--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EGW00001Date: 12/26/97 From: "NANCY K. MARTIN" Time: 01:14pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: To survive, school for the blind needs m13:14:4012/26/97 From: "Nancy K. Martin" Subject: To survive, school for the blind needs more students (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 10:18:04 -0800 From: Kelly Ford Reply-To: SJU List for Families of the Blind To: BLINDFAM@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU Subject: To survive, school for the blind needs more students (fwd) Published Friday, December 26, 1997, in the St. Paul Pioneer Press ------------------------------------------------------------ To survive, school for the blind needs more students TOM STILL COLUMNIST MADISON It's no surprise that state Superintendent of Public Instruction John Benson is encountering stiff opposition to his plan to close the Wisconsin School for the Visually Handicapped in Janesville. The school is nearly as old as the state of Wisconsin itself, it has a loyal corps of supporters who believe in its mission, and change could be difficult for many of the students, parents and teachers involved. But none of that makes Benson wrong in his basic assessment: It doesn't make sense to spend $5.8 million per year to operate a school for 59 students, even students with very special needs. Simple division says that's just under $100,000 per child. But even if you accept the school's explanation that much of what it does is outreach education for other blind and visually handicapped students, about $3.65 million would be saved by closing the school. That's $3.65 million that would be available for all of the state's 1,144 blind students, the vast majority of whom are educated in 115 school districts with special programs. The state Department of Public Instruction recently asked what those 115 programs spend per student and found a range of $14,000 to $30,000 per year, or about $20,000 for the typical program. The cost of educating a child at the School for the Blind in Janesville is about $60,000 -- three times as high. No one, least of all career educator Benson, wants disabled children to be deprived of services that will make them happy, productive adults. Money spent now on children who are visually impaired will save society money later. But that's not an excuse to spend money ineffectively or to support two, taxpayer-financed educational systems when one could do. At a joint hearing of the Assembly and Senate Education Committees on Dec. 16, lawmakers heard from well-meaning people on both sides of the debate. One piece of new information came from Sen. Tim Weeden, R-Beloit, and Rep. Wayne Wood, D-Janesville, who said a survey of Wisconsin parents of blind children showed that 29.4 percent did not know the school even exists. Rather than close the school, Weeden and Wood suggested, the state, local districts and the school itself should do a better job of informing parents and recruiting students. Here's a compromise: Determine what kind of enrollment at the school would make it cost-efficient -- perhaps 130 students -- and set a deadline for a recruitment campaign. If the goal is not met, go ahead with Benson's recommendation to close the Janesville school (except for the summers) and redirect the money to special education programs in local school districts. Give the School for the Visually Handicapped a finite chance to recruit new students, but if the demand doesn't exist, close it and redirect the savings. --- # Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) * Origin: The Playhouse TC's Gaming BBS/www.phouse.com/698.3748 (1:282/4059) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EGX00000Date: 12/25/97 From: BRIAN LINGARD Time: 02:27pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Merry Christmas 25 December, 1997 Ottawa, Canada Merry Christmas or Hapy Chanukkah or Happy ramadan to everyone. Yes I have at least one friend trying to get me to attend a Mosque. --- Blue Wave v2.12 [NR] * Origin: Vision Information Systems (1:163/266) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EGX00001Date: 12/27/97 From: HOWIE COOMBE Time: 02:54pm \/To: WALT CONE (Read 0 times) Subj: ? dear walt, in regards to this message to me from you, > Hello Howie! > > Wednesday December 24 1997 15:34, Howie Coombe wrote to Walt Cone: > >HC> dear walt, in regards to this message to me, >HC> aha, that,s an american organisation isnt it,? > > Well the National Federation Of the Blind started in America in > 1940 but we are represented in the world blind union and are a > member of the International Federation of the blind. > >HC> so, do the people on this echo ever disscuss the political past >HC> present and or future and or evolution,of the organised blind >HC> movement,s of the world,? > I don't know about this echo, but we discuss world issues at our > national conventions. aha, well thank you for that explaination,. >>> Walt > > > >HC> -+- TMail v1.31.5 >HC> + Origin: Common Ground +61-8-8223-2131 Telnet dircsa.org.au >HC> (3:800/816) > > Walt --- TMail v1.31.5 * Origin: Common Ground +61-8-8223-2131 Telnet dircsa.org.au (3:800/816) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EGX00002Date: 12/28/97 From: KELLY PIERCE Time: 01:18am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: library access From: Kelly Pierce Subject: library access Below is a recent letter to the Disability Evidentiary Conference Conciliator of the Chicago Commission on Human Relations regarding a discrimination complaint that I filed against the Chicago Public Library in January 1994. Two other blind persons filed similar complaints charging a denial of access. The complaint charges that the library has not provided equal access to computer software and information to me and others who are blind or print impaired. Specifically, the complaint seeks independent computer accessibility for the blind, primarily through speech synthesis, in the library's computer lab and information services provided