Modern discussions about change require using terms that make no sense in the context they are used so that everyone can ask about it and then the explanation can be made about the actual issue. In this case dignity is a stand in for expectations and infrastructure.
I have no idea how the word fits into the linked article as written. I don’t even understand why someone would assume that a person walking on a sidewalk has car trouble without additional context like distance from their usual location, demeanor, clothing choice or something else that has nothing to do with infrastructure. Like I know people in remote areas are exercising because of their sporty clothing, and I guess this article thing they aren’t dignified or something because there isn’t any shade.
All the stuff about improving the infrastructure I agree with, but the presentation and word choice is confusing.
I agree. It’s confusing and seems like an unrefined idea. I think dignity is supposed to mean that the space naturally makes you feel like you belong there without thinking about it, as opposed to making you feel like a second class citizen or vulnerable. It’s more of an integration of multiple concepts that produces a complex result. I think “design” might be a more concrete concept, to go to my original comment on “the design of every day things.” Essentially the author is advocating for human centered design. Just like doors are better if they’re designed to work without thinking about it, sidewalks are better if they’re designed to work for everyone without them stopping to think about whether it’s safe, or if they’ll be able to easily get where they’re going.
Modern discussions about change require using terms that make no sense in the context they are used so that everyone can ask about it and then the explanation can be made about the actual issue. In this case dignity is a stand in for expectations and infrastructure.
I have no idea how the word fits into the linked article as written. I don’t even understand why someone would assume that a person walking on a sidewalk has car trouble without additional context like distance from their usual location, demeanor, clothing choice or something else that has nothing to do with infrastructure. Like I know people in remote areas are exercising because of their sporty clothing, and I guess this article thing they aren’t dignified or something because there isn’t any shade.
All the stuff about improving the infrastructure I agree with, but the presentation and word choice is confusing.
I agree. It’s confusing and seems like an unrefined idea. I think dignity is supposed to mean that the space naturally makes you feel like you belong there without thinking about it, as opposed to making you feel like a second class citizen or vulnerable. It’s more of an integration of multiple concepts that produces a complex result. I think “design” might be a more concrete concept, to go to my original comment on “the design of every day things.” Essentially the author is advocating for human centered design. Just like doors are better if they’re designed to work without thinking about it, sidewalks are better if they’re designed to work for everyone without them stopping to think about whether it’s safe, or if they’ll be able to easily get where they’re going.
It is like they want to take the already existing clearly named concept of pedestrian first design and call it dignity instead.