Mapping Access @ Emory
In Unit 1, we explored how language often serves as a privileged medium through which we come to understand the world, and in this case, disability. Specifically, we found that in relation to disability the words we use and how we use them can powerfully shape our attitudes towards people with disabilities as well as have potent effects on the experiences of people with different relationships to disability.
While language might be a particularly privileged medium through which we construct our understanding of the world, it is far from the only one. In this next unit, entitled “Mapping Accessibility @ Emory,” we will examine yet another important (though often under-appreciated) medium through which we make sense of the world and in particular the place of disability in it—space. As our readings from Denis Cosgrove, Tanya Titchkosky, and Rosemarie Garland-Thomson have made clear, space is a crucial medium for human meaning-making and in the case of disability, the (in)accessibility of the spaces we inhabit serves as a crucial means by which we might understand the place of people with disabilities in the social world. In the course of explorations, however, it is crucial that we keep in mind that access is not a simple thing that can be achieved, “a synonym for justice,” but a process that we must engage in if we seek to be more inclusive, or as Tanya Titchkosky suggests, “a place where critical questioning can occur” (Titchkosky 71). To ground our explorations of disability and the meanings that space can hold, as well as to make our explorations and reflections productive for others, we will take the very campus of Emory University as our primary text for this unit. Thus, over the course of the next few weeks we will interrogate the (in)accessibility of spaces on our very own campus and share the results of our individual explorations through multimodal annotations of various sites on campus indexed on a publicly viewable map. |
" . . . access not as a synonym for justice but as a place where critical questioning can occur." |
In assignments 2.1-2.4 of this sequence, each of you will be responsible for individually composing and publishing 150-250 word multimodal annotations to our map that critically describe the accessibility of particular spaces on campus in response to a specific prompt. Following our aggregation of this wealth of incredibly useful data (which should total 60 annotations!) we will take these explorations a few steps further. In assignment 2.6 each of you will be responsible for expanding one of the annotations on the map (it need not be your own) into a 750-1000 word web text (published on your website) that should not only critically describe the site in greater detail, but also integrate material from our course readings to explain the site’s relationship to larger issues of accessibility and move beyond mere critique to imagine how the site might be differently designed to be a more inclusive and accessible space. Meanwhile, in Assignment 2.5 in groups of four we will compose small multimodal artifacts that use our map in some specific way and are aimed at a particular audience and directed by a particular rhetorical purpose, all of which will be up to the group to decide on. |
Assignment Sequence Breakdown and Due Dates
Mapping Accessibility
(30%) Four 150-250 word multimodal site annotations
(50%) 750-1000 word multimodal expanded site annotation
(20%) Small group-produced document/artifact based on the map & in-class presentation
Assignment 2.1-2.4 Site Annotations
For assignments 2.1-2.4, you will compose a 150-250 word multimodal site annotation in the form of blog post on your personal site (some examples) and then embed a link to it in the description box of a placemark you create on the class's google custom map. The first step for these assignments is to go to the Accessing Emory Google Custom Map https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=207264625279733900959.0004e4daa7155ff3f0381&msa=0 and insert a placemarker for the site you plan to provide an annotation for. To ensure that we are achieving coverage of the campus and not all evaluating the same sites, which would obviously not be productive for our potential users, please put your name in the description box once you have inserted your placemarker and please respect once someone else has selected a site and just pick a different site to annotate. Once you have completed your annotation, then replace your name with the link to the page/post you have created for your annotation and make sure your placemarker has an appropriately specific title and a 1-2 sentence description of the subject of your blog post alongside the link in the description box. As for the site annotation itself, the key objective is to critically describe the site you have chosen, especially in terms of its accessibility, and to take advantage of the resources of multimodal composition in order to do so. Thus, you might use drawings, video, audio, photographs, and other modes in addition to your 150-250 words of text in order to critically describe the space for your audience. Also, as is the case with all of your digitally published assignments, you will need to integrate these multiple modes in a coherent and rhetorically savvy way in your actual blog post.
Assignment 2.1 Site Annotation: Getting in the Door (Due October 11)
Evaluate the accessibility of a building on campus in terms of how/whether people of varying abilities/mobilities might enter the building and even a particular space within that building (a single classroom or office) in a 150-250 word multimodal site annotation. Pay attention to the symbolism inherent in the differences between where people of different abilities might be able to enter different spaces (ie. Only the back/side door is wheelchair accessible, while the ornate front entrance requires the ability to walk up steps without a handrail and open heavy doors on one’s own).
