[Brl-monitor] The Braille Monitor, May 2012
Brian Buhrow
buhrow at lothlorien.nfbcal.org
Wed May 2 01:13:57 PDT 2012
BRAILLE MONITOR
Vol. 55, No. 5 May 2012
Gary Wunder, Editor
Distributed by email, in inkprint, in Braille, and on USB flash drive
(see reverse side) by
THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
Marc Maurer, President
telephone: (410) 659-9314
email address: nfb at nfb.org
Website address: http://www.nfb.org
NFBnet.org: http://www.nfbnet.org
NFB-NEWSLINE® information: (866) 504-7300
Letters to the president, address changes,
subscription requests, and orders for NFB literature
should be sent to the national office.
Articles for the Monitor and letters to the editor may also
be sent to the national office or may be emailed to gwunder at nfb.org.
Monitor subscriptions cost the Federation about forty dollars per year.
Members are invited, and nonmembers are requested, to cover the
subscription cost. Donations should be made payable to National Federation
of the Blind and sent to:
National Federation of the Blind
200 East Wells Street at Jernigan Place
Baltimore, Maryland 21230-4998
THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION
SPEAKING FOR THE BLIND--IT IS THE BLIND SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES.
ISSN 0006-8829
© 2012 by the National Federation of the Blind
Each issue is recorded on a thumb drive (also called a memory stick
or USB flash drive). You can read this audio edition using a computer or a
National Library Service digital player. The NLS machine has two slots--the
familiar book-cartridge slot just above the retractable carrying handle and
a second slot located on the right side near the headphone jack. This
smaller slot is used to play thumb drives. Remove the protective rubber pad
covering this slot and insert the thumb drive. It will insert only in one
position. If you encounter resistance, flip the drive over and try again.
(Note: If the cartridge slot is not empty when you insert the thumb drive,
the digital player will ignore the thumb drive.) Once the thumb drive is
inserted, the player buttons will function as usual for reading digital
materials. If you remove the thumb drive to use the player for cartridges,
when you insert it again, reading should resume at the point you stopped.
You can transfer the recording of each issue from the thumb drive to
your computer or preserve it on the thumb drive. However, because thumb
drives can be used hundreds of times, we would appreciate their return in
order to stretch our funding. Please use the return label enclosed with the
drive when you return the device.
Dallas Site of 2012 NFB Convention
The 2012 convention of the National Federation of the Blind will take
place in Dallas, Texas, June 30-July 5, at the Hilton Anatole Hotel at 2201
Stemmons Freeway, Dallas, Texas 75207. Make your room reservation as soon
as possible with the Hilton Anatole staff only, not Hilton general
reservations. Call (214) 761-7500.
The 2012 room rates are singles, doubles, and twins $63 and triples
and quads $68 a night, plus a 15 percent sales tax. The hotel is accepting
reservations now. A $60-per-room deposit is required to make a reservation.
Fifty percent of the deposit will be refunded if notice is given to the
hotel of a reservation cancellation before June 1, 2012. The other 50
percent is not refundable.
Rooms will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.
Reservations may be made before June 1, 2012, assuming that rooms are still
available. After that time the hotel will not hold our block of rooms for
the convention. In other words, you should get your reservation in soon.
Guestroom amenities include cable television; coffeepot; iron and
ironing board; hairdryer; and, for a fee, high-speed Internet access. The
Hilton Anatole has several excellent restaurants, twenty-four-hour-a-day
room service, first-rate meeting space, and other top-notch facilities. It
is in downtown Dallas with shuttle service to both the Dallas/Ft. Worth
Airport and Love Field.
The schedule for the 2012 convention will follow our usual pattern:
Saturday, June 30 Seminar Day
Sunday, July 1 Registration Day
Monday, July 2 Board Meeting and Division Day
Tuesday, July 3 Opening Session
Wednesday, July 4 Business Session
Thursday, July 5 Banquet Day and Adjournment
Vol. 55, No. 5 May 2012
Contents
Illustrations: Saudi Arabian Visitors at the National Center for the Blind
Print and Braille: Evolving Codes to Meet the Needs of a Changing World
by Jennifer Dunnam
That's Braille!
by Maxine Schrader
Retrofitting Accessibility: The Legal Inequality of After-the-Fact Online
Access
for Persons with Disabilities in the United States
by Brian Wentz, Paul T. Jaeger, and Jonathan Lazar
Imagination Unbound
by Ann Cunningham
A Taste of Dallas
by Elizabeth Campbell
An Important Step in My Life
by Angela Marin Rivera
The United States Association of Blind Athletes
Affects Lives through Sports and Recreation
The NFB Teacher Leader Seminar 2012
by Emily Gibbs
Fun with Fashion
by Ron and Jean Brown
The Struggle for Minimum Wage: 1968
by Anna Kresmer
Recipes
Monitor Miniatures
Saudi Arabian Visitors at the National Center for the Blind
Often on presidential releases and in the annual presidential report
we hear about the number of people who have visited our national center.
The numbers are impressive, but what do they mean in human terms?
In January Khaled Suleiman Abdullah, executive director of the
Charity Society for the Visually Impaired (Ibsar-Insight) in Saudi Arabia,
and Ahmed M. Alammar, Ibsar-Insight board member and translator (a graduate
of George Mason University), made a day-long visit to the National Center
for the Blind. They had learned about the National Federation of the Blind
by doing a search of the web and were intrigued at the thought that a
handful of members could come together to form a movement that would
eventually represent 50,000 blind citizens. They decided they wanted to
visit the largest organization of the blind in the United States and were
particularly impressed with our programs for young people.
Mr. Abdullah has two blind teenage sons. They use Braille and
computers with screen-reading software, but cane travel is not taught in
the Kingdom. So impressed were our visitors with the comprehensive training
we offer that they changed their plans, flew to the Louisiana Center for
the Blind for several days, decided to send someone to learn how to provide
cane travel training in their country, and plan to attend the national
convention in Dallas with four or five teens. So the next time you hear
those visitor statistics from the podium, consider what they mean in
changed lives and enhanced opportunities, and take pride in knowing that
all of us are a part of the National Federation of the Blind.
