Are translucent stairs harder to climb for people with certain disabilities?
If not, I don't see how the inclusions of stairs in general is an issue. If building designers aren't meeting ADA (or similar) requirements then that is a different issue.
Imagine, if you will, that your eyes don't work as well as they used to. (Vision impairment is one of the most common types of disability; statistically speaking, it will happen to you as you age, if you don't already wear corrective lenses.)
While enjoying the brand-new library at Kenyon College, you are confronted with what SHOULD be a stairwell, but you can't see stairs, just handrails and a weird shimmery pattern where the stairs should be. Do you try your luck, and stick your legs out into the shimmer? Or do you search for the elevator?
I'd say it was almost equally dangerous for person with that high level of visual impairment to use any stairs where each stair is a single uniform color.
In your example it might be difficult for such a person to identify the location of the stairs, but still very dangerous once they found them and began climbing. In my example-- say the stairs were a uniform red-- once the stairs were found it would still be equally dangerous to climb them, little better than going up blindfolded as you couldn't distinguish one stair from another.
A person with that impairment should probably want some sort of occupational therapy to use a guide cane or other method to safely perform tasks like that without relying clear contrasting colors.
Think Parkinson's. Visual clues as to what is or is not immediately in front of you can seriously impact your ability to make the nerves in your leg muscles work correctly.
Now, that said, maybe no one with Parkinson's should be going up any stairs of any sort. But I think glass stairs, even if frosted, would definitely be an ADA problem.
Any place open to the public with stairs will still have to meet disability accommodation law and have an alternate, accessible means to reach the higher floor, like an elevator.
While I dislike the design, it’s generally not going to be at the cost of those with physical disabilities.
Disabilities are not binary; it's not perfect health VS quadriplegic.
For some people, it's just harder to do everyday things. It doesn't mean they can't move around. And for people getting older or with a degenerative disease, continuing to do things normally is also a matter of pride.
To put it in obvious terms, it's like saying that we can add 3-4 stairs at the main entrance, because anybody who don't like stair can enter via the damp alleyway in the back, besides the dumpsters.
Who said anything about women ? Women aren’t the only ones who can wear skirts ya know :). But yes accessibility should also be apart of the discussion
Not commenting on the validity of GP's comment, but I don't think you can invalidate it with that argument; the topic evidently permeates the discussion.
> that a woman designer popularized the glass stair
> I know lots of girls
> when kilts become trendy
> particularly women being preyed on
> that a lot of women have to deal with creepy behavior
I agree that it permeates the discussion , but I think it’s dishonest that it’s the only discussion it permeates (like the kilts you mention there). The Twitter poster made a very obvious point of not mentioning just women but anyone who can wear a skirt.
One that comes to mind is girls who wear skirts.
Disabilities are something I agree should be mentioned, but the GP beef should be with just mentioning clothing, not a subsection of a sex who wears it.
