A Discussion of the Be My Eyes “Inclusive Language Guide”

On May 16, 2024, Be My Eyes published an invitation for the public to join their company mission to “redefine communication norms and promote respectful and modern language practices” (Bashin, 2024). The invitation was shared in the form of a preface to a free, web-based Inclusive Language Guide. The Guide is written in a welcoming prose that invites conversation while addressing common questions on how to communicate information related to people who are blind or have low vision. It disentangles common language knots by giving specific examples (Part 1: Terms to Avoid); addressing the use of person-first language (Part 2: Unbuttoning the person-first straitjacket); and encouraging the reader to consider anti-ableist perspectives (Part 3: Avoiding Negative Tone or Second-Class Thinking). The Guide manages to deliver this content in a 5-minute read.

How Did This Guide Come to Be?

Be My Eyes is perhaps best known for its free mobile app (available on iOS and Android), which connects blind and low vision users who want sighted assistance with volunteers and companies anywhere in the world, using live video with human or artificial intelligence. This service is provided at no cost for blind and low vision individuals; the cost is subsidized by the for-profit side of Be My Eyes, which offers fee-for-service options for corporate clients.

The Inclusive Language Guide was originally published as an in-house resource for engineers, coders, and staff members with little to no experience interacting with individuals with disabilities. The resource was integrated into Be My Eyes’ new employee orientation materials, and soon after shared (upon request) with human resource and communication departments of the corporate clients. These businesses sought advice on how to address disability for customer service purposes and welcomed the documentation.

With increasing demand for the guide from Be My Eyes’ business customers, Be My Eyes decided to publish the guide as a freely available resource. Bryan Bashin, vice-chair of the Be My Eyes board of directors, drafted the guide initially and circulated the document internally for feedback and peer review. About one month passed between the time the guide was published in-house to the time it was published open source on May 16, 2024. According to Mr. Bashin, whom I interviewed for the purpose of writing this commentary on June 1, 2024, the abbreviated time line was possible due to the marketing and public relations goal of a for-profit company to contribute something for Global Accessibility Awareness Day (GAAD). In contrast, a government agency would likely require a more significant time line and rigorous proposal, review, and approval processes in order to publish a similar type of document. GAAD was first launched in 2011, and it occurs on the third Thursday of each May. Each year, people and companies are invited to engage in an accessibility initiative by furthering their professional development, hosting an event to highlight or solve an aspect of accessibility (e.g., a “hackathon”), or enacting a solution that improves the state of access and inclusion (GAAD Foundation, n.d.).

Is This Guide the First of Its Kind?

Although the Inclusive Language Guide is not the first publicly available style guide that addresses disability language conventions, it is unique from other guides because it is specific to blind and low vision conventions and written “for the masses” for broad communication purposes including ad hoc, casual, and business contexts. Other published resources on the topic might serve different or broader disability considerations, address more specific communication goals, or are only available at a cost. Some examples of these resources include:

Disability Language Style Guide (2021) , from the National Center on Disability and Journalism (NCDJ). This guide offers five general guidelines and a glossary of 115 language conventions. Per convention, the guide provides the related background and NCDJ recommendation.

Is Person-First Language Still Acceptable?

All disability language guides recognize that person-first language is not preferred by all people. For example, some members of the autism and Deaf communities have advocated firmly for identity-first language; other members across a variety of disability communities have criticized the use of compensatory language and reclaimed language conventions in which, for example, the expressions “blind” or “crip” are used as a source of pride. With these examples in mind, disability activism is personal and inherently enacted with personalized intentions. All language guides recognize this concept and recommend that authors discover how an individual being discussed prefers to be described so that their preferred terminology can be used. It is important to keep in mind that preferences are best dictated by the person with a disability (or at least a member of the relevant disability community) and never by an outsider of that particular disability community.

In What Contexts Should the Inclusive Language Guide be Adopted?

Although “legally blind” (in the United States and many countries) and “registered blind” (in the United Kingdom and other countries) remain legal terms, the Inclusive Language Guide recommends that individuals use the terms “blind people” or “people who have low vision” instead. For broader consideration and adoption, the guide recommends avoiding ableist language as a leading principle. Ableism is “. . . a modern concept for when non-disabled people think of themselves as ‘normal’ and people with disabilities as exceptions…. Ableism calls into focus the non-equal treatment of people with disabilities” (Bashin, 2024). Terms such as “impaired,” “loss,” “low-functioning,” or “high-functioning” are examples of ableist language because these expressions imply a lesser-than comparison.

When asked how inclusive language should be adopted, Mr. Bashin shared that all companies who received the Inclusive Language Guide wholeheartedly implemented changes accordingly because they simply “wanted to do the right thing” by honoring and respecting all customers with and without disabilities. As a former journalist with the lived experience of being blind himself, Mr. Bashin is an advocate for making sweeping changes across all communications, including–and especially–in organization names. He personally believes that updating an organization's name can be a powerful way to re-brand and modernize, while also cautioning against inadvertently stripping an organization of its mission by shying away from a disability term.

There is Not One Correct Approach Toward Inclusive Language

It is important to recognize that even within one disability community—in this case, the blind and low vision community—there are diverse opinions on how people prefer to be identified and even contradicting perspectives on how inclusive language is best implemented. Mr. Bashin's opinions on broad adoption of inclusive language and institutional name changes do not represent the opinion of every individual who is blind or has low vision. In fact, a review of the Inclusive Language Guide, when compared to previously published guides, affirms that there is no one correct approach to incorporating inclusive language; rather, there are distinctly wrong, euphemistic, and dishonorable ways to communicate about disability that are ableist and must be avoided.

The Need to Reconsider Person-First Language

For readers and authors (and especially academics) who have upheld strict policies on person-first language, the fact that such language is discouraged in the guide should not lead to feelings of regret or defensiveness. Rather, this moment offers the field of blindness and low vision an opportunity to reflect on past practices, challenge assumptions, and embrace change. For those who do not yet identify as having a disability: it is time to sit down and yield the floor to those who do; to offer a platform to those who have been silenced; and to recognize how power can be shifted with words, actions, and decisions. Now is the time for discourse between people with different perspectives so that all individuals concerned may expand their thinking while building inclusive communities together.

Although some people may argue that specific word choices are less important than tone and tradition, others may counter that word choices are, in fact, the semantics that perpetuate or terminate ableism in a society. Ultimately, it is imperative for stakeholders to recognize that language is ever evolving, and there may never be universal agreement on how best to adopt inclusive language.

To conclude, it is also important that I disclose that I do not identify as disabled. The discussion in this commentary is presented from an outsider's perspective and informed by personal friends, colleagues, and mentors who identify as blind, Blind, low vision, and visually impaired. Thank you to everyone who continues to educate and mentor outsiders such as myself, so that we may earn the recognition of being an ally.