[PHOTO CAPTION: Ahmed M. Alammar (left) and Khaled Suleiman Abdullah
(right) visit with Dr. Joanne Wilson, NFB executive director of affiliate
action and former director of the Louisiana Center for the Blind.]
[PHOTO CAPTION: Visitors from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Khaled Suleiman
Abdullah and Ahmed M. Alammar, shop in the Independence Market. Ellen
Ringlein answers their questions and prepares to demonstrate the aids and
appliances we sell.]
[PHOTO CAPTION: Jennifer Dunnam]
Print and Braille: Evolving Codes to Meet the Needs of a Changing World
by Jennifer Dunnam
From the Editor: Few things upset people as much as trying to change
the things they love. Change the logo of the National Federation of the
Blind, and a chorus of voices shouts that the older one was better. Change
the convention schedule, and we are absolutely certain that the convention
will never be the same. Tear down one of our buildings at the 1800 Johnson
Street location to make way for the Jernigan Institute at 200 East Wells
Street, and some are saddened by the loss of a smokestack.
But none of these outcries compares with the emotions that arise at
the prospect of changing Braille. It is all too easy to say "If it ain't
broke, don't fix it," or "Leave my Braille alone," but, as folksy and
comfortable as these heartfelt statements are, it has become clear over the
years that print is changing, and, if Braille is truly the closest tactile
equivalent, the code blind people use can no more be set in stone than the
visual representation it purports to express accurately.
Jennifer Dunham represents the National Federation of the Blind on the
Braille Authority of North America Board. She helped to draft our
resolution in 2002, but she has concluded that a decade of changing
software and hardware has forced her to reevaluate the recommendations she
would make to us about our primary means of reading and writing. Here is
what she says:
Since 2004 it has been my honor to serve as the National Federation of
the Blind's representative on the board of the Braille Authority of North
America (BANA). In this capacity it is my responsibility to express and
support the views of our organization to the best of my ability, which I am
honored to do. It is also my responsibility to do all I can to ensure that
members of the organization have full and complete information with which
to formulate their views.
The three-part article by BANA entitled "The Evolution of Braille:
Can the Past Help Plan the Future?" communicated a great deal of
information about the changing nature of print and Braille in the May,
October, and December 2011 issues of the Braille Monitor. I urge readers to
read that essential information in order to understand the larger context
of where things stand today regarding Braille codes in the U.S. In what
follows, speaking only for myself, I will describe the process by which I
am coming to understand these issues as well as the conclusions I have
reached. Before I do so, I should address my background-not to hold myself
out as an expert with all the answers, but to explain what informs my
opinions.
First and foremost for this discussion, I am a Braille user. I began
learning Braille in kindergarten, and I was fortunate to have all the books
I needed through high school transcribed into Braille on paper. All of the
books and tests for my mathematics classes were transcribed in the Nemeth
code, and, although I was not a math genius, I was a competent math
student. In high school I took basic computer programming classes in which
the books were transcribed in computer code. I also studied music and
foreign languages using Braille. During college, however, in the late
1980s, the stream of Braille dried up. None of my textbooks were available
in Braille, and most of the Braille I read was of my own creation
(generally the copious notes I took using a slate and stylus). In time, as
Braille translation software, refreshable Braille displays, and sources of
downloadable Braille books became more common, like many other Braille
readers I have gained more access to Braille than I could have dreamed of
during college. These days most of my Braille is in refreshable rather than
paper format (although at times nothing beats full Braille pages on paper).
In my job and in the rest of my life, I read and write Braille practically
all day, every day, for all sorts of purposes. With a refreshable Braille
display and a mobile phone, for example, I can have the previously
unimaginable experience of reading the daily newspapers in Braille during
my commute to work. I see firsthand the advantages and the limitations of
machine-generated Braille translation and backtranslation.
Next, I am a Braille transcriber. Some ask how it is possible to be a
transcriber if one is unable to see standard print. I would be glad to
elaborate more on that another time, but for purposes of this discussion,
suffice it to say that in addition to the other rigorous training needed to
become a good transcriber, a blind transcriber must be skilled in the use
of many different tools for discovering the exact content and format of the
print (including pictures) and must clearly understand the limitations of
every tool in order to use all of them to best effect. In the early 90s,
perhaps as a reaction to the dearth of Braille available to me during
college, I became very interested in learning to use Braille translation
software (which is one of the tools a transcriber may use), and over the
last twenty years I have become experienced in working with several
different translation programs. I was also certified as a literary Braille
transcriber by the Library of Congress and have detailed familiarity with
the formats required for producing textbooks. For almost ten years I
transcribed and taught others to transcribe materials into Braille for the
University of Minnesota. That work familiarized me with the complex nature
of today's textbooks and the problems of transferring the print contents
onto a Braille page in a way that gives the blind reader the same
information that the sighted reader gets. It also exposed me to the
advantages and challenges of working with publishers' files as opposed to
print on paper. In my current job I coordinate courses for those seeking
certification as Braille transcribers and proofreaders.
I have also taught Braille to blind students. For four years I worked
as the Braille instructor at BLIND, Inc., teaching Braille to adults-some
who were newly blinded and some who did not receive the Braille instruction
they should have received as blind children. I learned much from working
with these students through their struggles and successes.
Since the late 90s I have followed the discussions about the
unification of the Braille codes with interest. I was not part of BANA at
the time, but I read everything I could get my hands on about the origins
and progress of the development of a unified code and the controversy
surrounding it. Keeping an open mind, I attended the workshops, evaluated
the samplers, and talked to as many people as I could who knew something
about the issues. Ultimately I reached the conclusion that, although a code
bringing together the literary, math, and computer codes was a good idea in
theory, the benefits of doing so were not as great as the problems it would
cause. I therefore agreed wholeheartedly with the resolutions we passed in
2002 opposing any drastic changes to Braille.
