I'm currently attending a training on accommodating pedestrians in road work zones. It's really interesting to see how (ADA-compliant) accessible pedestrian infrastructure implementation is discussed in professional engineering spaces (as opposed to general disability spaces).
We have three groups of disabled road (+sidewalk) users that we must focus on design for: visually impaired & blind pedestrians, mobility impaired pedestrians, and cognitively impaired pedestrians. In this context, mobility impairments also include walking unsteadily, slowly, or with low endurance/stamina.
Generally, we must aim to provide the following accommodations for disabled pedestrians. For the visually impaired: high-contrast signage & markings, ground-level channelization as a "shoreline", a smooth and level walking surface, no protruding objects, smooth and stable hand guides / railings, and auditory and tactile guides at crossings or other complex maneuvers. For the mobility impaired: no protruding objects, no side barriers that could interfere with manual wheelchair or crutch use, a smooth level and grippy walking surface, smooth and stable hand guides / railings, and "refuges" on particularly long routes. For the cognitively impaired: high-contrast signage & markings that are clean and concise, arrows that point in exactly the correct direction, and channelization that reduces opportunities for someone to accidentally end up in a traffic lane.
We see some similarities across access needs: clear signage / guidance, barriers or other channelization to make wayfinding easier, no protruding objects, smooth and stable surfaces.
There's also one very glaring conflict in access needs: channelization. Barriers that reach the ground, and barriers with railings, help blind & visually impaired pedestrians move in the correct direction with confidence. Barriers to channelize the pedestrian detour path help cognitively impaired pedestrians keep within pedestrian zones and move confidently to the end of the detour. Barriers with railings can provide support for unsteady and fatigued pedestrians. But barriers at the edge of the pedestrian route give cane, crutch, and wheelchair users just one more thing to whack their knuckles, elbows, and devices on, and can reduce their ability to turn or recenter themselves, along with removing the ability of able-bodied pedestrians to get out of their way in narrow places.
I don't have some kind of big conclusion here, I just thought it was interesting to see that cognitively disabled pedestrians are included among those whom sidewalk closures can affect uniquely negatively, and to see a frank discussion of how not everyone with vision & mobility disabilities are helped by each other's accommodations. Within the broader context of "work zones are super inaccessible we have to start doing it right."
4 notes
·
View notes
ok. this might be slightly insane but uhh...how do you feel about doing all 4 pevensie kids (or however many of your choosing) for character bingo? i know they're probably not, like, blorbo status but your narnia posting around thanksgiving made me think of them. (if not them, i propose: owen bc your owen rants delight me, and judd bc. judd <333)
AKSJLDFKSHDGISLRIJSKHG UR SOOOO VALID ACTUALLY !!! i'm gonna do them all <333 because i want to <333 i've actually never read the narnia books so these are all the movie kids <3
lucy, edmund, susan, peter <3 you've awakened something in me <33
everything on this is derogatory <3 i have a rich inner world where owen is a genuinely interesting character with a genuinely interesting narrative but i also don't give a fuck about him so i'm probably never gonna talk about it <3
judd <333333333 my beloved <33333333333333 the only wrong thing he's ever done is support owen in any way shape or form and that's just down to the writing constantly propping owen up and so i choose to ignore it all <3
2 notes
·
View notes
Consideration for the Princess Mary is thought to have been one of Jane's uppermost [concerns] as she moved into her role as consort, but whether it was simply political or indeed sincere is another question. She apparently approached the subject with Henry just prior to Anne's arrest:
'Mistress Semel [...] suggested that the princess should be placed in her former position; and the king told her she was a fool, and ought to solicit the advancement of the children they would have between them, and not any others. She replied that in asking for the restoration of the Princess she conceived she was seeking the rest and tranquility of the king, herself, her future children and the whole realm; for, without that, neither [Charles V] nor [the English] people would ever be content.'
Her concern for Mary may [well] have been genuine, but her timing was impeccable. She safely voiced her concern surrounded by her family and friends at court who opposed the Boleyns.
What is interesting in this exchange is the speculation of Jane's motives, combined with the king's reaction: he defined the role he expected her to fit into, in this case, he gave clear indication that she should concern herself with the business of the children she would have with him, not any other. Politics aside, she was expected to produce an heir and focus her attention on the dynastic issue of her future family. At the very least, Henry had convinced himself that there would be children between them and sought to remove her from any central political role to that of consort and mother. Jane was a hope for the future, but Henry set out immediately placing a definition on where her concerns should be and what his expectations obviously were.
Jane, The Quene (Pamela M. Gross)
1 note
·
View note