A difference in perspective

[sqbr]

Reading this overall pretty cool article: Things We Like:What Happens When Children Build Their Own Three-Story Playgrounds?, I come across the line "A travesty? Wheelchair and crutch bound children everywhere?" and thought "That would be awesome!". And I got a mental image of happy disabled children having somewhere to play.

But of course that's not what I meant, and afaict that playground would be terrible for children with mobility problems.

Which is not to say the playground idea is overall terrible, but still. It's obviously a perspective the writers of the piece didn't think of.

Comments

[nixwilliams]

ha, yes, very obviously!

(although, wow, it's a pretty awesome thing, and could totally be done in a more accessible way.)

[sqbr]

Oh yes, the basic idea is awesome. And since the article made no mention of accessibility, it's hard to say just from the photos exactly how inaccessible or not it actually is.

[nixwilliams]

i bet that if you had kids with different mobility/accessibility requirements the group would probably cater for that.

[alias_sqbr]

Maaaaybe (but how was the group chosen? It's a bit like the "We'd offer childcare if we had any female employees" thing etc). My experiences with accessibility have made me very cynical. I'll admit, however, that I don't know enough to say they wouldn't or didn't.

But: in the hypothetical situation that you had a group of ablebodied kids and an inaccessible playground, you couldn't easily change it if a new disabled kid joins or one of the old kids becomes disabled.

[nixwilliams]

yeah, i see your point. i was thinking more that if a group started with a mix of accessibility requirements and were told to go for it and make a playground that they could all use. but i can see how the very fact that there are only (perhaps) ablebodied kids in the group is a symptom of structural ableism.

[sqbr]

*nods*