Since that time more access to refreshable Braille, the changes in
communication technology for everyone, further developments in Braille
unification efforts, and my involvement with the work of BANA have caused
me to revise my view. During the late 90s and into the early 2000s, many of
us had little experience with reading dynamically generated content in
refreshable Braille. The Braille notetakers at the time were only just
beginning to include mainstream connectivity features, so most of what we
read with these devices, if we had access at all, was content we had
written ourselves or which had been created specifically for use in
Braille. Fast forward ten years-it is now possible for us to read the
screens of some mainstream mobile devices in Braille, and we can type in
contracted Braille on these same mainstream mobile devices and computers.
What we type using six keys is no longer just for ourselves to read-we of
any age can email it, text it, or even Braille into a document on which we
are working together with a sighted colleague. These technological
developments have tremendous potential to boost the support for Braille
literacy of blind children and to increase the utility of Braille for all
of us. It is more apparent to me now that some changes to our Braille codes
would help us realize that potential more fully.
Knowledgeable Braille transcribers are essential, but much of the
Braille available today is not produced by transcribers. Teachers of blind
students must often spend significant time preparing Braille for their
students. Any number of people who know how to operate a computer but are
not trained in Braille are called upon to prepare Braille materials.
Although the words, numbers, and punctuation in an electronic book or
other document may look perfect when reviewed in print format, many errors
are usually introduced when the same document is electronically translated
into Braille. If a person is preparing the document, he or she must
manipulate certain details to eliminate these errors. In reading contracted
Braille on a refreshable Braille display, such as when downloading an eBook
from a mainstream bookseller or even reading the web, human intervention is
not part of the equation, so these same errors find their way right to our
fingertips. For example, without human intervention, email and web
addresses usually do not display in computer code, so it can sometimes be
unclear which characters are intended. If a symbol does not exist in
current literary code, like the bullet or the "greater-than" symbol, that
symbol is either written in words, skipped entirely, or displayed as a
random unrelated Braille symbol. Dashes often show up as hyphens. The
indicators required by Braille rules to show footnotes and end notes do not
appear, and the usual print superscripting of the numbers is ignored, so
the numbers show up at the ends of sentences without spaces. The current
method used to deal with punctuation occurring in the middle of words
creates some ambiguity for the reader about the actual symbol intended.
I could go on and on with these examples. It is true that experienced
Braille users can figure these things out and work around them (often by
relying on speech output to clear things up). The work-arounds pose more
problems for children dealing with educational materials or other
communication which is more frequently on the web or in other electronic
format readily available to the student without the intervention of a
trained transcriber. A teacher who often does not spend much time directly
reading from a Braille display unless he or she is also blind may not be
aware just how often errors and ambiguities appear in on-the-fly
translation. Frequent exposure to such errors can undermine the process of
learning correct Braille and of learning the material being read in
Braille. Some changes to Braille itself would reduce the time and effort
needed by people preparing Braille and by Braille readers themselves to
deal with these fussy code details. Simply tweaking the current codes here
and there would introduce different errors. The problems will just become
worse, as they have over the last twenty years.
Problems in the current literary code--which, by the way, is
officially called English Braille, American Edition (EBAE)--become even
more apparent when a Braille user types Braille into a document and the
Braille is backtranslated to print. Two categories of problems contribute
here. First, even if the user follows the Braille code rules correctly,
errors in backtranslation may still occur because of ambiguities in the
code. Will the "dot 4 e" I typed translate as an accented e of some sort or
as a euro symbol? If I type a word like "FanNation," will the "dot 6 n"
backtranslate as the intended capital N, or as "ation?" What about "k4"-
will it come out as "kbled?" If I want to send a text mentioning the
performer Will.I.Am, how do I avoid having my text say "WillddIddAmdd" or
even just "WddIddAmdd?" The developers of backtranslation software work
hard to keep the programs as accurate as possible, but, because of the
state of current code, they often have to create a programming exception
for each new brand name or word, since there is no systematic way to handle
the problems. Yes, one can go through certain contortions to ensure that
these and similar items turn out right in backtranslation, but one must
first be aware of a possible problem and must be familiar with the work-
arounds. One could also just do the typing on a QWERTY keyboard. However,
writing is as important for developing literacy as is reading it. Braille-
reading children need to type much of their schoolwork in Braille while at
the same time letting their teachers or peers read it in print. The
potential exists for anyone to work entirely in Braille while communicating
with non-Braille-readers; it would go much better if we eliminated
unnecessary reasons for errors.
The second category of backtranslation trouble occurs if the user
does not know and apply the rules of the code perfectly. When we wrote
Braille primarily for our own use, exact observance of the rules mattered
much less. Now the user must have a better grasp of the rules and the
exceptions. I have been involved in the judging of a number of Braille
contests in which fluent Braille users put forth their best work to try to
win the prizes. Although these Braille users obviously knew Braille well,
in a surprising number of instances they did not follow the rules, and, if
the work had been backtranslated, errors would have resulted. For instance,
confusion sometimes arises over spacing between the words "in" and "the."
In correct Braille, there is no space between the words "into" and "the,"
and no space is left between words such as "and" and "the." In a number of
cases Braille readers omit the space between the words "in" and "the,"
which is not permitted; a backtranslation would therefore also omit the
space in print. For another example, certain contractions, such as the one
for "con," are permitted to be used only at the beginning of words-with a
few exceptions. Some Braille users, observing that the "con" contraction
can be used within "O'Connor," sometimes use the "con" contraction after a
prefix such as in "inconvenient," yielding "inccvenient" in
backtranslation. Again these are relatively small matters by themselves,
but, if these things occur with fluent Braille readers, how much more must
they occur for people still developing their Braille skills and working to
apply what they are learning?
