible sequence between text and image, and the image is right where it's supposed to be

Therefore, it is also where the ID should be

Please understand me clearly: an ID is their user's image. It substitutes the image for them. When you are writing one, it is helpful to ask yourself, "what would this look like if there was no image, only the ID?". Because that's what it's effectively like for people who need IDs

If the ID is anywhere that is not directly over or under the image, it's in the wrong place. If a place is where the image should be, then it's also where the ID should be

And yes, this includes when you post an image post with just a one-line caption underneath. Most of the time, the caption doesn't make sense without knowledge of the image. If you didn't post the caption before the image, there's no reason to put the caption before the ID

3. About "ID" and "End ID"

Plain text: Small title font reading "3. About 'ID' and 'End ID'." End PT

I occasionally see people posting IDs without the "ID" and "End ID" at the beginning and end, so I thought it'd be helpful to explain why they are needed.

Without the "ID" at the beginning, someone who can't see your image will not be able to tell that the image is described, and will assume that what you are posting is a caption. Then they will probably skip it, or at least believe they are missing the image's information

There is really no other way to make it obvious that what you are about to post is an image description. And a lot of the time, even reading the ID won't make it obvious that it's an ID if you can't already see the image. This is particularly true when the image in question is a screenshot of text and the ID is just a transcription without information that it's a transcription. Someone who sees that and can't see the image will assume that it's your own caption to the image, which could be literally anything

Similarly, the "End ID" is important for the person to know where the ID ends and the poster's caption or commentary begins. Again, there is no way for them to know otherwise. Not even the paragraph break, because some IDs are longer than a paragraph, especially if it's an image with lots of information, such as an infographic or spreadsheet

Using brackets [] instead of the "ID" and "End ID" is NOT ["not" in caps and bold] an appropriate substitution, because brackets are a form of punctuation, and therefore, screenreaders will just read them as a pause. A pause which they would already have because of the paragraph breaks. So, for screenreader users, they offer absolutely no differentiation

Note: "ID" stands for "Image Description", not "Identification". So you don't need to say "Image ID", as that would be "Image Image Description". That's not a cardinal sin that deeply affects your accessibility or anything, but it's good to know. I was saying "Image ID" for like a year before I realized that and I felt really stupid afterwards, so I thought you'd like to know

4. Formatted text

Plain text: Small title font that says, "Formatted text". End PT

I see a lot of people posting their IDs in formatted text (usually tiny text or italics, but occasionally bold, colored text, and others). You should not have your ID in any kind of formatted text

Why? Because most forms of formatted text are unreadable to at least some people with visual impairments, if not all of them. This will generally not be a problem for screenreader users unless you use all caps, stylized fonts, or embedded links. But they will be a problem to users who don't have screenreaders, which, as we've seen before, make up a significant amount of ID users

Legally blind or visually impaired users who don't use screenreaders generally rely on bigger text/display as an accessibility feature. This means that they set their phone to make text bigger for them. If you put your ID in tiny text, you are making the text small all over again. So they won't be able to read it, and your ID will be useless

I have my phone's text and display set to biggest, and Tumblr tiny text looks roughly the same size in that mode as Tumblr regular size in regular mode. That is not big enough for lots of visually impaired people to read; if it was, they wouldn't have their phones set to make text bigger

Similarly, italics make the text look thinner, which is harder for a lot of visually impaired people to read. Bold makes the letters get easily smushed together, which is also hard for some to read. Colored text has a lower contrast, which will also be harder for them to read. Not to mention visually impaired people might have other conditions that affect reading such as color blindness or dyslexia

This is specially harmful if it's long chunks of text. I've seen some people who will put everything that was directly transcribed from the image in bold or italics, and I've even done it myself for a brief period. Please don't do this! It is very hard for a lot of people to read

Every time you mess with formatting on your text, you are basically annulling someone else's accessibility features display. And since Tumblr does not allow users to turn those settings on or off, this is an accessibility issue

Note: not everyone will be negatively impacted by the use of these. Some people even find them helpful, especially if it's to signify key words. But again, since it's impossible to turn it on or off, the best way to do an ID is without formatting, a.k.a in plain text. The exception to this is BlockQuote (a.k.a idented text) and bullet points

To find out more about plain text, you can check out the other post I made about it on the link below

Link

"Do I need to put the ID between brackets?"