by CD ROM. Additionally, the complaint documents discriminatory behavior by library staff including staff from the library for the blind who refused to preform a search of four books on the library's card catalog. On October 29, 1997, a Disability Evidentiary Conference was held at the Chicago Commission on Human Relations to clarify facts in the complaints I and others brought against the library and to bring the sides toward resolution. Present at the conference were me, complainant #2 Elsie Haug, adapted technology specialist David Porter, the library's Director of Automation Joyce Latham, the library's ADA Compliance Officer Jim Pletz, and Assistant Corporation Counsel Barbara Anderson as well as the conciliator. We learned that in four years that the library has made some progress in increasing access to people with disabilities. We learned for the first time about services that we never knew existed. One of these services was Internet access through the Lynx World Wide Web browser and speech synthesis. As the letter below shows, access is something more than installing a browser and plugging in a telephone line to a supposedly accessible computer. If you wish to demonstrate your support for access to library services for people with disabilities at the Chicago Public Library, check out some of the options below. . Additionally, the letter is shared in this space to assist blind persons in raising similar concerns at their local library. We wish to inform library professionals that as libraries automate and offer a wide array of information services, it will be important to consider the needs and access issues of people with disabilities, particularly those who are blind or print impaired. For information and resources on information access at libraries and how to make your library usable by those with print impairments, check out the home page of Project EASI: Equal Access to Software and Information at http://www.rit.edu/~easi. Additionally, the file of letters and related correspondence is available from me in a zip file via e-mail. To support those seeking access to technology for the blind and greater access overall for people with disabilities at the Chicago Public Library, you can show your support in several ways. 1. Call Mayor Daley at 312/744-5000 and let him know that you support those who have filed library access complaints and ask him to immediately resolve the situation. He can be faxed at 312/744-2324. 2. Call library Commissioner Mary Dempsey at 312/747-4090 and let her know that the efforts so far have been insubstantial and have not led to blind persons being able to use the library on equal terms of equality with the sighted. Tell her that you expect the availability of computers and other information as available to the blind as others have access to it. She can be faxed at 312/747-4968. 3. Call, e-mail, or fax Illinois State Library Director Bridget Lamont toll free at 800/665-5576, extension #8. blamont@library.sos.state.il.us According to the Daily Southtown newspaper, Lamont signs off on more than $2.6 million to the Chicago Public Library with the assurance that it complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Let her know that CPL has not provided access with the grant monies she provided two years ago and that it should receive no more money from her until it is accessible to people with disabilities. Her rubber-stamping of CPL funding applications has led to the blind and those with disabilities being excluded from library services. 3257 N. Clifton Ave. Chicago, IL 60657-3318 (773) 472-7206 Internet: kelly@ripco.com Monday, 22 December 1997 Ms. Kathleen Yannias DEC Conciliator 174 North Elmwood Avenue Oak Park, Illinois 60302 Case No. 94-PA-08 Dear Ms. Yannias: This letter is to document the validity of accessibility claims that representatives of the Chicago Public Library made at a disability evidentiary conference at the Chicago Commission on Human Relations on October 29. In that meeting Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance Officer Jim Pletz said that government publications were accessible by using the Lynx browser on the World Wide Web and the Vocal Eyes screen reader. The World Wide Web is part of the Internet global computer network, availability of which was claimed to be accessible at the meeting. On November 19, 1997, I visited the computer center on the fifth floor to use this service to conduct a search of the Code of Federal Regulations. I could not use the computer in any way to access the Internet independently. Unlike previous visits documented in the complaint, staff were friendly, cooperative, and wanted to assist me. However, they lacked the tools to do so. CPL provided no instructions on how to use the Vocal Eyes screen reader in either Braille or on a cassette tape. While the manual might have existed on the hard drive of the computer, one needed to use the screen reader to read it. Further, the training tapes that Donald Mitkey described in my site visit in my July 26 response were also unavailable. Mr. Mitkey was not working at the computer center during the time that I visited and the staff person who assisted me, Karen, could not even locate the print version of the Vocal Eyes manual so she could read it to me. Apparently, it had been checked out and CPL failed to make a photocopy for reference. Staff were unable to determine when its return was likely, if at all. Later that day I telephoned Jim Pletz and reported the incident and how it likely violated the Human Rights Ordinance as I did not have access to the same services in the same manner as non-disabled persons. Persons without disabilities have access to software documentation and tutorials for software installed at the computer center. I spoke to Jim Pletz directly by telephone on november 20. He said that he would inform me when access was achieved. I have received no communication of any kind from CPL that would suggest an improvement of the situation described above. I believe that during my visit to the library