Discrimination against shoppers who cant read

boliston

Often the style of the packaging alone will give a pretty good clue to what it contains.

Just a quick look at my kitchen and I see boxes which are obviously cereals, bottles which are obviously wines & beers, plastic bottles which clearly contain milk.

I reckon that if you removed all text and images of the product then most people would still have a pretty good idea what it was.

jack_of_all

JemmaBe wrote: »

I have complete sympathy for those who are blind or partially sighted having problems in shopping in supermarkets, although this is not the issue being brought up here.

But for people who can't read, my sympathy dwindles slightly. When I go abroad (including countries without the same alphabet - russia for one) I can perfectly adequately navigate a supermarket. I can see what is in the packet, or if I can't I look around and see what kind of isle I'm in. Value crisps in england, are clearly in an isle full of crisps. Although they don't have pictures explicitly stating they are crisps, it is fairly obvious they are crisps and not nuts, which come in a small packet, and are heavier.

Even things such as peas and sweetcorn which feel the same, are obviously yellow or green, even in the value products you can see through the packaging.

We should encourage people to become literate, which as far as I'm aware is NOT a recognised disability, and where dyslexia or otherwise is the reason the discrimination is in the barrier to them learning to read.

My post is about people who cannot do there own shopping, Its about them identifying some of the packaged food that is bought for them. See through packaging is not a problem and we should encourage litracy but for many severely disabled it is impossible.

geordie_joe

jack_of_all wrote: »

Hello everyone, this is my first post. I can read, but I shop for some people who cant read and live on benefits. I would like to buy them some of the best value supermarket brands but often I can't because they don't know what is in the packaging. I feel that all products should have some image of the contents by law, people who cant read are more likely to have lower incomes. I'd like to ask if others have experienced this problem trying to save money for people who need this kind of support.

jack_of_all wrote: »

My post is about people who cannot do there own shopping, Its about them identifying some of the packaged food that is bought for them. See through packaging is not a problem and we should encourage litracy but for many severely disabled it is impossible.

Your post, quoted above, does not mention that you shop for people with a disability. It clearly says "I can read, but I shop for some people who cant read and live on benefits."

It doesn't say "people who can't see" or "people with sight problems", it says "people who can't read".

jack_of_all

Yep apologies, I guess as asumed it obvious at the time but it is not. I shop for some people who can't read or shop for themselves because they are severley mentally disabled although I,m sure the problem exists for those who are only illiterate and that nowadays severely disabled make up a good part of the illiterate members of our population.

miacat

boliston wrote: »

Often the style of the packaging alone will give a pretty good clue to what it contains.

Just a quick look at my kitchen and I see boxes which are obviously cereals, bottles which are obviously wines & beers, plastic bottles which clearly contain milk.

I reckon that if you removed all text and images of the product then most people would still have a pretty good idea what it was.

But have you got learning disabilities?

the people jack shop's for have.....

miacat

geordie_joe wrote: »

Your post, quoted above, does not mention that you shop for people with a disability. It clearly says "I can read, but I shop for some people who cant read and live on benefits."

It doesn't say "people who can't see" or "people with sight problems", it says "people who can't read".

i understood what he said and so did a few others!

geordie_joe

miacat wrote: »

i understood what he said and so did a few others!

It's easy to say that 21 minutes after the explanation was posted. It's just a shame you didn't post before you read the explanation.

While I'm here, can you explain how you read "people who can't read" and knew the OP mean people who can't read due to a disability. Then point out the posts that show a few others came to the same conclusion too?

Errata

Do a wall chart with pictures of all the items with a number against each one, then write the number on the corresponding bought item. People can then match the numbers up so they know what's in a tin/packet/etc.

dmg24

geordie_joe wrote: »

It's easy to say that 21 minutes after the explanation was posted. It's just a shame you didn't post before you read the explanation.

While I'm here, can you explain how you read "people who can't read" and knew the OP mean people who can't read due to a disability. Then point out the posts that show a few others came to the same conclusion too?

I agree with this, and I think it is pretty rude towards the disabled to automatically lump them into the same group as illiterate people. I am disabled (severely disabled according to the govt), and I am certainly not illiterate (well, most of the time! ). Clarification was needed to establish that the OP actually shopped for severely disabled people.

jack_of_all

I'm so sorry, I said severley mentally disabled first time in my sentence then just severley disabled later in the sentence, my mistake. I do help some others with severe learning disabilities for a more polite desription of their difficulties, that can read and write fine and I don't intend to suggest that disabilites can be lumped together like that, I must put more thought into quick replies