Plain text: Small title font reading, "Do I need to put the ID between brackets?". End PT

You might have noticed that most people post IDs between brackets, like this: [ID: A pig wearing a baseball hat. End ID]. This might be the most common way of formatting it

It is not, however, necessary. As far as I know, people do this so people who don't need the IDs can easily know where it begins and ends, and skip them. They do not serve any accessibility purpose

Personally I don't use them, and if I want to have a visual cue to show where the ID begins and ends, I put it in BlockQuote. This is not necessary either, although it might help some people with dyslexia and ADHD better organize the contents of the post. It is fine to do, though, as long as it doesn't substitute the "ID" and "End ID"

And that's all, folks! Thanks once again for reading this long post, and I hope it was helpful

TLDR

Plain text: small title font reading "TLDR". End PT

You should make your IDs in text, directly under or over the image, with the "ID" and "End ID" at the beginning and end, and without italics, bold, or tiny text. Using brackets isn't necessary but it's okay

#image descriptions #alt text

695 notes · View notes

askablindperson · 1 month

Text

#no but I want to so bad 😭

4K notes · View notes

askablindperson · 1 month

Note

Hello, I am a writer who wants to write about a character with Lebers Congenital Amaurosis, and I’ve been struggling to find resources or descriptions on what vision is like for people with that condition. If you’re okay with it, could you describe what vision is like for you? Thank you and have a wonderful day! And sorry if you’ve already been asked this a million times.

Hi! Thank you for asking, and I would be glad to answer. I know what you mean, too. LCA is still somewhat common in the blind community, but I have also found quite a lack of resources to explain how it works to other folks. LCA is rarely included in any of those blindness simulation filters, either, though those also aren’t perfect representations.

A quick disclaimer: most of what I will share here is based on my own personal experience as well as the other blind people with LCA I have personally met in the trends I have observed in the community. I’m not a medical professional though, and I really don’t know that much about how these things pan out statistically Speaking.

First, one thing you should know is that LCA is progressive. It tends to be very slow and steady about it, and it took me 10 years to notice that I had had a significant change in vision which I only fully noticed in the last few months, but it is progressive, so it will inevitably get worse over a person’s lifetime. It just might take its sweet time getting there, and you won’t notice any overnight changes. at least not in the folks I’ve known, or in myself, or in most of the literature I’ve seen discussing it. There may be outliers though that I am less aware of.

The other thing I will say is that most of the other blind folks I have known with LCA actually have significantly less vision than I do, usually being born with little more than light perception and often losing what’s left of that light perception within their first few years of childhood. so a lot of them are totally blind as adults, or still only have light and shadow perception.

As for mine, at least in my experience, I seem to be somewhat of an outlier in LCA, in that I’m quite a high partial case. I believe I’ve been at least legally blind since birth, meaning my visual acuity was at least 20/200 or worse with some visual field issues also, but I’ve always had quite a lot more residual vision than most of the other folks with LCA I have met personally. Not all of them though. When I was a young child, my visual acuity was probably around the 20/200 Marc, but now at 27, my better eye is at about 20/650 and the worst eye is somewhere in the ballpark of 20/5000. Don’t ask me how they can even measure it when it gets that severe lol.

In practical terms, the way I have always described my vision is that it’s a lot like looking through a fogged up mirror when you get out of the shower, a foggy window in the winter, or the super blurred out background in a movie. You can make out plenty of shapes and colors and lights, and you can get a vague sense of what a lot of objects might be, but there is no detail and it’s extremely blurred out. if you happen to wear glasses, I often say that it’s like a lot of folks without their glasses on, but amped up to 11, and that’s even WITH my glasses. Without them, it’s even blurrier, though I don’t really wear glasses much anymore.

That description is in reference to my better eye, mind you. The worst one is so much worse that I can rarely make out actual objects with it or even silhouettes of people. It’s still colorful and everything, but the blurriness is significantly worse to the point that the eye isn’t really useful.