I was deprived of the full use of library services as defined in regulation 520.110. Further, I was denied a reasonable accommodation as defined by regulation 520.120. These regulations are copied below. REG. 520.110 Definition of "Full Use" "Full use" of a public accommodation means that all parts of the premises open for public use shall be available to persons who are members of a Protected Class at all times and under the same conditions as the premises are available to all other persons, and that the services offered to persons who are members of a Protected Class shall be offered under the same terms and conditions as are applied to all other persons. REG. 520.120 Definition of "Reasonable Accommodation" "Reasonable Accommodation," for purposes of Part 500, means, but is not limited to, accommodations (physical changes or changes in rules, policies, practices or procedures) which provide persons with a disability access to the same services, in the same manner as are provided to persons without a disability. Full use in my visit would have included maintaining a copy of the instruction manual in print as other documentation is available. The neglect by CPL to maintain this bare level of service maintenance obviously produces a result that prevents me and other blind persons from the full use of electronic resources at CPL. Further, CPL failed to provide a reasonable accommodation because no documentation or instructions on using the adaptive equipment were available in an alternative format, even though the producer of said software provides it on the sale of its product. This instance demonstrates the flawed logic by the library in its position to rely solely on staff assistance to aid patrons with print disabilities. Often such specific assistance can only be provided by one person. When that person is not available, other staff do not have the familiarization to provide the assistance necessary to the task involved. It should be noted that the Chicago Public Library applies apparently a separate standard of software and electronic systems availability for people with disabilities compared to people without disabilities. The standard of providing no documentation and reliance solely on staff assistance while sighted, non-disabled persons have documentation available to them is inferior and hence discriminatory. I should note that the terminal that is intended to provide access to the Internet, card catalog, periodical indexes, and newspaper archives is available only at the computer center, which has limited hours of availability compared to that of the library as a whole. Terminals that provide these services are located throughout the library for non-disabled persons and are available whenever the library is open. I believe that This additional limitation of access is another violation of the full use guideline. Obviously I was not able to validate the claim that periodical indexes were available on the library's card catalog terminals and accessible to the blind as described in the evidentiary conference of October 29. As the regulations of the Commission barely touch upon access to services and do not speak specifically about computer accommodation, I enclose federal regulations that codify what is an accessible computer and accessible computer environment. The regulations were created in 1989 by the General Services Administration in response to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act as amended in 1986. This provision requires the federal government to purchase computer hardware, software, and electronic systems that are accessible to people with disabilities. The regulations clearly define documentation in alternative formats as an essential ingredient to providing an accessible computing environment. In its September 19 reply, the library cites Section 28 C.F.R. 35.133 of the Americans with Disabilities Act as an explanation of its failure to provide access on July 11, 1997. This provision permits isolated or temporary disruptions of equipment for disabled persons for maintenance and repair. Further, the library argued in reference to an April 7, 1997 letter of finding from the Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education that "... Mr. Pierce ignores the fact that the April 7, 1997, OCR letter does not give an individual with a visual impairment carte blanche to impose his computer preferences on public entities that he chooses to utilize. In fact, the April 7th letter expressly acknowledges that the disabled person himself may have to adapt to the computer technology already in place." To respond to these arguments at the disability evidentiary conference scheduled for January 6, I request again the ability for Mr. David Porter to attend the conference. Mr. Porter is an adapted technology specialist who has assisted individuals and institutions in providing access to computers and computer environments through speech synthesis and braille displays. He can provide expertise on how blind persons learn how to use software. I have maintained from the filing of the complaint that my requests for accommodation are reasonable and are of benefit to other blind persons. I believe that the library's failure to provide full use of its services or a reasonable accommodation was systemic, not temporary or incidental and not a carte blanche imposition of computer preferences. To support this claim, I shall describe the experience of Ms. Armena Ghosten who experienced the same denial of full use and reasonable accommodation that I experienced. On November 4, Ms. Ghosten sought to browse the Internet using Lynx and the Vocal Eyes screen reader. Ms. Ghosten is blind and needs such accommodations to access the electronic resources available. She spoke with Donald Mitkey whom was described as "knowledgeable" in previous claims by CPL. She requested from him material in an accessible format on how to access the information and a demonstration on how to use this accommodation. He said that such services were not available but "we are