Talk:Visual impairment

message: A short article? Could someone add more information?
Such as examples of how severe visual impairment can be etc :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.88.162 (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: Hi All,
This is not a personal web site or link that attract visitors to a web site
Spoken-Web is a free Web portal, managing a wide range of online data-intensive content like news updates, weather, travel and business articles for computer users who are blind or visually impaired.
I would be glad to receive your feedback. Please send me any comment or suggestion
Thanks in advanced for your time Eyalshalom (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Spoken Web 

message: This is the portal to an open source project on google code.  I wrote the software myself in Applescript Studio for OS X.  It's free, and it can read the free text files from Project Gutenberg.  It speaks the text electronically and shows the text on the screen in a large font.  
http://code.google.com/p/stanzareader/
There is no advertising on this site and nothing is for sale.
206.109.195.126 (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Free E-book Reader

message: Can we consider linking orphaned articles such as Catalan_Association_for_the_Blind_and_Visually_Impaired to the See Also section of this article? I notice that the Center for the Partially Sighted is already linked. Russell Dent (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking orphaned articles 

message: I propose that Low vision be merged into Visual impairment.
Both articles cover similar ground, such as listing conditions that may lead to vision loss and classifying degrees of vision loss.  It is confusing to have two articles with titles that may be viewed as being synonymous.
I believe it is appropriate to merge low vision into visual impairment rather than the other way around as the latter has the most incoming internal links, and so is arguably more notable (523 vs. 255). 
Any thoughts, suggestions or objections please? Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - from the titles I can see an argument against, but looking at the text of low vision it is quite close,  I think a merge might sort out a number of other problems with the text as well...Fayedizard (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Improve references first. I support the general idea of this merge, but the quality of both articles needs to be improved (either first or during the merger as long as it happens) particularly with regard to inline references. If the content is merged in its current state it will be even more difficult to tell where the information came from. I suggest update the articles so that there is at least one inline reference per paragraph, no remaining unsourced content (which for all I know may be original research however plausible and well-written it may be) and, if possible, at least one inline from each of the current external links, so they can be turned into citations. --Mirokado (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the quality of both articles needs to be improved in the ways you've described. Many thanks for the specific guidance you've given, it's most helpful.  If and when this merger goes ahead, I'll makes these improvements as part of it, otherwise I'll make them to the individual pages. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Dont't Support - Visual Impairment is a broad classification and should have references to specific articles such as Low Vision, Visual Field Loss, Color Blindness, Dept Perception, etc. Low Vision is a specific diagnosis that a person is given and should have a complete article. The current Low Vision article should be reworked to concentrate only on low vision and should include more information about low vision aids, such as specific CCTV types and various telescopic lens systems. Chance Lindsey (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Revision of Both Pages Supported 
Low-vision is a type of impairment, but impairment can include any situation requiring correction.Low-vision refers to disability from lack of adequate corrective devices or procedures. 
When "Visual Impairment" is used correctly in disability, a modifier is needed- moderate to severe in the better eye, severe, profound, or near-total. Diagnosis codes differentiate Low-vision from correctable impairments.  
Low-vision should be defined and linked to broader and more specific articles. Including it in a larger article while covering causes, effects, education, and specific adaptive devices would result in unmanageable size and scope. Considering there is a sub-specialty of Ophthalmologists for Low-vision, the subject material is complicated enough to need it's own article. 
I propose this structure:
Visual Impairment- include the many types and causes of abnormal vision, links to more specific situations of the optic nerve, retina, and others described in simple terms at this point. Also described and linked, articles of the various groups of devices and procedures to correct visual problems. Remove redundant specifics belonging to other related topics.
Low Vision- Again, remove redundancies and replace with simple statements that are addressed in the broader article. Include specific definitions, list causes with general descriptions and links. Do the same for optical devices and procedures which also cross-link to the general article for ease of navigation. 
Livingheartbeat (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: It's a point of pedantry, I know, but I would like to propose that the name of the page be changed to "Vision Impairment" rather than "Visual Impairment".  "Vision" being the noun is the correct usage of the term whereas "Visual" is an adjective.
In its absolute literal sense, to say someone is visually impaired would imply that there is a fault with how they are seen by others rather than how they are able to see.  As I say, it's small potatoes but in striving for accuracy, I think it's a topic that should be discussed at least. Lezman (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont't Support - While I believe you are correct from a grammatical standpoint, widespread use differs. For example Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Dallas Services for Visually Impaired Children and numerous other examples. A counter example to support your claim is Hearing Impairment which if used in the same manner would become Auditorily Impairment. Thank you for raising a valid discussion, but I believe that it should remain Visual Impairment. Chance Lindsey (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Neutral
I understand what you are saying, however use of the adj. Visual with Impairment as a noun, and the plural verb Visually combined with the noun Impaired are equally acceptable. I'm not aware of how either assigns blame to the disabled individual. Maybe you could explain further?
Livingheartbeat (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vision Impairment - Visual Impairment 