For me personally, as I have gotten older, my central vision has actually deteriorated a little bit faster than my peripheral vision, so I can ironically see a little clearer out of the corners of my eyes then I can looking straight ahead. I don’t know how common this is amongst folks with LCA, especially since most of the folks I know only have light and shadow perception where it’s harder to measure that, But that’s how it is for mine. It wasn’t like that as a child, I would have considered my central and peripheral vision to be fairly similar most of my life, but in the last 10 years, my central vision is noticeably worse now than my peripheral. if I look at a ceiling light through the corner of my eye, and then shift my eye so I’m looking at that same ceiling light to the center of my eye, it is instantly blurrier, like a little foggy film was put over it.

Also, at least for me, I have quite a few blind spots in my vision that impact my overall visual field. Contrary to what those vision loss simulation filters will have you believe though, those are not represented by black spots or white spots in real life. They’re just gone. Think of it sort of like Photoshopping somebody out of a picture. If they are standing in your blind spot, it’s not that there’s a blob over top of them, it’s as if that section of the picture was just cut out, and the two halves around it smashed together as if that part was never there. It’s just missing.

In actuality, everybody has a blind spot, even people with no vision problems whatsoever, so you may be able to get a better understanding of this by researching the general Blindspot that everyone has. I just have more of them because pieces of my retina have completely deteriorated and died off from my disorder.

The discussion of central versus peripheral vision and the blind spots applies to both of my eyes, but like above, just a lot more severe in the eye that’s worse. It’s not quite to the point where it only has light and shadow perception, but it’ll probably get there in the next 10 years or so. I’ve never leaned very heavily on that eye because it’s always been the much weaker one, but these days it is a little bit funny to see just how wildly different the exam for my right eye is compared to my left eye nowadays.

Lastly though, that does finish up the description of what my vision actually looks like, but I do want to leave you with one final note of consideration, which is not to focus overly hard on exactly what your character sees when writing them. At the end of the day, most of us who have been blind our entire lives don’t really go about our days actively paying attention to exactly what we can see and what we can’t, or thinking about what things look like through our eyes at that moment in time. We’re just living our lives with the vision we have, because we were born this way so it’s our normal, and sometimes focusing on it too much in the writing can cloud the characterization more than it helps.

All of that said, I do hope that this provides a useful framework. Mostly, my vision is just ridiculously blurry and really only gets a tiny bit less blurry with glasses, with a few holes punched here and there for good measure lol. To be honest, when I’m spending time with other blind people, we don’t actually usually spend all that much time describing exactly what each other’s vision looks like to each other or anything—it’s usually not exactly the most interesting thing we want to talk about—so I don’t know how common my specific details are to others with LCA. But that’s pretty much the long and short of my personal experience, and hopefully it can be useful when understanding your character.

#such a good addition thank you!!#remember to make your disabled characters full people rather than fixating on their disability #fixating too hard on the disability drags down the characterization and the quality of the story as a whole and breaks relatability #I spend far more hours per day thinking about how other people are treating me because I’m blind #then I do actively thinking about my blindness itself #it’s usually other people who remind me day in and day out. Not me deliberately paying attention to it #if people didn’t act so weird around me because of my blindness I would probably entirely forget about it more often

63 notes · View notes

askablindperson · 1 month

Text

Here’s your reminder that you can’t pet a service dog and shouldn’t be asking to do so

They are working and it would be distracting to them

#guide dogs #service dogs

364 notes · View notes

askablindperson · 1 month

Note

#ask a blind person #actually blind #ActuallyBlind #writing blind characters #Leber congenital amaurosis #blind #blindness #writing disabled characters

63 notes · View notes

askablindperson · 1 month

Note

In what way does alt text serve as an accessibility tool for blind people? Do you use text to speech? I'm having trouble imagining that. I suppose I'm in general not understanding how a blind person might use Tumblr, but I'm particularly interested in the function of alt text.

In short, yes. We use text to speech (among other access technology like braille displays) very frequently to navigate online spaces. Text to speech software specifically designed for blind people are called screen readers, and when use on computers, they enable us to navigate the entire interface using the keyboard instead of the mouse And hear everything on screen, as long as those things are accessible. The same applies for touchscreens on smart phones and tablets, just instead of using keyboard commands, it alters the way touch affect the screen so we hear what we touch before anything actually gets activated. That part is hard to explain via text, but you should be able to find many videos online of blind people demonstrating how they use their phones.

