Anonymous wrote:No it's not like, non-PC. It's just unnecessary.

I use a walker, not a wheelchair. I still need places to be accessible to me.

Is it accessible. As in, are there barriers for someone with mobility issues? That doesn't always mean wheelchair.

Anonymous wrote:I think that often if a place is "accessible" they've thought about multiple physical and sensory disabilities. So, we're talking about a place with parking that can accommodate a van with a lift, and braille on the elevator buttons, and nothing raised at the threshold, and grab bars in the bathroom. So, it's not just "wheelchair accessibility" it's ADA compliant across the board.

Having said that, as someone who works with people with developmental disabilities, I do feel as though sometimes people forget that using pictures or icons along with text (e.g. on a menu), or providing reduced sensory input through alternate places to wait, or other strategies specific to DD are also accessibility strategies and yet are frequently forgotten.

Anonymous wrote:"Accessible" is shorthand for "complaint with ADA standards".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that often if a place is "accessible" they've thought about multiple physical and sensory disabilities. So, we're talking about a place with parking that can accommodate a van with a lift, and braille on the elevator buttons, and nothing raised at the threshold, and grab bars in the bathroom. So, it's not just "wheelchair accessibility" it's ADA compliant across the board.

Having said that, as someone who works with people with developmental disabilities, I do feel as though sometimes people forget that using pictures or icons along with text (e.g. on a menu), or providing reduced sensory input through alternate places to wait, or other strategies specific to DD are also accessibility strategies and yet are frequently forgotten.

Yes, so I would think it would be more helpful for the asker to specify what type of accessibility they are looking for. Examples:

1) Is it wheelchair-accessible?
2) Is it walker-accessible?
3) Is it accessible for those who need reduced sensory input?
4) Is it accessible for those with limited vision?

Why wouldn't this be a more helpful way to phrase it? It seems like the more specific, the better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it's not like, non-PC. It's just unnecessary.

I use a walker, not a wheelchair. I still need places to be accessible to me.

Is it accessible. As in, are there barriers for someone with mobility issues? That doesn't always mean wheelchair.

So, wouldn't it be more specific to ask, "Is it walker-accessible?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that often if a place is "accessible" they've thought about multiple physical and sensory disabilities. So, we're talking about a place with parking that can accommodate a van with a lift, and braille on the elevator buttons, and nothing raised at the threshold, and grab bars in the bathroom. So, it's not just "wheelchair accessibility" it's ADA compliant across the board.

Having said that, as someone who works with people with developmental disabilities, I do feel as though sometimes people forget that using pictures or icons along with text (e.g. on a menu), or providing reduced sensory input through alternate places to wait, or other strategies specific to DD are also accessibility strategies and yet are frequently forgotten.

Yes, so I would think it would be more helpful for the asker to specify what type of accessibility they are looking for. Examples:

1) Is it wheelchair-accessible?
2) Is it walker-accessible?
3) Is it accessible for those who need reduced sensory input?
4) Is it accessible for those with limited vision?

Why wouldn't this be a more helpful way to phrase it? It seems like the more specific, the better.

Individuals with disabilities are just that, individuals. For example, 2 people who both use walkers or wheelchairs might need very different things, and they might need different things depending on the day or the kind of support they have. Plus, a person shouldn't have to disclose specifically what's hard for them in order to find out if they can go somewhere. Asking "Does the door on the bathroom stall swing in or out?" or "How high is the toilet?" can be embarrassing and intrusive.

ADA standards cover most people with disabilities most of the time. Most people with disabilities know what ADA standards are, and have learned ways to use spaces that meet them, so asking whether a place meets ADA standards lets them know whether they'll be successful.

If someone has a condition that isn't covered by ADA standards (e.g. someone with CVI who needs high contrast, or someone with specific sensory needs, or someone who can handle an automatic door opening on the left side but not the right side) then they're probably going to ask about those specific things. Asking "Are you accessible for cortical visual impairment?" will result in people guessing, because most people don't actually know what accommodations for CVI might be.

Anonymous wrote:If I didn't know that the person was handicapped, my first thought would be whether it was accessible via public transport.