Some say that, if the Braille codes were made simpler, that might
help teachers learn Braille better and be more inclined to teach it. I am
fairly skeptical that code complexity has been a major barrier to Braille
education. The negative attitudes about Braille in the education system
(and in society in general) run much deeper. Of course I would love to be
proven wrong in this belief and to see code changes cause more children to
learn Braille, but I do not think we have enough evidence to assert
improved Braille education as a reason to make code changes. However, some
simplification of rules would be helpful to anyone who needs to write
Braille that will be read in print.
Earlier I mentioned that some common print symbols currently have no
representation in literary Braille. It seems baffling that, after all this
time, we still have no consistent way to represent the + sign in EBAE. The
reason is that the addition of any of the acceptable possibilities for this
and other such symbols into the code as it currently exists would simply
increase the conflicts and backtranslation problems we have just been
discussing. For decades the BANA committee charged with updating the
literary code-made up of Braille readers, teachers, and Braille producers
with expertise in code development-has put in enormous amounts of time
working to ensure that the literary code is adequate to express today's
literary material without creating more conflicts within the literary code
or with other codes currently in use. Since being more involved in BANA, I
have been able to observe the struggles more closely. Their task is
tremendous, and the current state of affairs remains unresolved, not
because of the lack of effort and expertise, but because we have a code
right now that is in a state much like a Scrabble board at the end of a
game in which few if any openings are available to fit in new words.
While working on the literary code and various other projects such as
tactile graphics guidelines, BANA has also continued to observe the
development of Unified English Braille (UEB) as well as of the Nemeth
Uniform Braille System (NUBS). Please see the BANA article mentioned
earlier for more on the origins and history of these efforts. During the
last ten years Braille readers from around the world have worked to make
refinements and improvements to UEB. For example, the technical sampler
that was distributed in the U.S. in the early 2000s is now out of date
because of updates and improvements. On the website of the International
Council on English Braille, the rule book for the code and guidelines for
presentation of technical material are available for download by anyone.
Although these publications are full of illustrative examples, remember
that they are books about rules and are therefore not particularly
compelling reading-just as is the case with our current EBAE rule book.
The basic characteristics of UEB were discussed in the BANA article.
Another important feature, the misunderstanding of which has sometimes
given people a negative impression of UEB, is its ability to show different
typeforms, such as boldface, underlining, and the like. A common
misconception is that these indicators would appear in everything, creating
much distracting clutter. In fact, the UEB rules, like our current rules,
call for most typeface indication in print to be ignored in Braille and
used only when needed for emphasis and distinction. The different types of
emphasis are needed for transcribing textbooks and other specific
materials. These typeform indicators are also present in NUBS, with similar
restrictions.
UEB is also capable of handling many types of technical material,
even to the advanced level. The representation of these materials is,
however, very different from what we use in the U.S. When the work was
basically completed on the Nemeth Uniform Braille System two years ago, I
eagerly studied the sampler and the rule book, hoping that the Nemeth
Uniform Braille System would be the answer we had been seeking-a way to
minimize the difficulties with the current literary code while preserving
our tried-and-true system for working with math and science material. The
basic features of NUBS are also discussed in the BANA article, and I will
not repeat all of them here. NUBS is not simply our current literary
Braille with lower numbers. It is my view that, although NUBS takes a
systematic approach to addressing the problems and would offer some real
benefits for working with technical material, it introduces some possible
difficulties into material Brailled for everyday use.
As discussed in the BANA article, most Braille codes, including our
current ones, use "modes," in which a given Braille character has different
meanings depending on which mode is in use. Mostly the everyday Braille
reader need not pay much mind to modes because their application is quite
intuitive. NUBS has two modes, narrative for normal literary material, and
notational for numeric and technical material. Punctuation is different in
the two modes-the comma, period, and colon are completely different, and
the other marks of punctuation require an extra indicator in notational
mode. The Braille learner must grasp the concept of these two modes right
from the very beginning, because notational mode is not used just for math
and technical material. It is used anytime a number is present-in a
numbered list of spelling words, in references to time of day or money, in
the mention of a year. It is also used in cases where no numbers are
present-email addresses and middle initials, among others. The Braille user
must be mindful of the two modes when writing, or backtranslation errors
will creep in. To have two sets of punctuation throughout all texts creates
more complexity for everyone. Additionally, NUBS uses a method for
indicating accented letters that requires a special symbols page in order
to give the reader information about the accents while avoiding a great
deal of clutter in the text. The code therefore misses an opportunity to
improve the experience of students learning foreign languages as well as
providing the general reader better information about the accented letters
used in English.
As we look for the right path forward for Braille readers in the
United States, we need a solution that addresses the problems of current
codes as much as possible but provides the flexibility to allow for agility
and precision in the representation of both technical and non-technical
material. Each of the challenges with current codes discussed above may not
seem like a major issue by itself, but together they make it clear that
some change is necessary. The conversation about code change has been going
on for more than twenty years now, while mainstream technology, speech-
based solutions, and print in general continue to change and grow. We all
want and need for Braille to remain a vital part of this equation, and, if
we can lay the right infrastructure, it will do so. We need a balance
between universality and flexibility in the Braille codes, and we need a
solution that moves us to a better state of affairs than currently exists.
We must try to improve what can be improved without disrupting what need
not be disrupted.
Given all the complex issues to consider in this decision, the path
that seems the most reasonable to me would encompass these three elements:
1) adopt Unified English Braille to replace English Braille, American
Edition and the computer Braille code as the standard for general-purpose
materials; 2) maintain the current Nemeth Code for use in mathematical and
technical material; and 3) develop a gradual implementation plan involving
a minimum of disruption to the education of blind children, taking into
account the needs of Braille users of all ages and walks of life and
providing clear guidance to Braille producers and teachers about when to
use which code.
It may be tempting to reject this solution out of hand because it
seems to undermine most of the original goals for unifying the codes. It
may be easy to think of reasons why it would not work. Yet, imperfect as it
may be, I think it worth careful consideration. Even with two separate
codes, if the general purpose code was optimized to meet the demands of
today's "general purposes," and if the code optimized for math and science
was maintained, we would be in a far better position than we are now. It
would allow for time and space to learn more about the things we do not
know while fixing some known problems and maintaining things that are known
to work well. This strategy would allow us to develop and use every tool to
facilitate blind students and professionals in STEM subjects.