As you may be able to guess, images are not exactly going to be accessible for text to speech software. Blindness screen readers are getting better and better at incorporating OCR (optical character recognition) software to help pick up text in images, and rudimentary AI driven Image descriptions, but they are still nowhere near enough for us to get an accurate understanding of what is in an image the majority of the time without a human made description.

Now I’m not exactly a programmer so the terminology I use might get kind of wonky here, but when you use the alt text feature, the text you write as an image description effectively gets sort of embedded onto the image itself. That way, when a screen reader lands on that image, Instead of having to employ artificial intelligences to make mediocre guesses, it will read out exactly the text you wrote in the alt text section.

Not only that, but the majority of blind people are not completely blind, and usually still have at least some amount of residual vision. So there are many blind people who may not have access to a screen reader, but who may struggle to visually interpret what is in an image without being able to click the alt text button and read a description. Plus, it benefits folks with visual processing disorders as well, where their visual acuity might be fine, but their brain’s ability to interpret what they are seeing is not. Being able to click the alt text icon in the corner of an image and read a text description Can help that person better interpret what they are seeing in the image, too.

Granted, in most cases, typing out an image description in the body of the post instead of in the alt text section often works just as well, so that is also an option. But there are many other posts in my image descriptions tag that go over the pros and cons of that, so I won’t digress into it here.

Utilizing alt text or any kind of image description on all of your social media posts that contain images is single-handedly one of the simplest and most effective things you can do to directly help blind people, even if you don’t know any blind people, and even if you think no blind people would be following you. There are more of us than you might think, and we have just as many varied interests and hobbies and beliefs as everyone else, so where there are people, there will also be blind people. We don’t only hang out in spaces to talk exclusively about blindness, we also hang out in fashion Facebook groups and tech subreddits and political Twitter hashtags and gaming related discord servers and on and on and on. Even if you don’t think a blind person would follow you, You can’t know that for sure, and adding image descriptions is one of the most effective ways to accommodate us even if you don’t know we’re there.

I hope this helps give you a clearer understanding of just how important alt text and image descriptions as a whole are for blind accessibility, and how we make use of those tools when they are available.

#image descriptions #alt text #accessibility #a11y #screen readers

339 notes · View notes

askablindperson · 1 month

Note

Oh hey look, more of my old writing from one of my old personal blogs! I’m surprised I wrote it on that blog and not a blindness one, but a well. Look at younger me, still thinking I was a lesbian back then lol. Still standby everything I wrote in that reply though. Good stuff. Disabled people have always found a way, even when we may not have had government agencies with millions of dollars of funding to manage those things. Just like every other minority group has always organized one way or another, so have blind people. We have never existed in a vacuum, and your blind character shouldn’t, either.

I have a blind main character in a fantasy setting. He was born blind (congenital cataracts), and due to the setting there is no widespread usage of accessibility options like guide animals or orientation and mobility training. Would a blind from birth character have less need for O&M training or guides to navigate effectively, because they’re used to navigating on their own?

Navigating Without O&M

This one is tricky for me. I think it might have to do with your phrasing at the end. It isn’t so much less need as it is them managing on their own out of necessity, which isn’t the same.

O&M would enhance what the character can do and how confident he is while doing it, especially when going to new places. Since you want him to be independent in this universe, I assume he has a cane. He can, in theory learn to use it on his own, as early cane users probably did, but think of O&M as passing on tools and knowledge gained in blind communities since the development of formal O&M training.

Is he the only blind character in the story? Surely there is an older blind person in the community who could give some tips? Surely he has family who can help him navigate the landmarks in his community? O&M is also learning to memorize and navigate routes used everyday, learning to navigate unfamiliar places, and traveling.

I suggest researching the developing of O&M, such with this page on the AFB, and trying to create something for your fantasy story. Even if your character is the only blind character in their region, there will be other blind people in the world making changes and experimenting. If someone came up with a cane, there will be other developments as well, even if they are slow. Even if the character prefers to use resources from their own culture and community. So even if a formal O&M isn’t available, it isn’t necessarily and all of nothing experience where the character does absolutely everything on his own with only his own knowledge to work with.

I hope this helps.

-BlindBeta

#writing blind characters #my old writing #from the archives

578 notes · View notes

askablindperson · 1 month

Text

I want to make my posts more accessible, but can't write IDs myself: a guide

[Plain text: "I want to make my posts more accessible, but can't write IDs myself: a guide." End plain text.]

