A couple of days ago I had a meeting over in Woolwich with a lady from UEL. She wanted to interview me about how I use my Ipad as a communication aid, particularly with regard to my volunteer work at school. I am apparently to be some kind of case study in a EU-funded project. The meeting went well; I explained that, before Lyn introduced me to Ipads, I used to use a Lightwriter, but I now find Ipads much more versatile and useful. It’s not perfect as a communication aid, but the fact that I can do so much more with it, from checking my email to updating my blog, means it has many more advantages.

She then made an observation which really stuck in my mind: one advantage of the Ipad is that it is ‘normal’ – it is a tool everyone else uses, disabled or not. You don’t stand out using one. That chimed with me, but it also reminded me of a debate I once had with a fellow communication aid user. They stubbornly objected to me using the Ipad as a VOCA, saying it is better to use specialist equipment. The more people us Ipads, they reasoned, the more likely Lightwriters and Dynovoxes will stop being made. It was as if they wanted the specialist equipment; almost as if they wanted to stand out. Thus the contrast between the two positions struck me as odd.

The logic is, of course, faulty: certain people will always need specialised equipment, so I think there is little chance that using Ipads will lead to their demise. It boils down to personal preference and need. I see room for both solutions. I think there was an element of their trying to dictate to me what equipment I should and should not use. To some disabled people, such equipment has become woven into ideas about identity; they want it to be special because it makes them special. But if, like me, you just want to be normal, why not use something everyone else uses? That, to me, is the real advantage of the Ipad.