UK Vogue December 2024 : SZA by Nadine Ijewere

[KoV]

The dismissal of the idea that anyone who has a visual impairment couldn’t possibly want to consume fashion content is enraging to me. Yes there is a lot of performative inclusiveness in the world BUT there are many people who want more access to creative content. To assume otherwise is just ignorant and lazy.

I don't think I saw anyone saying people with a visual impairment aren't or couldn't be interested in fashion content. People are just questioning the true motive and/or helpfulness of what British Vogue is doing.

Let's say someone with blindness IS keen to experience British Vogue through Instagram. What would be their experience and access? British Vogue only provides "alt text" for a few select posts, meaning they fall short if access and inclusivity are honest goals. It's like designing a museum with twenty galleries, each only accessible with stairs. Then building a ramp for just one of the galleries and congratulating themselves for being inclusive to people in wheelchairs. Their captions are also written in a way in which tags and hashtags are sprinkled throughout the caption rather than listed at the end, which is what one should do if writing for a screen reader. Also keep in mind the "alt text" they provide for screen readers doesn't even include a description of the text in the image. My understanding is, that screen readers for Instagram only read the caption, they're not able to read text in images. So the person with blindness is robbed of the knowledge that the cover says SZA a supernova on her own terms. This is about equitable access, right? I know that might sound like I'm splitting hairs, but I think it demonstrates that there is at least a possibility this is all just performative (brought on by their Disability issue a year and a half ago) rather than genuine inclusivity/accessibility.

British Vogue also set up a service for audio versions of each issue, ostensibly to make these entire issues accessible to people with blindness. How fab! The way they're set up makes no sense, though. Rather than letting people trying to experience the issues select individual content or articles to listen to, Vogue has instead released single audio files of (in some cases) over 5 hours straight of run-on content. Not user-friendly. It's no wonder only TWO people subscribe to this service with some issues having only been accessed THREE times total over the course of a year.

Now, is something better than nothing? Sometimes. But an argument could be made it's insulting to try and generate accolades and good press for inclusivity when you only give it a half-hearted go. It's nice to feel defensive of the rights of disabled people and to want equal access, but dismissing criticism as ignorant and lazy ain't the move.

 

[jeremydante]

The dismissal of the idea that anyone who has a visual impairment couldn’t possibly want to consume fashion content is enraging to me. Yes there is a lot of performative inclusiveness in the world BUT there are many people who want more access to creative content. To assume otherwise is just ignorant and lazy.

THANKYOU.

 

[BlueRuin]

I don't think I saw anyone saying people with a visual impairment aren't or couldn't be interested in fashion content. People are just questioning the true motive and/or helpfulness of what British Vogue is doing.

Let's say someone with blindness IS keen to experience British Vogue through Instagram. What would be their experience and access? British Vogue only provides "alt text" for a few select posts, meaning they fall short if access and inclusivity are honest goals. It's like designing a museum with twenty galleries, each only accessible with stairs. Then building a ramp for just one of the galleries and congratulating themselves for being inclusive to people in wheelchairs. Their captions are also written in a way in which tags and hashtags are sprinkled throughout the caption rather than listed at the end, which is what one should do if writing for a screen reader. Also keep in mind the "alt text" they provide for screen readers doesn't even include a description of the text in the image. My understanding is, that screen readers for Instagram only read the caption, they're not able to read text in images. So the person with blindness is robbed of the knowledge that the cover says SZA a supernova on her own terms. This is about equitable access, right? I know that might sound like I'm splitting hairs, but I think it demonstrates that there is at least a possibility this is all just performative (brought on by their Disability issue a year and a half ago) rather than genuine inclusivity/accessibility.

British Vogue also set up a service for audio versions of each issue, ostensibly to make these entire issues accessible to people with blindness. How fab! The way they're set up makes no sense, though. Rather than letting people trying to experience the issues select individual content or articles to listen to, Vogue has instead released single audio files of (in some cases) over 5 hours straight of run-on content. Not user-friendly. It's no wonder only TWO people subscribe to this service with some issues having only been accessed THREE times total over the course of a year.

Now, is something better than nothing? Sometimes. But an argument could be made it's insulting to try and generate accolades and good press for inclusivity when you only give it a half-hearted go. It's nice to feel defensive of the rights of disabled people and to want equal access, but dismissing criticism as ignorant and lazy ain't the move.

Damn, I have never heard of anyone as offended about the inclusion of accessibility descriptions as you. Do you have a visual impairment? Or close with anyone that does? Just trying to make sense of your outrage because it seems like it’s coming out of left field.

 

[blueorchid]

Damn, I have never heard of anyone as offended about the inclusion of accessibility descriptions as you. Do you have a visual impairment? Or close with anyone that does? Just trying to make sense of your outrage because it seems like it’s coming out of left field.

Yeah, I'm scratching my head at it, too. I know people honestly think this sh*t is "woke" or performative, or whatever, but do you seriously not think there are visually impaired people out there who wouldn't use these services?

The SoundCloud audio magazine is actually kind of interesting, I am heartened that it's actually free (43 listeners for the October 2024 issues), because if you knew how exorbitant the prices of audiobooks were, subscriptions to Talking Magazines, DAISY readers, etc. were, you probably wouldn't be so upset. The ridiculous hoops publishers put libraries and organizations for the blind (that most of these items will be borrowed from, because their prices are absurd). And what, do you think people are stupid and don't use devices that they can't forward, rewind, speed up, set bookmarks on?

Like, there really are new legislations on web accessibility and to act like Vogue UK is just being PeRfOrMaTiVe is ridiculous. And ok, so if Vogue is being disingenuous and their "true motives" aren't pure... it's hurting... who?