While every image posted online should be accessible in an ideal world, we all know it 1) takes time to learn how to write image descriptions, and 2) is easy to run out of spoons with which to write IDs. And this says nothing of disabilities that make writing them more challenging, if not impossible — especially if you're a person who benefits from IDs yourself.

There are resources for learning how to write them (and if you already know the basics, I'd like to highlight this good advice for avoiding burnout) — but for anyone who cannot write IDs on their original posts at any current or future moment, for any reason, the there are two good options for posting on Tumblr.

1. Crowdsource IDs through the People's Accessibility Discord

[Plain text: "1. Crowdsource IDs through the People's Accessibility Discord". End plain text.]

The People's Accessibility Discord is a community that volunteers description-writing (and transcript-writing, translation, etc) for people who can't do so themselves, or feel overwhelmed trying to do so. Invite link here (please let me know if the link breaks!)

The way it works is simple: if you're planning to make an original post — posting art, for example — and don't know how to describe it, you can share the image there first with a request for a description, and someone will likely be able to volunteer one.

The clear upside here (other than being able to get multiple people's input, which is also nice) is that you can do this before making the Tumblr post. By having the description to include in your post from the start, you can guarantee that no inaccessible version of the post will be circulated.

You can also get opinions on whether a post needs to be tagged for flashing or eyestrain — just be able to spoiler tag the image or gif you're posting, if you think it might be a concern. (Also, refer here for info on how to word those tags.)

The server is very chill and focused on helping/answering questions, but if social anxiety is too much of a barrier to joining, or you can't use Discord for whatever reason, then you can instead do the following:

2. Ask for help on Tumblr, and update the post afterwards

[Plain text: "Ask for help on Tumblr, and update the post afterwards". End description.]

Myself and a lot of other people who describe posts on this site are extra happy to provide a description if OP asks for help with one! This does leave the post inaccessible at first, so to minimize the drawbacks, the best procedure for posting an image you can't fully describe would be as follows:

Create the tumblr post with the most bare-bones description you can manage, no matter how simple (something like "ID: fanart of X character from Y. End ID" or "ID: a watercolor painting. End ID," or literally whatever you can manage)

Use a tool like Google Lens or OCR to extract text if applicable and if you have the energy, even if the text isn't a full image description (ideally also double-check the transcriptions, because they're not always perfect)

Write in the body of the post that you'd appreciate a more detailed description in the notes!

Tag the post as "undescribed" and/or "no id" only if you feel your current, bare-bones description is missing out on a lot of important context

When you post it and someone provides an ID, edit the ID into the original post (don't use read mores, italics, or small text)

Remove the undescribed tag, if applicable. If you're posting original art, you can even replace it with a tag like "accessible art" for visibility!

And congrats! You now have a described post that more people will be able to appreciate, and you should certainly feel free to self-reblog to give a boost to the new version!

#image descriptions

476 notes · View notes

askablindperson · 2 months

Text

Disability Tropes: The disabling change of heart

When a character in a story becomes disabled, they'll sometimes experience a trope that I like to call "the disabling change of heart". This is when the character goes through a massive change in their outlook, their personality, their goals or even roll in the story, specifically because they became (or are about to become) physically disabled. Sometimes, this will be in relatively small ways: the happy-go-lucky comedic relief character might become bitter, angry and jaded after getting into an accident that caused a spinal injury, or the severally depressed and nihilistic character might suddenly start acting more cheerful and hopeful, stating that loosing their leg has "put things into perspective and showed them what really matters". In other cases though, the impact is much larger, the heroic character you've been hearing about looses an arm thanks to the main character's actions, causing them to become consumed with anger and self-loathing which they take out on everyone else, eventually becoming an antagonist as they seek revenge for what the main character did to them. The morally grey or even villainous character is injured by their own scheme, giving themselves a permanent disability in the process, which prompts a change of heart and leads them to turn their lives around and become better people, maybe even deciding to team up with the heroes.

Now, having a character go through a personality and goal change due to a major life event, such as becoming physically disabled, isn't inherently bad. A lot of writers are told to tie major shifts in your character's development to major life events, because realistically, something like becoming newly disabled will at least impact how you view the world around you. I very frequently talk about how if I didn't loose my legs, I would have become a vastly different person, but the issues with this trope depends on how it's used and the reasons behind these developments, and whether or not the change suits the character in question.

