I once knew a guy who was blind. According to him he was blind. He didn’t think much of these ever-sensitive labels well-meaning people apply.

It’s sort of like blacks in America. It wasn’t until the 70s (I think) that “black” caught on as the term used to identify black people. However, to the blacks, they considered themselves black for 20-30 years prior to that time, maybe longer. And today, political correctness tells us — in the States — to refer to them as African Americans (unless they aren’t from Africa). However, to black people, I think they still haven’t changed a thing and consider themselves blacks.

Labels can suck.

He said “visually impaired” is actually incorrect as it means that a person is unable to visualise something, and blind/partially-sighted users can visualise ideas as well as the rest of us - better to use “vision impaired” if going down this route.

Just a small thing about that RNIB quote - it’s from our publications archives, which means it dates from before 2000, so not really an indicator of current thinking etc. It was a review of the various terms which either were in use at the time or which might be appropriate (or not) in different circumstances. The article was kind of tackling the same issue you’ve addressed in this article, in fact, albeit in a more formal way.
However the usage on the RNIB website which you noted is a better indication of RNIB’s current policy regarding “what words to use”.

Reading your article from beginning to end, it is obvious that you have no disrespect for people with disabilities, you don’t want to cause any offence to anyone and you recognise the dificulties natural language presents. However, that picture emerges across a long article (high bandwidth) but it might be quite difficult to convey it in a shorter space (less bandwith). If, after reading your article, I still have doubts, I can ask you to clarify what you mean and hold a conversation with you about it (more bandwidth). Ultimately, it would be best to meet yo, get to know you and live with you for a while (huge bandwidth). Then I’d be able to really judge your attitudes. And this is what it’s all about. Actual attitudes. Then it doesn’t matter so much what words you use because I know what you mean. Just the same as I know what my mother means when she talks about “coloured people”, which to many is a derogatory term, but to her is more respectful than “blacks” (I’ve tried explaining but it’s useless).

With lower bandwidth, we inevitably have problems accurately communicating. If you had to make a reference to people with disabilities in a single phrase outside of the context of a long article like this, you would not be able to explain your choice of words. So I, as the receiver, would have to accept that, cut you a little slack and avoid making assumptions or jumping to conclusions about your intentions based on very little evidence.

It’s difficult. When someone uses all caps in an email message it really does LOOK LIKE THEY’RE SHOUTING. But I think it is up to us when we receive messages to be more open, less judgemental and keep in mind the difficulties inherent in expressing meaning through low bandwidth.