Lest it seem that the current Nemeth Code would be left behind in the
digital age, note that at least one Nemeth backtranslator is now in use.
Also, regardless of the code used for technical materials, transcribers are
still very much needed. Our technology and work with publishers' files has
simply not advanced enough to eliminate the need. The educational materials
produced for children must be accurate. We must still push to get school
districts to understand the importance of certified transcribers.
I will not try to propose here what the implementation plan should
look like, but the input of teachers, parents, transcribers, Braille
readers, and others with an interest in Braille is needed. For a
transcriber who has been trained in all the Braille rules and how to
manipulate those dots on the computer screen to get them into print, the
perception of these issues will be vastly different from that of a student
working with a Braille display, trying to type her assignment for French
class so that the teacher can read it, or even just trying to type an email
address into her mobile phone. The perception will be different for a
person who reads mostly books and magazines from the library, does not have
a refreshable Braille display, and writes most Braille on paper or labeling
tape. Parents and teachers of a child in a school district with plenty of
access to Braille transcribers may experience these issues differently from
a child in a district where the resources are few. Yet all of these
perspectives are very important in making the decisions and crafting the
implementation plan.
Let us not allow fear of change to hold us back but rather let us
work together to use our energy to move Braille forward so that it remains
an integral part of the work and lives of blind people for generations to
come.
----------
That's Braille!
by Maxine Schrader
From the Editor: This informational and inspirational piece about
Braille is taken from the Minnesota Bulletin, Winter 2012. It is a
wonderful piece. Enjoy:
My six-year-old great granddaughter A'mya is the inspiration for this
article. Whenever she sees Braille-in elevators, on doors, signs, ATM
machines, and so forth-she loudly and proudly announces to the public
"that's Braille; my great grandma can read it!" What a little advocate she
is.
Eighty-one years ago at the age of five, I touched my first Braille
dots, and the magic began and will never end. Just like A'mya, I said,
"That's Braille!" At her age I could read, and the whole neighborhood knew
it. The kids gathered on my porch, and I read the book, Old Mother Westwind
and the Seven Little Breezes. After all these years I can recall that book
and wonder if it still exists. I made sure that everyone on my block knew
about Braille and its importance to my education.
Back in those days the textbooks were all Braille-no tapes,
computers, CDs or any of this modern stuff, so there was no question or
fuss about teaching Braille in the schools. Everyone learned to read and
write Braille and was all the better for it.
As a teenager I read Gone with the Wind, the big book of that time.
Because of Braille, I could stay current on the latest books and magazines
and never miss a beat.
Now at eighty-six, I continue to be independent, and people kid me
about all the Braille-marked things in my home: appliances, files,
clothing, canned goods, albums, even lipsticks for their various shades.
You name it; Braille is there.
Now when A'mya says "that's Braille; my great grandma can read it," I
say "You betcha!"
----------
Consider a Charitable Gift
Making a charitable gift can be one of the most satisfying
experiences in life. Each year millions of people contribute their time,
talent, and treasure to charitable organizations. When you plan for a gift
to the National Federation of the Blind, you are not just making a
donation; you are leaving a legacy that insures a future for blind people
throughout the country. Special giving programs are available through the
National Federation of the Blind (NFB).
Points to Consider When Making a Gift to the National Federation of the
Blind
. Will my gift serve to advance the mission of the NFB?
. Am I giving the most appropriate asset?
. Have I selected the best way to make my gift?
. Have I considered the tax consequences of my gift?
. Have I sought counsel from a competent advisor?
. Have I talked to the NFB planned giving officer about my gift?
Benefits of Making a Gift to the NFB
. Helping the NFB fulfill its mission
. Receiving income tax savings through a charitable deduction
. Making capital gain tax savings on contribution of some appreciated
gifts
. Providing retained payments for the life of a donor or other
beneficiaries
. Eliminating federal estate tax in certain situations
. Reducing estate settlement cost
Your Gift Will Help Us
. Make the study of science and math a real possibility for blind
children
. Provide hope for seniors losing vision
. Promote state and chapter programs and provide information that will
educate blind people
. Advance technology helpful to the blind
. Create a state-of-the-art library on blindness
. Train and inspire professionals working with the blind
. Provide critical information to parents of blind children
. Mentor blind people trying to find jobs
Your gift makes you a part of the NFB dream!
----------
[PHOTO CAPTION: Jonathan Lazar]
Retrofitting Accessibility: The Legal Inequality of After-the-Fact Online
Access
for Persons with Disabilities in the United States
by Brian Wentz, Paul T. Jaeger, and Jonathan Lazar
From the Editor: The following article is reprinted from the online
journal First Monday, Volume 16, Number 11--7 November, 2011. The authors
are all distinguished researchers. Dr. Brian Wentz is an assistant
professor in the Department of Computer Science and Information
Technologies at Frostburg State University. His research interests include
human computer interaction, accessibility, user-centered design, social
computing, policy implications of accessibility and usability, and making
business practices more accessible. His doctorate is in information
technology from Towson University. Dr. Paul Jaeger is assistant professor
and co-director of the Information Policy and Access Center in the College
of Information Studies at the University of Maryland. His research focuses
on the ways in which law and public policy shape information behavior. He
is the author of more than one hundred journal articles and book chapters,
along with seven books. His research has been funded by the Institute of
Museum and Library Services, National Science Foundation, American Library
Association, Smithsonian Institution, and Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation. Dr. Jaeger is the Associate Editor of Library Quarterly and co-
editor of the Information Policy Book Series from MIT Press. Dr. Jonathan
Lazar is a professor of computer and information sciences, director of the
Undergraduate Program in Information Systems, and director of the Universal
Usability Laboratory at Towson University. He teaches and does research in
human-computer interaction-specifically, web usability, web accessibility,
user-centered design methods, assistive technology, and public policy in
human-computer interaction. He has published five books. He serves on the
editorial boards of Interacting with Computers, Universal Access in the
Information Society, and ACM Interactions Magazine and serves on the
executive board of the Friends of the Maryland Library for the Blind and
Physically Handicapped. Dr. Lazar was a winner of the 2011 University
System of Maryland Regents Award for Public Service, and a winner of the
2010 Dr. Jacob Bolotin Award from the National Federation of the Blind. For
general readability we have removed the bibliographic citations and the
notes and references. You can read the complete text at
<http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3666
/3077> by using the archive search box.