message: Hello fellow editors! Myself and three other classmates are in a nursing communication class and were assigned to work on this article. Due to the fact our class is based off of communication we figured it would be appropriate to add a section on communication! I hope this is okay with the rest of you and you like what we have to add! If not feel free to message us and share your concerns Bm14pq (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We are also planning sections that relate to development of visually impaired children and infants and also some minor changes to the facts in the epidemiology. Hopefully these changes are also acceptable. Tm13wg (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks so much Avery, I loved reading all the positive feedback you gave us on our article! As well as giving us ideas on edits we need to do, we will keep these thoughts in mind as we are refining our edits! Thanks for helping us out! Sp14ud (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Thank you so much, it really means a lot to hear positive feedback from others! I have taken into account everything that you have mentioned, and I fixed my initial edits, which was the section Adjusting the visually impaired peoples attitude to reduce communication barriers. I took that section and combined it with the Adjusting the sighted peoples attitude to reduce communication barriers and made it into one heading, Adjusting the visually impaired and sighted peoples attitude to reduce communication barriers. This way, this information that confused you can be included in both the sighted and the visually impaired people change of communication. Sp14ud (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Thank you so much Tianna! All of these points are very well made, and thank you for pointing out some errors that we can easily fix as well! We will definitely keep these fixes in mind as we refine our edits to the page. Thank you for contributing your feedback, it was very helpful! Sp14ud (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a Communications Heading

message: Great work on your edits everyone, you have made an excellent contribution to this article! Its great that you found so much information on communication for the visually impaired. I like how you incorporated communication barriers from both a visually impaired individual's standpoint, but also from the standpoint of someone who is sighted. This really fits the neutral point of view pillar of Wikipedia, as it is written from more than one perspective. I also love the section on how a visually impaired individual communicates with their surroundings, I think it is really great to include all different forms of communication! Although your editing is great, I have a few suggestions to help you improve your article even more. The first thing that I noticed was that a few paragraphs include in-text citations, which I do not really think is necessary. For example, in the sentence "In the article Towards better communication, from the interest point of view. Or—skills of sight-glish for the blind and visually impaired, the author, Rivka Bialistock[43] comes up with a method to reduce individuals being uncomfortable with communicating with the visually impaired", adding the in-text citation makes the sentence sound long and a little choppy. Since you have a citation at the end of the sentence still, I do not think it is necessary to add the first part in. There are a few other sentences like this that you might want to consider changing.
I think it is a great idea to include a section on improving health care access for people who are visually impaired. However, I think it would be good to provide some specific examples of how communication barriers can affect their health and health care, as well as what the specific needs for vision are that you mention. Overall, your additions to this article are awesome, and make a great contribution to the Visual Impairment Wikipedia page. Keep up the great work, and congratulations on what you have accomplished so far! Avery  (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much Avery, I loved reading all the positive feedback you gave us on our article! As well as giving us ideas on edits we need to do, we will keep these thoughts in mind as we are refining our edits! Thanks for helping us out! Sp14ud (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Thank you so much, it really means a lot to hear positive feedback from others! I have taken into account everything that you have mentioned, and I fixed my initial edits, which was the section Adjusting the visually impaired peoples attitude to reduce communication barriers. I took that section and combined it with the Adjusting the sighted peoples attitude to reduce communication barriers and made it into one heading, Adjusting the visually impaired and sighted peoples attitude to reduce communication barriers. This way, this information that confused you can be included in both the sighted and the visually impaired people change of communication. Sp14ud (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Thank you so much Tianna! All of these points are very well made, and thank you for pointing out some errors that we can easily fix as well! We will definitely keep these fixes in mind as we refine our edits to the page. Thank you for contributing your feedback, it was very helpful! Sp14ud (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Student's Suggestions