So what, are all of these magazines wOkE too? Are blind people allowed to care about other visual things: gardens, soap operas, films, antiques? DAISY magazines

 

[KoV]

Damn, I have never heard of anyone as offended about the inclusion of accessibility descriptions as you. Do you have a visual impairment? Or close with anyone that does? Just trying to make sense of your outrage because it seems like it’s coming out of left field.

I am not offended or outraged by attempts at accessibility and certainly not by successful accessibility measures. I was responding at length to someone who suggested some of the previous comments (including mine, I assume) in this thread were infuriating, ignorant, and lazy.

I didn't even outright say British Vogue is not releasing them in good faith. I said there's a possibility it's performative and not genuine. I was questioning it. And I listed actual reasons why I felt that way. You didn't address a single one of them. Maybe you thought they were too stupid to dignify with a response, I don't know. But the "damn bro are you disabled because why else would you care, you seem so offended" vibe of your response isn't a compelling reason for me to reconsider how I see things.

Yeah, I'm scratching my head at it, too. I know people honestly think this sh*t is "woke" or performative, or whatever, but do you seriously not think there are visually impaired people out there who wouldn't use these services?

The SoundCloud audio magazine is actually kind of interesting, I am heartened that it's actually free (43 listeners for the October 2024 issues), because if you knew how exorbitant the prices of audiobooks were, subscriptions to Talking Magazines, DAISY readers, etc. were, you probably wouldn't be so upset. The ridiculous hoops publishers put libraries and organizations for the blind (that most of these items will be borrowed from, because their prices are absurd). And what, do you think people are stupid and don't use devices that they can't forward, rewind, speed up, set bookmarks on?

Like, there really are new legislations on web accessibility and to act like Vogue UK is just being PeRfOrMaTiVe is ridiculous. And ok, so if Vogue is being disingenuous and their "true motives" aren't pure... it's hurting... who?

So what, are all of these magazines wOkE too? Are blind people allowed to care about other visual things: gardens, soap operas, films, antiques? DAISY magazines

What part of my post made you think I find accessibility to be wOkE and PeRfOrMaTiVe? Feels like a bit of a straw man to me. Calling into question the motives for or helpfulness of the fashion industry's public displays of inclusion and accessibility doesn't at all mean you don't care about or don't want people living with blindness or other people with disabilities to be able to experience their interests. This discussion is only about what British Vogue is doing. If adding captions designed for screenreaders to probably about 5% of your Instagram posts is seen as successful inclusion then I don't know what else to say. To me, it should be an across-the-board commitment or just don't bother. But I'm sort of an all-or-nothing person generally. I certainly wouldn't claim moral superiority over someone who feels differently about it than I do. It struck me as performative from the very first time they added those selective captions, when they described a cover subject as "queer" in the visual description, despite any indication of this in the photo or written on the cover. That's my take. Maybe others will disagree. I'm not "so upset" or "so offended" by what British Vogue did, but I am annoyed at the idea that questioning it is infuriating, ignorant, or lazy.

Maybe it's different in Canada or the UK, but in the US just about every library has accessible versions of many magazines (and of course books) available to access for free. No, you don't own it. You don't own an Instagram post or a SoundCloud file either, so I don't get the relevance of that. Hopefully, all magazines will be available this way. My understanding is, that there are apps to use a "read aloud" function on any magazine available digitally, but the process sounds a bit clunky. I remain cynical of British Vogue and the fashion industry. Whether it's accessibility, representation, concerns for the environment, etc. I take it all with more than a grain of salt. Being critical of tokenism doesn't mean you hate seeing anyone other than a white person in a magazine or on a runway. Being critical of a brand selling bags made of recycled plastic for thousands of dollars doesn't mean you want to kill the turtles. Sometimes these brands just want to congratulate themselves for doing the performative bare-minimum. The idea that releasing a 5-hour audio file of a magazine issue (for comparison, another magazine available via audio had an accompanying file for each article and a "table of contents" so people can access content a la cart, which seems a more accessible experience and more comparable to what a reader experiences with a physical issue or a digital copy of a physical issue) or adding a caption to 1/20th of your Instagram posts is good enough to be beyond reproach is surprising to me.

 

[JeanAvril]

I guess SZA decided to put down roots in Uncanny Valley. And that's fine, but the photography/retouch and styling just don't suit her at this moment. I do love that she's a liar at heart.

I prefer the pretense of Vogue publications from yesteryear than what it is now. This truly sucks

 

[tigerrouge]

While I would consider nearly everything in a fashion magazine to be performative, there was probably also a more personal aspect to UK Vogue's - Edward's - decision to promote accessibility, given that he has spoken about having vision problems for a large part of his life (bbc.co.uk)

Asked if he feared losing his eyesight, Enninful said: "It's my biggest fear.

"I never had good eyesight anyway. I always had my minus 10 glasses and I had four retinal detachments [needing] surgery each time. Then three weeks looking at the ground in a dark room and not lifting up your head. And yes, it was very psychologically intense.

"But what I've also learned is... you don't need perfect vision to create. You don't need 20/20 vision to see images. So that's the irony of it: though I have bad eyesight, I'm still able to create images that people seem to resonate with."

 

[iriswills]

I don't think I saw anyone saying people with a visual impairment aren't or couldn't be interested in fashion content. People are just questioning the true motive and/or helpfulness of what British Vogue is doing.

I was responding to a specific comment which I still think was irresponsibly worded (and lazy and ignorant). I said my piece on that and was not shooting down legitimate concerns about accessibility.

All I can say now (and maybe all I should have said to begin with) is that only those who live with a visual impairment should have a say as to how helpful or harmful Vogue's attempt at inclusion has been for them. I'm going to keep my mouth shut, lol.