A warning to readers seems in order: this article is long and in
parts somewhat technical. Understanding that articles must first and
foremost be interesting, that technology issues seem hardly relevant to
some, and that understanding the law can be almost overwhelming to those
not trained in the profession, we nevertheless print this article and urge
that all advocates who are serious about confronting the civil rights
challenges of this decade and perhaps this century read carefully what is
here. Take breaks when you must; reread things that don't at first make
sense, but please consider the warning here that, if we fail to address the
technological challenges facing us and the underlying attitudinal problems
that allow them to persist, we risk becoming a permanent underclass. The
best insurance against this catastrophe is the National Federation of the
Blind, you and me. Here is the article:
Introduction
For people with disabilities equal access to information,
communication, and related technologies defines many of the civil rights
concerns in the age of the World Wide Web. With Internet and web-based
content now central to education, employment, entertainment, socialization,
and civic engagement, unequal access to the content and technologies
necessary for social participation results in very significant virtual
segregation. Despite the fact that the Obama administration began the
federal government's first concerted effort to enforce online accessibility
in 2010, those with physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities face
significant differences in levels of access to and on the Internet due to
the widespread inaccessibility of its content and of the software and
hardware necessary for online access.
Issues of electronic accessibility for people with disabilities have
meaning to a large part of the population. In the United States 54.4
million people have a disability (18.7 percent of the overall population in
2005), while the number of persons with disabilities worldwide is more than
550 million. Disability does increase with age-13 percent of people age
twenty-one to sixty-four have a disability, but 53 percent of those over
seventy-five have a disability. The number of Americans age fifty-five or
older is increasing rapidly as a percentage of the total population; as a
result the number of persons with disabilities will grow significantly in
the next few years as the baby boom generation ages.
Technologies that are inherently designed to be inclusive of all
users regardless of ability are known as accessible technologies or
universally usable technologies. For a technology to be accessible, it
needs to be usable in an equal manner by all users regardless of specific
senses or abilities. It should also be compatible with assistive
technologies, such as narrators, scanners, enlargement, voice-activated
technologies, refreshable Braille, and other devices. The use of different
assistive technology varies widely between individuals based not only on
type and scope of impairment, but also a range of factors related to
personality, environment, support, and nature of the technology itself.
However, even when assistive technology is an available and functional
solution, it is an extra cost faced by people with disabilities that other
users do not face.
Nothing about technology makes it inherently accessible or
inaccessible. Most of today's technologies are digital, meaning that they
are made up of zeros and ones, and there is nothing inherently visual or
auditory about zeros and ones. Digital information is not inherently
accessible or inaccessible, but the choices made by those developing and
implementing technology determine whether a technology will ultimately be
accessible or inaccessible. This is particularly true online, given the
rapid pace of technological change and introduction of new web-enabled
technologies, since online technologies are often obsolete before they are
made accessible.
Online accessibility has been most commonly studied in websites since
they have been around far longer than social media or mobile devices.
However, the growing use of these newer technologies by governments,
schools, and corporations makes the focus on born-accessible technologies
more important, as the online environment becomes more communication-based
and more central to everyday information behavior. While most of the
research has been focused thus far on websites, this paper examines the
range of technologies and tools related to online environment because
policy changes will need to address all of these technologies to create an
inclusive and accessible online environment.
Already at a Disadvantage
Over the brief history of the web, access to and use of the Internet
by people with disabilities has been consistently approximately half that
of the rest of the population. In 2011 54 percent of adults with
disabilities used the Internet, while 81 percent of other adults did.
People with disabilities who do regularly use the Internet also lag behind
in quality of access, with 41 percent of adults with disabilities living in
homes with broadband access, in contrast to 69 percent of the rest of the
population. A 2010 study similarly found that broadband adoption by persons
with disabilities was two-thirds the national average and that people with
disabilities who have broadband engage in a much smaller range of online
activities as a result of accessibility issues. People with disabilities
who live in nonmetropolitan areas have the lowest Internet use of any
population in the United States.
Given the importance of the Internet in education and employment,
such differences in access have serious ramifications for the opportunities
available to people with disabilities. A 2011 study found that 46 percent
of adults with disabilities live in a household with U.S. $30,000 or less
in annual income, in contrast to 26 percent of the rest of the population.
Similarly, 61 percent of adults with a disability had only high school
education or less, while only 40 percent of other adults did. Those with
disabilities also face unemployment at levels three times higher than the
rest of the population and suffer similar gaps in educational attainment.
In 2005 81 percent of individuals without disabilities were employed
full or part-time, compared to only 32 percent of those with disabilities.
A 2008 study found that the employment rate of working-age people with
disabilities was 39.5 percent, and the full-time employment rate was 25.4
percent. For some types of disability the gaps in employment are even
higher-for people considered to have a severe disability by the Census
Bureau, 69.3 percent are unemployed and 27.1 percent live in poverty, more
than three times the national average. Yet 75 percent of people with
disabilities who are not employed want to work. Only 30 percent of high
school graduates with disabilities enroll in college, compared with 40
percent of the general population; one year after high school graduation,
only 10 percent of students with disabilities are still enrolled in two-
year colleges, while only 5 percent are still enrolled in four-year
colleges. While accessibility is well served by designers who are motivated
to include or focus on accessibility in their product designs (whether
physical or electronic), this article primarily focuses on the impact that
laws and regulations can have on encouraging or even discouraging
accessible design.
