The news this evening will certainly be dominated by the Oregon and Kentucky primaries, alongside Senator Kennedy's tragic ailment. But hopefully people will find the time to read about these recent developments in currency accessibility (pardon the goofy pun above).
WASHINGTON — In a decision that could drastically change the appearance of American money, a federal appeals court panel ruled on Tuesday that the United States discriminates against the blind because the country’s paper currency is the same size regardless of a bill’s value.
The 2-to-1 ruling, which could have implications not only for blind people but also for vending machine-manufacturers and even companies that make wallets and purses, found that the Treasury Department had failed to demonstrate that it would be too burdensome to make bills of different sizes or add features that can be read by touch to distinguish monetary value.
This hits particularly close to home for me. Having been employed for nearly three years as a web designer for a public institution, I frequently deal with accessibility issues for those with visual impairments, ranging from adapting colors to best accommodate those with severely limited vision, to ensuring that my content works correctly in a screen reader. That can prove to be a challenging task, although it tends to promote efficient design habits that benefit both designers and audiences.
Anyone who has seen the new $5 bill has seen the results of this accessibility effort applied to currency design. The purple 5 (rendered in otherwise beautiful Helvetica) is intentionally set apart from the rest of the bill to make its value distinguishable for those with limited vision. This obviously does not help those who cannot see, but it is certainly a step in the right direction for those with moderate to severe impairments. But the new bill has been almost universally derided as an affront to tasteful design, especially alongside the beautiful new pound sterling coins. The consensus (in which I share) appears to be that accommodation may be achieved alongside attractive design; the two need not exist in opposition.
In light of the recent court ruling, Adam B from DailyKos points out two reasonable accommodations used elsewhere in accessible currency: Canadian-style embossing, and different bill sizes for different denominations (a feature of the euro). Ann Althouse (of the UW Law School) believes that this may provide a perfect opportunity to encourage a transition to a $1 coin, and reap the benefits we've known about for quite some time. Maybe we can end the penny's misery while we're at it.
I find it particularly encouraging that all of these discussions suggest that we may better accommodate recipients of adversity while developing a currency system that functions better for everyone. Eliminating the $1 bill would save quite a bit in money spent replacing worn-out bills. And introducing tactile variation into the remaining ones would assist all Americans (sighted or otherwise) in better handling our currency.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home