Accessible Bodies, Usable Bodies

More Textual Free Flow

This past May, I went through usability. One of the nice parts about usability was that there were actual users who went through and tested the text, the website, etc. Since I'm reading the accessibility material, I keep seeing parallels between usability and accessibility, and I really don't think that the two strands can be easily separated. Just like I think the break between disability studies and accessibility is artificial. Seems like a huge statement, I know, and I can be stomped for saying it, but I do not believe any theory worth its salt can be parted from practice, and I don't believe that any real or meaningful practice is without theory.

Back to usable Bodies. I wonder if we cannot draw from the manufacturing and/or testing process which designs ramps, wheel chairs, and other gear for disabled folks to find out exactly what their heuristics and criteria are for disabled bodies. That would be interesting to examine in and of itself. I think that could potentially be very instructive, not just in terms of rhetorically analyzing the representation of bodies and the discourse around disabilities, but the actual representation and expectations--the limits and pass fail points--for the bodies.

What happens when we see how these things are described? What is a bodily failure? How much can or will the flesh be forced or compressed in order to fit in the tool that is supposed to enable the flesh? How much of the physical identity must be compromised in order to be capable?

Has anyone ever done readings/discourse about shit/piss bags? That's crude, but how many hundreds of thousands of people endure the use of them? How are they designed? Are they even intended to be usable? Or are they simply a form of device that is created to suit the needs of the medical providers so that their task is easier? I don't know, but bodily fluids/releases are a very basic function practiced by everyone, and thus, it seems, that it could be a base line measure for comparing other practices.

This emphasis/centering on the body--and the generation or analysis of usability tenets--fascinates me. Then again, I'm totally obsessed at the moment with theory.

What I'd really like to find out is just how much of the criteria can be shared between usability and accessibility and between texts and flesh. Where is the heart of those four circles in a Venn diagram? What do they all share?