Assignment 2.2 Site Annotation: Finding Your Way Around (October 16)
Choose any two sites on campus (it could be your dorm and a building you have class in) and evaluate the accessibility of the route(s) one must navigate between them in a 150-250 word multimodal site annotation. As part of this annotation you might well compare multiple routes between the two sites, including one that is accessible and one that is not, and consider the differences between those routes and the impact that those differences might have on the full spectrum of users navigating them (how long it takes, how amenable they might be in different weather conditions, etc).
Assignment 2.3. Site Annotation: Access & Intimate Necessities (October 18)
From an early age we learn that “everybody poops,” but far too often we forget to ask ourselves whether everybody can take care of their necessary intimate functions in the facilities available. Finding truly accessible restrooms is a particular problem for people with disabilities and one that as you might imagine can have quite a dramatic impact on lives and decisions about travel, work, entertainment, etc. That being the case, I would like you to evaluate the accessibility of any restroom on campus and compose a 150-250 word multimodal site annotation of that restroom. You might use the PISSAR checklist as a helpful starting point from which to begin thinking critically about restroom access, but do not merely post a filled out checklist. As you should be used to by now, compose a rich and engaging evaluative annotation that takes advantage of the multimodal possibilities afforded by our digital composing environment. Finally, an important caveat: do NOT evaluate a restroom for a different gender than the one you currently identify with (I would rather you not get in trouble or cause a commotion on account of this class).
PISSAR (People In Search of Safe and Accessible Restrooms)
www.uclgbtia.org/pissarChecklist.pdf
Assignment 2.4 Site Annotation: Evaluating “Access” (October 21)
Just because something is said to be accessible doesn’t mean it actually is accessible, so I would like you to find a space or route on campus that is marked as accessible and compose a 250 word multimodal site annotation that evaluates its actual accessibility and pays particular attention to the dynamics of the signage being used to advertise its (supposed) accessibility. For example, you might think critically about where the signage in question is located, who the signage itself is accessible to, and how the signage might be (mis)interpreted, among other things.
Assignment 2.5 Group Project: Advertising Access (October 23)
In a three- or four-person group, you will construct a small multimodal artifact that presents our mapping project to a specific audience for a particular purpose. The artifact you produce need not be large, it could be a poster or a Prezi or even a social media campaign, but it needs to show evidence of thoughtful engagement with the expectations of its intended audience and must contain a coherent message that it is trying to get across to that audience that relates to our collaborative mapping project in some way. As a group you will present and explain your project to the class on Oct. 23 and multimodal texts you produce will also be posted to our class site.
Assignment 2.6 Arguing About Accessibility and Imagining an Inclusive Environment (November 3) [due by midnight]
Using one of the brief site annotations on the map (it can be anyone’s and need not be one you produced) as your material, produce a 750-1000 word multimodal webtext that not only uses your own observations/those of whomever created the original site annotation but also productively incorporates some of the ideas from our readings on disability, space, and accessibility in order to put forward a coherent and site-specific argument about accessibility at Emory. Make sure to cite your use of such ideas appropriately. Further, at some point in this expanded text I’d like you to consciously move beyond merely critiquing the accessibility of the site you have chosen and also respond to your chosen site/issue in a way that productively imagines how it might be (re)designed to be more radically accessible and inclusive of all users. Follow this link to an expanded prompt for this assignment.
(30%) Four 150-250 word multimodal site annotations
(50%) 750-1000 word multimodal expanded site annotation
(20%) Small group-produced document/artifact based on the map & in-class presentation
Assignment 2.1-2.4 Site Annotations
For assignments 2.1-2.4, you will compose a 150-250 word multimodal site annotation in the form of blog post on your personal site (some examples) and then embed a link to it in the description box of a placemark you create on the class's google custom map. The first step for these assignments is to go to the Accessing Emory Google Custom Map https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=207264625279733900959.0004e4daa7155ff3f0381&msa=0 and insert a placemarker for the site you plan to provide an annotation for. To ensure that we are achieving coverage of the campus and not all evaluating the same sites, which would obviously not be productive for our potential users, please put your name in the description box once you have inserted your placemarker and please respect once someone else has selected a site and just pick a different site to annotate. Once you have completed your annotation, then replace your name with the link to the page/post you have created for your annotation and make sure your placemarker has an appropriately specific title and a 1-2 sentence description of the subject of your blog post alongside the link in the description box. As for the site annotation itself, the key objective is to critically describe the site you have chosen, especially in terms of its accessibility, and to take advantage of the resources of multimodal composition in order to do so. Thus, you might use drawings, video, audio, photographs, and other modes in addition to your 150-250 words of text in order to critically describe the space for your audience. Also, as is the case with all of your digitally published assignments, you will need to integrate these multiple modes in a coherent and rhetorically savvy way in your actual blog post.