Before we get into things, I would like to specify that in this post, I'm only going to be talking about how this trope is used with physical disabilities and other easily visible forms of disability. It does show up with characters who develop disabilities under the mentally ill and neurodivergent umbrellas, and is actually a bit more common than what I'm talking about today, but the specific ways its utilised are so different that it's more or less a separate trope, and one that deserves much more attention than I could give it here as this is already going to be a pretty long post. So for today, I'm keeping to it's use with physical and visible disabilities, and we'll talk about how this trope is used with neurodivergence and mental illness another day.

The main thing you need to be mindful of is ensuring that you, as an author, are not including your ingrained biases about disability into the reasoning behind the change. Let's look at one of the examples from before, an evil character who, after loosing their arm (because it's almost always loosing an arm for some reason) becomes a villain and wants revenge against the main character. In a story like this example, the character who became an amputee often views this new disability as something that has ruined their life. It's something that has caused them to suffer, and they want to make the main character (or whoever has "wronged" them) suffer like they did. Stories like this example portray disability as something that is not just horrible, but life-destroying, especially with villains who become all-consumed by the misery this disability has brought them. Many stories that utilise this version of the trope also often perpetuate the idea that if you become disabled, you'll have to give up all the things you love and your goals, even when this wouldn't necessarily be true for the character in question.

Let's say your character was a knight, and the main character cut off their arm in a training accident. obviously you can't be a knight with only one arm because you can't fight anymore, so they left their order. Now this character has become a villain and has found power that "makes up" for their disability, perhaps magic or some other force that doesn't exist in the real world, and are back to get revenge on the character for ruining their lives. Here's the thing though, the loss of a limb, or at least, the loss of an arm specifically, often isn't the career ender people think it is, even back then. In fact, there are many historical records of real amputees continuing to serve as knights and other similar military roles after loosing an arm or at the very least, continuing to fight in other ways. One such example was Götz of the Iron Hand, a mercenary knight who lost his arm to a cannon. Götz had fought as part of the Roman empire's military in 1498, but shortly after left to form his own mercenary company. He lost his hand in 1504 and continued his career as a mercenary with the help of an iron prosthetic capable of holding his sword and the reigns of his horse, among many other things such as writing, for another 40 years. Götz wasn't unique in this though, several suits of armour from the same time period have been found with integrated prosthetic hands, though the names of their owners are unknown. There was also Oruç Reis (aka Aruj Barbarossa), A privateer admiral who served the Ottoman Empire in and around the Mediterranean who lost his left hand - earning him one of many nicknames: Silver-Hand, thanks to the colour of his prosthetic. Oruç, like Götz, continued his career for several more years until he was eventually killed in 1518.

My point in bringing this up, is to highlight how important it is to double check that the reason your character's whole motivation for turning to villainy, isn't just based on your ideas about what a disabled person can or can not do. Actually double check it, research it, especially if it's important for your plot.

Even in the cases where the disability in question actually would stop someone from being able to do something, the incorrect assumptions can still occur and cause issues in different ways. For example, a character in a more modern setting who looses their arm due to an accident the main character was responsible for while serving in the military would be discharged, ruining the character's plan to become a general some day. This absolutely would be devastating for a character like that, and they realistically could struggle to adjust, both in terms of getting used to their disability and finding new goals for their life. They may well feel anger at the main character, however, if you are portraying just living with a disability, in the case of this example, living with an amputation as inherently "suffering" for no other reason than they are disabled, it is still perpetuating those really negative ideas about disability. I've said this a few times in other posts, but villains who are evil or even just antagonists purely because they're disabled or are trying to avoid becoming disabled is a trope all its own and one that is best avoided if you yourself aren't disabled, as even outside of spreading these negative ideas about life with a disability, it's just an overdone and overused trope.

But what about when this trope goes in the other direction? when you have an antagonistic or even just morally grey character who becomes disabled and this is the catalyst that turns them into a good guy?

