Hi List,A simple solution would be to label the charger with raised print letters BP. That could be described in the manual for those who have not learned the print letters. Then those who do not know print could learn the print letters and others who already know print could touch the letters. That gets around the difficulty of many people not knowing braille. It is just as reasonable for the charger to be labeled with raised print letters as for devices that sighted people use to be labeled with print letters that are not raised.
Tim----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Buhrow" <buhrow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 11:09 AM Subject: [bookport] Re: Labeling Chargers
Hello Carl. The reason we were discussing chargers was because the new Bookport, not yet out, will most likely have an AC adaptor to charge its rechargable battery. Gary Wunder asked that if the new Bookport did have an included wall wart, that it be marked in a tactile manner so thathe could identify it as belonging with the Bookport. Several folks on thislist then suggested that his request was over the top and that he should just learn to label his chargers himself. While that might be a good consumer strategy, I object to the notion that it is an unreasonable request. While I don't expect products designed for sighted users to contain features deliberately helpful to the blind, I do expect this from products which are designed for use by the blind, and,I believe, that in most cases, products designed for use by the blind are insufficientlymarked, either in braille or via some tactile means, when compared with theequivalent markings in print which exist on the devices. This has alwaysbeen true, and I fear that we, as blind consumers, have come to accept this state of affairs as just. My point is not that I believe all controls need to be marked with braille, but rather that having tactile marks on a devicein order that this device is just as useful and identifiable to a blind user as it is to a sighted user is a reasonable request to make. Further, I do realize that print is king, and it always trumps braille or other nonvisual markings, but I want to point out that when this rule is applied to the manufacture of devices for the blind, it does make the statement that the non-print reading user isn't as important as the print reading user is. It's subttle, pervasive, and I don't expect it to change, but I don't want users to get complacent and feel that they don't deserve equal treatment if they don't read print. If APH doesn't comply with Gary's request, I'll understand, but I, for one, think they should try. -Brian