working on it." Mr. Mitkey assisted her in going online and visiting several World Wide Web pages. She visited the computer center on the fifth floor on other occasions subsequent to the November 4 visit and could use the computer in only a limited way as she could not remember all the commands shown to her by Mr. Mitkey. The instructions on use of the computer were not in any format to which either she or sighted staff could refer. Mr. Mitkey was unavailable during these subsequent visits. To counter the library's arguments of temporary disruption or carte blanche imposition of computer preferences by a single individual, I request the participation of Ms. Ghosten as a witness in the January 6 conference. Thank you once again for your efforts in working to bring resolution to this situation. Respectfully, Kelly Pierce cc: Barbara Anderson Mary Dempsey Elsie Haug Bridget Lamont Joyce Latham Miriam Picas Jim Pletz David Porter E. FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR TECHNOLOGY ACCESSIBILITY From FIRMR Bulletin 56, Managing End User Computing For Users With Disabilities, Appendix J (GSA 1989): These specifications are organized by functional requirement into three categories: input, output, and documentation. This organization reflects the major areas that need to be addressed during agency acquisition planning and procurement. All the capabilities set forth in these specifications are currently available from industry in various degrees of functional adequacy except for access to screen memory for translating bit-mapped graphic images. a. Input. Access problems concerning the input interface to a microcomputer differ by the type and severity of the functional limitation of the employee. Some users with disabilities are capable of using a keyboard if it can be modified slightly. Other users with disabilities require an alternate input strategy. The following is an overview of common input --- # Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) * Origin: The Playhouse TC's Gaming BBS/www.phouse.com/698.3748 (1:282/4059) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EGX00003Date: 12/28/97 From: KELLY PIERCE Time: 01:18am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: 02:library access From: Kelly Pierce Subject: library access alternatives, and other input functional requirements which should be considered: (1) Multiple Simultaneous Operation Alternative. Microcomputers have numerous commonly-used functions that require multiple, simultaneous striking of keys and/or buttons. Sequential activation control provides an alternative method of operation by enabling the user to depress keys or buttons sequentially. (2) Input Redundancy. Some programs require a mouse or some other fine motor control device for input. However, some users with motor disabilities cannot operate these devices. An input redundancy feature provides the functionality of these devices through the keyboard and/or other suitable alternative input devices (e.g., voice input). (3) Alternative Input Devices. The capability to connect an alternative input device can be made available to a user who is unable to use a modified standard keyboard. This feature supplements the keyboard and any other standard input system used. The alternative input capability consists of a physical port (serial, parallel, etc.) or connection capability that allows an accommodation aid to be connected to the system to augment or replace the keyboard. For example, an alternative input device can be customized as the most effective method of input (e.g., switches, eye scan, headtracking) for the user while supporting transparent hardware emulation for standard input devices (i.e., keyboard and the mouse). (4) Key Repeat. A typical microcomputer generates repetitions of a character if that key remains depressed. This is a problem for users without sufficient motor control. A key repeat feature gives a user control over the repeat start time and rate by allowing either the timing parameters to be extended, or the repeat function to be turned off. (5) Toggle Key Status Control. Microcomputer toggle keys provide visual feedback indicating whether a key is on or off. A toggle key status feature provides an alternative mode to visual feedback to show the on or off status of a toggle key. (6) Keyboard Orientation Aids. To orient a visually impaired user to a particular keyboard, a set of tactile overlays should be available to identify the most important keys. The tactile overlays can be in the form of keycap replacements or transparent sticky tape with unique symbols to identify the various keys. (7) Keyguards. To assist a motor disabled user, a keyguard should be available to stabilize movements and ensure that the correct keys are located and depressed. A keyguard is a keyboard template with holes corresponding to the location of the keys. b. Output. Auditory output capability, information redundancy, and monitor display should be considered as functional requirements. (1) Auditory Output Capability. The auditory output capability on current microcomputers is sufficient to beep and play music. However, some users with disabilities may require a speech capability. A speech synthesizer is required to generate speech on today's computers. The capability to support a speech synthesizer should continue to be available in future generations of computers or this capability may be internalized through an upgrade of the computer's internal speaker. The speech capability should include user adjustable volume control and a headset jack. (2) Information Redundancy. Currently, several programs activate a speaker on the microcomputer to provide information to the user. However, some programs do not have the capability to present this information visually to the hearing impaired user. This feature provides information redundancy by presenting a visual equivalent of the auditory information presented. (3) Monitor Display. The requirement to enhance text size, reproduce text verbally, or modify display characteristics