BillSears said:
From what I've heard this book really wouldn't offer me much information. It was a good try but it tries to cover too many disabilities and therefore doesn't cover any one of them as deep as we'd like.
I don't know what sorts of changes they will make with future editions, but one of the biggest problems with trying to cover too many subjects is that none of them get covered well.
Also, the things the authors knew the most about (my guesses are 'People of Size' and Touring with an
ECV) were covered with the most detail. There were some things that I know they didn't really understand what I was trying to tell them and why that was important information. One example is they were going to put in the number of handicapped rooms into the resort listing. I said that was not helpful information because (first of all) the numbers didn't sound correct given what I knew about ADA requirements (some were way higher than the ADA grid, some way lower). The second reason was that HA rooms come in many types - from just grab bars to roll in showers and that knowing someplace had 26 HA rooms didn't tell a reader anything about whether or not that room would be appropriate for them.
I think it's a very well meaning book, but tried to cover way too much.
rhiannonwales said:
The attractions guide is limited to a bunch of letter codes next to a title sometimes there is a single sentance describing the reason, but not always.Sometimes they say it may be scary but not why.For my DS with sensory issues, if i can tell him WHAT to expect, its a lot easier to handle, imagine me telling him, " oh its just scary"
Interestingly, when I reviewed the book I thought the format was just their 'rough format' and would be changed before publishing. I found all the letters to be difficult to use; especially when you have a person or persons with multiple needs in the same party.
Personally, I would have used a standard format to describe each attraction and not used the letters at all (if I ever get the time to do what I want with the disABILITIES FAQs thread, you will see it).
One of the problems with the ratings was the survey they used didn't allow any 'gray areas'. I think I filled out 4 or 5 individual surveys for different conditions and there was no place for "yes, but...." answers that I like to give. it was just a blanket rating for the entire attraction.
They took all that info and came up with a single 'Reader's Rating' for each attraction. Someone with a child with autism is going to rate attractions much differently than a thrill seeking paraplegic or an elderly person using an ECV. Even for my DD, some of the attractions that are the best from a tranfer status are not the best from a content status. And some of the hard transfers are attractions she really likes, so we put up with the hard transfer.
There was also a place on the survey to indicate it was your 'worst' attraction, but not why. The 'Worst' was all put together and you will see some attractions listed under the description as "Readers Worst" for
U which I had to go back to the code in the front to see was autism. But, that tells me nothing about
why people rated it as worst - was it noise levels, that it's a long show, all the activity, sitting to closee to people, the wait before the show.......
All I know is that it's 'worst' (although I know some DIS board readers who have said their children with ASD really like it).
A very hard task.