For the longest time, I knew I usually disliked this version of the trope too, but I couldn't put my finger on why. With disability being the reason someone became a villain, the underlying reason it's there is often able to be boiled down to "I, the writer, think being disabled would be terrible and life like that is inherently suffering, so this character is angry about it," which is obviously an issue (the "inherently suffering" bit, not the anger). However, when a character becomes good due to becoming disabled, the reasoning is usually more along the lines of, "this is a big change in a character's life that has caused them to reconsider and revaluate things" (or at least, that's what I thought). This isn't bad, nor is it necessarily unrealistic. Hell, as I already said, I do consider my disability to be a catalyst that made me into who I am today. I also know plenty of people who, after becoming disabled later in life, did have a big change in how they viewed themselves and the world, and who consider themselves better people since becoming disabled. It's far, far from a universal experience, mind you, but it does happen. So why did this version of the trope still not sit right with me?

Well, I think there's a few reasons for it. The first being that there's a tendency for non-disabled people to think real disabled people are just incapable of evil deeds, both in the sense that they aren't physically capable of doing them (which is bad and not even always true for the reasons we already discussed), but also in the sense that there's this idea that disabled people are, for some reason, inherently more "good" and "innocent" - As if breaking your back or loosing a limb causes all evil and impure thoughts to be purged from the body. This is a result of many folks viewing disabled people as child-like, and thus attributing child-like traits (such as innocence) to them, even subconsciously. This is an incredibly common issue and something disability rights organisations are constantly pushing back against, as this mentality can cause a lot of unnecessary barriers for us. With how often I and many other disabled people are subjected to infantilization, I would be honestly shocked if it wasn't at least partially responsible for people thinking becoming disabled is a good reason to kick off a redemption arc.

This infantilization isn't unique to physically disabled people by the way, in fact it's way, way, more commonly directed at people with intellectual and developmental disabilities - or at least, people are more open about it, but as I already mentioned, how that is reflected in tropes like The Disabling Change of Heart is vastly different and deserves a post of it's own.

That's mostly just speculation on my part though, since that infantilising mindset does show up a lot in media, but not usually as part of this trope specifically.

However, it's not the only reason I wasn't a fan of it. When the disabling change of heart is used to fuel redemption arcs, I think, once again, that the disability itself being credited with causing the change directly is another factor. When this happens, it's usually because "it put things into perspective for me and showed me what really mattered."

This sounds better than our previous example on the surface, but stories that use this logic are often still portraying disability as an inherently bad and tragic thing, something so bad, in fact, that it makes all the other (legitimate) issues they thought were massive before seem so small by comparison. This is a type of inspiration porn: content made to make non-disabled people feel inspired or just better about their own situation. It's the mentality of "well my life is bad, but it could be worse, at least I'm not disabled like that!"

In a fictional story, this might look like an athlete character who dreamed of making it big so they could be famous and get out of poverty. They were a dick to anyone who got in their way but only because they were worried about not being able to make rent if they don't constantly win. One day though, they overworked themselves and got into a car accident on the way home because they were too tired, and now they're in a wheelchair and can no longer walk, which is (supposedly) absolutely tragic and way worse than anything else they were already going through. But they end up becoming a better person because it has put things into perspective for them. Yeah they were struggling to make ends meet, but at least they weren't disabled! Now that they are, they know they shouldn't have cared so much, because money doesn't matter when compared to not being able to walk, right?

As well as portraying disability in a negative light, these kinds of stories dismiss and diminish the other struggles or challenges the character is experiencing, placing the status of "not disabled" above all else.

There's also the fact that, when a lot of real people say their disabilities had positive impacts on their lives, they don't usually mean the disability itself is directly responsible for the change. There's exceptions of course but for myself personally, and most of the people I know who say they are better people because of/since becoming disabled, the disability has been more of a neutral catalyst than the actual cause of positive change. Meaning, it opened the door to allow those changes to happen, but it wasn't the direct cause. For me personally, becoming physically disabled at a young age didn't make me a nice person like people expect, I was still a little judgemental asshole for a lot of my childhood. However, because I was disabled, I had to travel a lot, initially because I needed medical treatment that my local hospital wasn't equip to provide, and later, because I started competing in disability sports. because of both of those things, I met people I never would have otherwise who made me reconsider what I'd been taught on a wide range of subjects, and made me question where those beliefs had come from in the first place. When I say my disability played a part in who I became, it wasn't because my disability itself change me, but it helped me meet people who were positive influences on me and my life. but when creatives make characters who experience arcs like this, they ignore this, again, defaulting to the "this was a bad thing that just put all my other problems into perspective" reasoning.