Assignment 2.1 Site Annotation: Getting in the Door (Due October 11)
Evaluate the accessibility of a building on campus in terms of how/whether people of varying abilities/mobilities might enter the building and even a particular space within that building (a single classroom or office) in a 150-250 word multimodal site annotation. Pay attention to the symbolism inherent in the differences between where people of different abilities might be able to enter different spaces (ie. Only the back/side door is wheelchair accessible, while the ornate front entrance requires the ability to walk up steps without a handrail and open heavy doors on one’s own).
Assignment 2.2 Site Annotation: Finding Your Way Around (October 16)
Choose any two sites on campus (it could be your dorm and a building you have class in) and evaluate the accessibility of the route(s) one must navigate between them in a 150-250 word multimodal site annotation. As part of this annotation you might well compare multiple routes between the two sites, including one that is accessible and one that is not, and consider the differences between those routes and the impact that those differences might have on the full spectrum of users navigating them (how long it takes, how amenable they might be in different weather conditions, etc).
Assignment 2.3. Site Annotation: Access & Intimate Necessities (October 18)
From an early age we learn that “everybody poops,” but far too often we forget to ask ourselves whether everybody can take care of their necessary intimate functions in the facilities available. Finding truly accessible restrooms is a particular problem for people with disabilities and one that as you might imagine can have quite a dramatic impact on lives and decisions about travel, work, entertainment, etc. That being the case, I would like you to evaluate the accessibility of any restroom on campus and compose a 150-250 word multimodal site annotation of that restroom. You might use the PISSAR checklist as a helpful starting point from which to begin thinking critically about restroom access, but do not merely post a filled out checklist. As you should be used to by now, compose a rich and engaging evaluative annotation that takes advantage of the multimodal possibilities afforded by our digital composing environment. Finally, an important caveat: do NOT evaluate a restroom for a different gender than the one you currently identify with (I would rather you not get in trouble or cause a commotion on account of this class).
PISSAR (People In Search of Safe and Accessible Restrooms)
www.uclgbtia.org/pissarChecklist.pdf
Assignment 2.4 Site Annotation: Evaluating “Access” (October 21)
Just because something is said to be accessible doesn’t mean it actually is accessible, so I would like you to find a space or route on campus that is marked as accessible and compose a 250 word multimodal site annotation that evaluates its actual accessibility and pays particular attention to the dynamics of the signage being used to advertise its (supposed) accessibility. For example, you might think critically about where the signage in question is located, who the signage itself is accessible to, and how the signage might be (mis)interpreted, among other things.
Assignment 2.5 Group Project: Advertising Access (October 23)
In a three- or four-person group, you will construct a small multimodal artifact that presents our mapping project to a specific audience for a particular purpose. The artifact you produce need not be large, it could be a poster or a Prezi or even a social media campaign, but it needs to show evidence of thoughtful engagement with the expectations of its intended audience and must contain a coherent message that it is trying to get across to that audience that relates to our collaborative mapping project in some way. As a group you will present and explain your project to the class on Oct. 23 and multimodal texts you produce will also be posted to our class site.
Assignment 2.6 Arguing About Accessibility and Imagining an Inclusive Environment (November 3) [due by midnight]
Using one of the brief site annotations on the map (it can be anyone’s and need not be one you produced) as your material, produce a 750-1000 word multimodal webtext that not only uses your own observations/those of whomever created the original site annotation but also productively incorporates some of the ideas from our readings on disability, space, and accessibility in order to put forward a coherent and site-specific argument about accessibility at Emory. Make sure to cite your use of such ideas appropriately. Further, at some point in this expanded text I’d like you to consciously move beyond merely critiquing the accessibility of the site you have chosen and also respond to your chosen site/issue in a way that productively imagines how it might be (re)designed to be more radically accessible and inclusive of all users. Follow this link to an expanded prompt for this assignment.