is crucial for some users with visual disabilities. To ensure that this access continues, the following capabilities are required: (a) Large Print Display. There should be a means for enlarging a portion of the screen for the low vision user. The process uses a window or similar mechanism that allows magnification to be controlled by the user. A user can invoke the large print display capability from the keyboard or control pad for use in conjunction with any work-related application software. If applications software includes graphics, then enlargement of graphic displays should also be available. (b) Access to Visually Displayed Information. The capability to access the screen is necessary to support the speech and/or Braille output requirement of many blind users. Currently, blind users are able to select and review the spoken or Braille equivalent of text from any portion of the screen while using standard applications software. Third party vendors should continue to have access to the screen contents in a manner that can be translated and directed to any internal speech chip, a speech synthesizer on a serial or parallel port, or a Braille display device. Information that is presented pictorially also needs to be available in a manner that, as software sophistication improves, it may be eventually translated using alternate display systems. (c) Color Presentation. When colors must be distinguished in order to understand information on the display, color- blind end users should be provided with a means of selecting the colors to be displayed. c. Documentation. The vendor should be responsive in supplying copies of the documentation in a usable electronic format to disabled Federal employees. --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EGY00000Date: 12/29/97 From: EMMA WALKER Time: 03:05am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: SCOTLAND Hi all, ANybody know of a Scottish or English BBS number? Would be greatly appreciated by my sister. Just leave mail for me. Net mail number is 3:800/816. Attention Emma Walker. Thank you. Emma. --- TMail v1.31.5 * Origin: Common Ground +61-8-8223-2131 Telnet dircsa.org.au (3:800/816) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: F1100000Date: 12/28/97 From: BRIAN LINGARD Time: 08:25pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: NYC new crossing scheme 28 December, 1997 Ottawa, Canada New York Ciy has come up with the brilliant idea of closing the intersection to pedestrians on the side of the street where cars will be turning. They have a lot of one-way streets and avenues so they can do this. The disadvantage for blind people is to get to a store across the avenue, you may have to cross the street three times, and if you walt along a busy street, need to alternate which side of the street you walk on to get where you are going efficiently. Do we have any New Yorkers on here? What do you think of this scheme on 49th and 50th streets between I think it is 6th and madison? The idea is to speed up car traffic, but I think in NYC traffic, people would be best advised to take a cab or the train. Your comments are welcome. Brian --- Blue Wave v2.12 [NR] * Origin: Vision Information Systems (1:163/266) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: F1100001Date: 12/31/97 From: "RENEE M. ZELICKSON HTTP://FLY.HIWA Time: 09:48am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: NYC new crossing scheme From: "Renee M. Zelickson http://fly.hiwaay.net/~reneez" Subject: Re: NYC new crossing scheme At 02:25 AM 12/29/97 GMT, you wrote: > > >28 December, 1997 Ottawa, Canada Good morning. Although I am not living in New York, I am originally from there and as a child, I would cross the streets by going up and around the train stations. I have never traveled in Manhattan by myself, but do recall that they also have under ground stations and one could go down and come up on the other side. When I lived in San Francisco, I used to do this with their under ground stations; it was a way that I could cross Market street safely. I am by no means in favor of New York's s idea, and the only alternative is to limit the cars from coming into the city and encouraging the sightlings to use the wonderful transit system they have by making it horribly expensive to come into the city with their cars. Ren >New York Ciy has come up with the brilliant idea of closing the >intersection to pedestrians on the side of the street where cars >will be turning. They have a lot of one-way streets and avenues >so they can do this. > >The disadvantage for blind people is to get to a store across the >avenue, you may have to cross the street three times, and if you >walt along a busy street, need to alternate which side of the >street you walk on to get where you are going efficiently. > >Do we have any New Yorkers on here? What do you think of this >scheme on 49th and 50th streets between I think it is 6th and >madison? > >The idea is to speed up car traffic, but I think in NYC traffic, >people would be best advised to take a cab or the train. > >Your comments are welcome. > >Brian > > > > Rene M. Zelickson reneez@hiwaay.net http://fly.hiwaay.net/~reneez --- # Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) * Origin: The Playhouse TC's Gaming BBS/www.phouse.com/698.3748 (1:282/4059) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: F1100002Date: 12/30/97 From: BRIAN BUHROW Time: 10:10pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: DR. EMERSON FOULKE (Forward From dandrew22:10:1212/30/97 From: buhrow@lothlorien.nfbcal.org (Brian Buhrow) Subject: DR. EMERSON FOULKE (Forward From dandrews@visi.com) Dr. Emerson Foulke died at his home last night after battling cancer for several years. There are no further details available at this time. I will post additional information when it is released by his wife Marilyn. I will write more later. Words will not come to me just now. --- # Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) * Origin: The Playhouse TC's Gaming BBS/www.phouse.com/698.3748 (1:282/4059)