Some iterations of this trope also use disability as a kind of "karmic punishment" where the disability is portrayed as a rightfully deserved punishment for an evil character's deeds - usually something relating to the disability they acquired but not always. An example might look like an evil tyrant who punishes the rebels they captured by cutting off their hands. Eventually, this catches up with him, maybe the friend or a child of one of the rebels is able to capture the tyrant and cuts his hands off as payback so that he gets a taste of his own medicine, a taste of the suffering he imposed on others. Now facing at least one of the same realities of the people he subjugated, he realises the error of his ways. With some pressure from the main characters, he has a change of heart and surrenders himself, steps down to let someone else take his place, or perhaps he decides to start changing policies to be more in-line with these new morals until some other character usurps him, becoming an even bigger threat than the previous former tyrant.

Once again, stories that use a disability like this are still portraying the disability as an overall inherently bad thing, but there's the added layer at play in this example. The thing is, there are a lot of people in real-life who actually believe disability is a punishment from God. I remember one time when I was over in the US, an older lady came and sat down on the seat beside me on the bus and started asking me about my disability and specifically, how I became disabled. This isn't an unusual interaction, it happens fairly regularly whenever I use public transport, but on this particular day, the conversation suddenly shifted when I told her I became disabled when I was very young. This woman, despite the bus-driver's best efforts to get her to stop, ended up lecturing me for an hour and a half (during which time I couldn't move due to how my wheelchair was held in place) about how my disability was punishment from God for my parent's sins. She then tried to convince me to attend her church, claiming they would be able to heal me. And the thing is, this isn't an uncommon experience.

A lot of disabled people are targeted by cults using this same method: they'll convince people their disabilities are a punishment, make them believe they deserved it, that they just weren't good enough, but don't worry, if you repent and come to our specific church we can heal you. There was even a case in Australia recently that uncovered a cult called Universal Medicine, who taught that disabled people were reincarnations of evil people, and that being disabled in this life was their punishment, as well as that parents who have disabled children were being punished for other sinful behaviours. They were found to be operating a disability care service named Fabic that was being paid for by the NDIS, a subsection of the Australian government funded healthcare system that specifically aids disabled Australians by paying for and subsidising treatments, technologies (such as mobility aids) and other services relating to their disability. Fabic was found to be stealing excessive amounts of funding from their disabled clients under the guise of therapies and carer services, but was not actually helping their clients at all. Whether it's just taking advantage of them to get their money, or actually using this logic as a justification to mistreat them, this mentality of "disability is a punishment" actually gets real disabled people hurt or worse, and so seeing it come up in media, even if there is no ill-intent, can be very distressing and uncomfortable for disabled audiences.

So with all this being said, is the disabling change of heart a trope you should avoid in all it's forms and versions? No, but it does need to be handled with extreme care. I do think it should be avoided as a reason for a character becoming evil for the most part. If that really can't be avoided in your story though, at the very least, ensure that you foreshadow the change. Your happy little ray of sunshine, embodiment of sweetness and innocence type character probably isn't going to turn murderous and want revenge for an accident for example. A character who is likely to be driven to that kind of extreme of wanting revenge for their disability, so much so that they become a villain, probably already had at least a few traits that would predispose them to that line of thinking already, before becoming disabled. As for when it goes in the other direction, and you have a character becoming a good guy, avoid using the reasoning that "the disability put things into perspective for me". Instead, if you must use this version of the trope, use the character's new disability as the reason they encountered other people and situations that challenged their views, things they wouldn't have encountered otherwise. No matter the reason though, be very careful to avoid inspiration porn, and as always, try to find a sensitivity reader to give your story a once-over, just to make sure something didn't slip under your radar.

[Thumbnail ID: An illustrated image showing the same elf character twice. The picture of her on the left shows her laughing evilly, two tiny horns protruding through her brown hair. She is wearing a black dress and red shoes. On the right shows her in a yellow dress, sitting in a bright pink wheelchair with her head held eye and her eyes closed. The horns have been replaced with a glowing halo. In the centre is text that reads: "Disability Tropes: The disabling change of heart." /End ID]

#writing blind characters #writing disabled characters

517 notes · View notes