NIXEDMEDIA™

In the four articles, “Modality,” “Commensurability,” “Retrofitting,” and “Design,” Yergeau et al discuss the issue of “multimodal inhospitality,” which refers to anything that, despite incorporating various modes, is not inclusive for everyone. They begin by explaining that the cause of this inhospitality is the fact that many texts and environments are rarely created with enough flexibility to allow users to manipulate to accommodate for their needs. As a result, individuals with disabilities are often either have a disproportionate experience or are excluded entirely. To illustrate this point, the authors provide the example of a presentation that does not provide materials or an interpreter for deaf individuals. While simple, I found this example extremely effective for two reasons: first, if you cannot hear the presenter and there are no accommodations such as a transcript or an interpreter, you may not be able to fully engage with the content and miss the key points of the presentation; second, because most people do not have a disability, they, even today, are not always factored when interactable spaces or materials are created. This point leads into another important term from these articles: “retrofitting.” According to Jay Dolmage, retrofitting is the act of adding a “component or accessory to something that has already been manufactured or built.” While it is good that accommodations are eventually made, because the solutions are reactive responses, they are often too late to truly be helpful. As I read these articles, I could not help but think about the accessibility ramp for Flagg Hall, which is very long and narrow and has sharp turns that must be challenging to traverse for those that use a wheel chair. I have always sort of thought that the structure was odd, but after reading these articles, I really started to question if the ramp had always been there or if it was a retrofit. If it was, then it is a prime example of how retrofits can simultaneously provide a solution while not being a proper solution to a problem.

 

In “Introduction: Disability, Normality, and Power,” Lennard Davis takes an interesting approach towards the topic of disabilities. As mentioned by Davis, the vast majority of discussions about disability focus on disabled individuals as objects of study (1-2). Instead of following this trend, Davis opts to examine those that are considered to be “normal.” He begins by discussing the fact that the idea of “normalcy” was not always a key facet of society, only being established between the period from 1840-1860 (2). Davis then goes on the explain that, although no one encompasses the characteristics of the “ideal” individual, people are still expected to exhibit or aspire to the “norm” (3). As a result, people with disabilities fell victim to a practice known as eugenics, which sought to group together those with “undesirable” traits and get rid of them. Essentially, eugenics served to remove the “natural” aspect of natural selection by taking measures, such as sterilization, to prevent individuals with “undesirable” traits from spreading their “illnesses” (6-7). While this information is appalling to learn, this kind of discourse is vital because without it, history just repeats itself and marginalized groups continue to be marginalized. As I read this text, I was reminded of a lecture I attended last year that dealt with a similar subject. During their presentation, the speaker talked about how people tend to label handicapped individuals as inspirational for achieving, basically, anything. This lecture was fascinating because, like in Davis’ text, the speaker approached the subject from a perspective that examined “normal” people’s responses to disability, showing that the issue lies less with those who have disabilities and more with society’s standardized norms. As well, the lecture taught me to be more aware of and stop myself if I ever pay more attention to someone’s disability than to what they have actually achieved. This point was summarized through the difference in someone saying, “Wow! They did that and they’re disabled!” versus, “Wow! They did that despite being disabled!”

 

Between these readings, there is a clear overarching theme addressed of society’s attitude towards and treatment of people with disabilities. The texts work quite well, with Davis’ essentially serving to contextualize the issue while the articles by Yergeau et al provide information on its more current state. The approach they took was especially intriguing and I could not help but agree with their argument that the real issue is not people having disabilities but the norms that problematize them and make them out to be defective. Moving forward in my work as a graphic designer, I want to be more considerate of different disabilities and try to account for them proactively to ensure that everyone is able to fully engage with my creations.

​

For my final project, I really want to explore some solutions to the issue of multimodal inhospitality that was addressed in the articles by Yergeau et al. I’m currently thinking about creating multiple sets of instructions that utilize ideally every mode. The instructions will guide people through drawing a fairly simple drawing—likely something geometric—and will be in various formats, such as audio, step-by-step diagrams, text, and braille (if I can figure out how to do that). I think this project will be very beneficial because it will provide me with a greater understanding of how to accommodate for different learning styles and disabilities, which I can then use in my future works.