An accessible web offers potential opportunities to shift these
disparities significantly because the promise of telecommuting and
telework, online courses, and social networking includes the ability to get
an education, be employed, and engage in social activities, regardless of
the barriers of the physical world. In light of these considerable
potential benefits, the federal government has passed a series of laws and
regulations-most notably the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation
Act, the E-government Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA)-that promote online accessibility for people with disabilities.
However, since the advent of the World Wide Web in the mid-1990s,
equal access to information and communication technologies has grown
increasingly untenable for people with disabilities because the
introduction and evolution of technologies has accelerated to the point
that most new technologies introduced are obsolete before they become
accessible. Ironically, the reasons that most technologies are born
inaccessible to people with disabilities can be found in the very
legislation designed to promote access. Key components of disability rights
laws-levels of proof of disability, means of pursuing claims of
inaccessibility, options for parallel versions, and exceptions for undue
burden-all perversely perpetuate barriers to online accessibility, making
the web a separate but unequal environment for people with disabilities.
Due to these components of the laws, existing disability laws empower
a culture of retrofitting rather than early planning or even long-range
planning, much in the way long-term zoning is done with building and land
development in order to reach a goal that may seem to be in the distant
future. As a result the accepted approach seems to be to satisfy the
minimum requirements only after attention to the inaccessibility is noted,
usually in the context of active discrimination against people with
disabilities. If the Internet is to fulfill its promise of providing new
levels of inclusion for people with disabilities, the barriers to equal
access need to be eradicated. Otherwise the opportunities for social
inclusion that people with disabilities have fought so hard to win over the
past half century will recede as participation in education, employment,
government, and society as a whole become less possible due to
technological barriers. The failure to address issues of accessibility for
those with physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities ultimately
threatens to segregate people with disabilities as the permanent second-
class citizens of the information age.
This article will examine the components of disability rights laws
that perpetuate a separate but unequal environment online. Against the
backdrop of the current enforcement activities of the Obama administration,
the paper will examine the underlying access assumptions of disability
rights law in contrast with the access assumptions of other forms of civil
rights laws. The paper will then examine the legal mechanisms that result
in after-the-fact accessibility, retrofitting accessibility-not always
successfully-into products that would have been better for all users had
they been accessible from the outset. Finally, the article will offer a set
of policy recommendations that should be considered in light of the Obama
administration's engagement with online accessibility.
Current Efforts to Improve Accessibility
In many ways 2010 stands as a watershed year in the struggle for
equal online access for people with disabilities. The Departments of
Education and Justice took the unique step of issuing a joint statement to
educational institutions to say that the use of inaccessible e-book readers
and similar devices by elementary, secondary, and post-secondary
institutions (without providing any accommodations) was a violation of the
ADA and Section 504. This statement followed a series of settlement
agreements in which universities agreed to desist from the use of
inaccessible e-book readers for course readings, such as the agreement that
ended the lawsuit filed by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and
the American Council of the Blind (ACB) against Arizona State University
(ASU), which had been using the inaccessible Kindle e-book reader in
courses.
In March 2010 the U.S. Access Board released a draft version of the
new Section 508 guidelines and made them available for public comment. The
intent was to harmonize, update, clarify, and refocus the requirements by
the functionality of technologies, instead of by product type, to account
for the range of features in many products. The guidelines will also expand
the ADA requirements to include self-service machines used for retail
transactions and will incorporate the principles of the WCAG 2.0. If these
guidelines are implemented as intended, the principles of accessibility
will be strengthened considerably under the law, though they continue to
focus primarily on sensory and mobility impairments.
In the fall of 2010 President Obama signed into law the Twenty-First
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010. Among other
qualities the law requires:
. Televised emergency information to be accessible to individuals who
are blind or have low vision.
. Accessible user controls for televisions and set-top boxes, and easy
access to closed captioning and video description.
. Captioned television programs to be captioned when delivered over the
Internet.
. Accessible advanced communications equipment and services, such as
text messaging and email.
. Access to Internet services that are built into mobile telephone
devices, like smartphones, if achievable.
. Devices of any size to be capable of displaying closed captioning,
delivering available video description, and making emergency information
accessible.
In addition, the law:
. Authorizes the FCC to require seven hours per week of video
description on the top four network channels and top five cable channels
nationwide.
. Allocates up to U.S. $10 million per year for equipment used by
individuals who are deaf-blind.
At the same time the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that
it would be engaging in efforts to promote Internet access for persons with
disabilities, including the very worthy goals of increasing accessibility
of government and educational websites. The DOJ also began pursuing a
series of revisions to the ADA to account for changes in technology and
society since the passage of the law. These updates include accessibility
of movie theaters, design of furniture, access to 911, and website
accessibility. The last is the most significant change, because it
clarifies ADA coverage including the websites of all entities covered by
the ADA: local governments, state governments, and places of public
accommodation. As far back as the 1990s, the DOJ had stated that the ADA
applied to websites of state and local government and public
accommodations. However, no technical standards or guidance were provided
within the ADA regulations. These strengthened regulations will be of value
only if they are actually complied with, monitored, and enforced.
All of these efforts to effect more accessible content, software, and
hardware are important steps in advancing equal access online. And such
advances are needed. In studies of the top 100 companies and the top 100
nonprofit groups in the United States, only 6 percent of corporations and
only 10 percent of nonprofit organizations were found to have accessible
home pages. In 2009 fewer than 10 percent of leading corporate and e-
commerce sites were found to be free of accessibility barriers, while
similarly low percentages of government sites are accessible for people
with disabilities. However, these efforts do not challenge the underlying
issues of the construction of disability rights laws that perpetuate
unequal access online. As a result, even if all of these efforts are
successful, they are not likely to correct the larger problems that promote
and enable an unequal online environment. Schmetzke has compiled a
noncomprehensive listing of other similar studies in the U.S. and
throughout the world. Table 1 includes a sample of studies in the U.S.
concerning the lack of website accessibility that are referenced throughout
this paper.