message: The treatment section and subsections are a bit mangled. It has a lot of entries which should best be grouped under "Assistive technologies" or the like. Example: "Reading and magnification", "Computers" and "Other aids and techniques" are not treatments by any stretch of the imagination (nor is the remainder of section with communications et cetera).  Only after numerous paragraphs does it mention: "For more information, consult Assistive technology" when there should ideally be  template pointing to Assist tech with section summarizing key aspects and topics specific to visual impairments.  This needs feed back and suggestions on structure, as well as the actual language to be presented to readers (and preferably, collaboration in implementing it). -- dsprc [talk] 04:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes could use improvements agree. Maybe summarize and move some of the extra content to a Treatment of visual impairment subpage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is such a clusterfuck, knowing where to begin is a bit difficult. This is why RFC was tacked onto the end of header there. Some level of guidance would be appreciated; others welcome and encouraged to chime in as well. -- dsprc [talk] 15:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So I guess the question is what subsections should the treatment section have? Than we can try to organize that section around it. Agree it needs a lot of work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with structure of Treatment section; RFC 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Visual impairment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110429132719/http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/banknotes/accessibility.html to http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/banknotes/accessibility.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hearing loss which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 17:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Perhaps I missed it, but I failed to note any mention of gonorrhea contracted during birth as a cauuse for blindness.Formerly, in many U.S. states, eyedrops of silver nitrate as a preventative were made mandatory for newborns.Penicillin ointment became a less caustic prophylaxis, but the process was slow.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.249.146.8 (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infection 

message: The International Classification of Diseases 11 (2018) classifies vision impairment into two groups, distance and near presenting vision impairment.
Distance vision impairment:
Mild – presenting visual acuity worse than 6/12
Moderate – presenting visual acuity worse than 6/18
Severe – presenting visual acuity worse than 6/60
Blindness – presenting visual acuity worse than 3/60
Near vision impairment:
Presenting near visual acuity worse than N6 or M.08 with existing correction.
source:https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/blindness-and-visual-impairment
I updated the page According to the above mentioned  WHO web page only,  but it was rejected.  The main thing I noticed was the classification of impairment into two, distance and near. Is that a good thing to be mentioned in wiki? is there any updated and new information on that? Sorry if this violates group rule Ajeeshkumar4u (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem with your edit was that it was hard to tell exactly what you're trying to do because you changed the formatting so much. It'd be fair enough to present the new info ... just keep the formatting the same as far as possible. Graham87 14:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification

message: I'm just noting here that I've gone and removed the text added in student work discussed above. See my edit summaries. Graham87 06:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of sections 

message: I propose merging Blind culture into Visual impairment. Blind culture just states that blind culture doesn't exist except for understanding what being blind is like, but that information might still be useful and I feel should be communicated. As there isn't very much to even say, I can't see WP:UNDUE being a problem I can do stuff! (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As a blind person, I have no objections to this. I had no idea that article even existed until now. This is the sort of area where reliable sourcing is extremely thin on the ground; I don't think this podcast episode (which is very well-known in the blindness community but probably nowhere else) qualifies as a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes; for the record, I haven't listened to much of it. Graham87 (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal