I’d like to start this posting by continuing some thoughts from my last post. Specifically, the question of how one who is visually impaired can become integrated into those parts of the national consciousness formed by a shared participation in some image. The bulk of examples upon which both I and the text from which I drew my concerns in the last post focused on more political examples (e.g. the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima), but what about those cultural images encountered as children that, even when encountered individually, help to form a collective identity based upon the experience of having viewed the same image. Think about how some images and picture books become a part of the cultural consciousness. Some images like Eric Carle’s Very Hungry Caterpillar or Dr. Sues’s Cat in the Hat become iconic of childhood even for adults who managed to never read the books. (Take a look at the variety of items bearing the image of Carle’s Caterpillar http://www.eric-carle.com/world.html.)
But what of the children who, though they may learn the stories, have no access to the images?
Audio books, reading machines, and Braille all provide opportunities for the visually impaired to read a great variety of media from books to websites. Braille computer displays allow for the blind to read the text from computer screens, but while concept designs like that of the Siafu (http://www.yankodesign.com/2008/02/27/metamophing-computer-interfaces/) take into consideration the need to render computer images for the blind, the technology to do so does not yet exist.
So if more advanced technology is not yet up to speed, what about less advanced? What about the technology involved in book publishing? In textile and paper arts? Enter into the conversation the tactile book. The technology does exist for creating these textual rich texts. Unfortunately, most tactile books that are created are done so to create an additional depth to a visual art piece or to promote limited multi-sensory reading experiences for the young. Pat the Bunny and a tactile version of Horton Hears a Who are examples of well-known tactile books aimed at children. Pat the Bunny’s tactile element is a small patch of fuzzy fabric that is meant to be the animal’s fur; the book is designed to allow the child to interact with the text by, as the title says, patting the bunny. The tactile Horton Hears a Who incorporates a three dimensional stuffed plushy of Horton into the book.
Images from childhood reading can become intrinsic parts of our identity and culture, both individually and collectively. So, does it not make sense that there would be a strong effort to include the visually impaired in this process? The difficulty occurs in finding appropriate material. Even though tactile books do exist, they are not really constructed with the visually impaired in mind.
A tactile book constructed for the visually impaired needs to consider very specific concerns. (See http://www.makingtactilebooks.com/ for some instructions.) Tactile images need to be distinct with clearly identifiable characters, borders, textures. A fluffy patch in the middle of an otherwise traditional printed illustration is not enough. Yet, largely, a fluffy patch meant to represent a rabbit’s soft pelt is the best a visually impaired child can hope to find in a tactile picture book outside of those handcrafted by individuals with their needs in mind.
Now, I understand that economics do play an issue in why there does not exist an abundance of tactile picture books for the visually impaired. It is more expensive than conventional paperback printing, certainly. But if the funds (and marketable success) can be found for puffed up Hortons and fluffed bunnies, is it unreasonable to believe funds can be put into a tactile picture book that appeals to both the needs of the visually impaired and is still marketed as a multi-sensory book for other sighted children?
If we have the technology but not the inclination to construct tactile picture books for children who are visually impaired, if we as a society fail to incorporate them into the fold of what I would call a shared image identity construction, then what becomes of the national and shared community discussed in the texts? What’s more—why is there so little apparent concern about this topic?
No comments:
Post a Comment