Table 1: Sample of Studies on Website Accessibility Referenced in this
Paper.
|Study |Scope |Date |Percentage of |
| | | |inaccessible |
| | | |sites found |
|Ellison |50 Government |2004 |78% |
| |website home pages| | |
|Jaeger |Government |2006 |100% |
| |websites | | |
|Loiacono, et al. |Government, |2009 |77%, 89%, 94% |
| |nonprofit | |respectively |
| |organizations, and| | |
| |corporate websites| | |
|Olalere and Lazar |Government |2011 |92% |
| |websites | | |
|Rubaii-Barrett and |State government |2008 |63% |
|Wise |websites | | |
The Accessibility Dichotomy
People with disabilities are treated with greater differences under
the law than any other minority group in the United States. These
differences are the primary driver of the levels of inaccessibility that
individuals with disabilities face online, creating challenges in the law
to enforcement of equality that no other minority populations must attempt
to navigate. As a result of these differences, civil rights laws have been
considerably more effective for other disadvantaged populations in creating
enforceable rights and, perhaps more significantly, in cultivating belief
in the validity and importance of those rights. Conversely, the legal
approach taken thus far toward accessibility for people with disabilities
reinforces the notion that equality of people with disabilities is less
important than equality for other traditionally disadvantaged populations.
For much of the law establishing the rights of various minority
populations, the rejection of the separate-but-equal mentality, articulated
in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education,
serves as the core foundation of protection for being included. As a
result, under most civil rights laws, the expressed goal is the creation of
environments, services, and technologies that equally include of all
populations. All civil rights laws in the United States-with the exception
of disability rights laws-are based on an anti-differentiation approach,
meaning that anyone has protections under the law if he or she is being
discriminated against. Thus laws prohibiting discrimination based on race,
ethnicity, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, or age protect all
citizens from any of these forms of discrimination and give all citizens
standing to identify and challenge such discrimination, regardless of
whether they are the direct victims of the discrimination.
In contrast, disability rights laws in the United States have been
built on an anti-subordination approach, meaning that rights are available
only if one is a member of the legally defined class of people protected
and can prove that one is a member of the class. Thus people with
disabilities are the only group that has active responsibility under the
law to enforce their own rights and petition for equality when it is not
already available. This difference means that disability rights laws are
much harder to enforce, since people with disabilities must first prove
that they have standing under the law, something no other population must
do under civil rights laws.
In most cases the main recourse for people with disabilities is to
file a discrimination claim in the court system. For discrimination claims
against private entities, the cases enter the civil court system, while
discrimination claims against federal government agencies enter the
administrative law courts. Claims against state and local governments can
go straight to civil court or can be filed with an enforcement agency for
investigation. This approach places a curious burden on people with
disabilities to be able to afford legal counsel and have the time to file a
case to assert their rights. People with disabilities are also the only
population required to prove their qualifications under the law to file a
disability discrimination claim. Many cases filed under disability rights
law are actually dismissed because the courts have taken a very narrow
perspective as to who should be covered by the law, frequently not allowing
cases to be heard because the court decides that the plaintiff is not
"sufficiently disabled" or something similar. Although "discrimination law
has a weak history of enforcement" due to budgetary, bureaucratic, and
administrative constraints, these issues are particularly prominent in
disability rights. Another barrier to enforcement is the fact that people
with disabilities cannot receive damages against private entities under the
ADA.
Given these requirements, courts have not been generally receptive to
disability discrimination cases. Cases filed under the Americans with
Disabilities Act are lost up to 96 percent of the time. The only litigants
less successful in court than people claiming disability discrimination are
prisoner plaintiffs, who rarely have representation by counsel. Perhaps
more significantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has spent the last two decades
significantly limiting the disability rights laws passed by the U.S.
Congress, and many state courts and state legislatures have followed the
lead of the Supreme Court. Many states have changed state disability rights
laws to mirror the limitations imposed by the Supreme Court on federal
laws, while other states have strengthened state laws to counter the
rulings of the Supreme Court. Most distressingly, the majority opinion in a
2001 Supreme Court decision on disability dismisses the history of
discrimination against people with disabilities as exaggerated and
inconsequential.
This anti-subordination approach to disability rights also results in
many laws allowing or directly encouraging the creation of separate
versions in many contexts. Under various disability rights laws, buildings,
public services, educational settings, and technologies-along with many
other examples-can occur in separate versions for people with disabilities
and for everyone else. The result of this approach is the creation of two
separate versions of ways to do the same thing, such as stairs and ramps or
the creation of an after-the-fact accessible version available perhaps
years after the inaccessible version. This approach serves as an acceptance
of separate but equal, a concept Brown seemingly rejected for all
populations. While this situation raises numerous concerns for disability
rights, the example of technology provides an example in which the
significant problems of this approach are made extremely clear.
Over the years higher education has provided many examples of users
with disabilities being forced to lobby for changes that are needed. In
1996 a complaint was filed at the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S.
Department of Education against California State University (Los Angeles)
for the failure to provide blind and low-vision students access to library,
publications, computer labs, and accessible testing. This was, of course, a
result of these students bringing these issues to the surface and in this
case even then not immediately receiving proper satisfaction. Another
example, in 1999, is the class-action lawsuit brought against the
University of California Berkeley and Davis campuses concerning the lack of
accommodations for students with hearing impairments. More recently
Pennsylvania State University made headlines when the National Federation
of the Blind filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education
alleging that blind students and faculty were unable to access resources,
including the library website, many departmental websites, the course
management system, "smart" podiums in the classrooms, and student banking
through PNC Bank. Once again these known accessibility problems would have
continued without correction if individuals with disabilities were not
proactively advocating for their own rights. Problems like those seen at
Penn State are likely to be common today at many other colleges and
universities as well.
E-commerce websites and other providers of commercial technology
products often take the same approach to accessibility. An example from the
late 1990s is that of AOL and the lawsuit brought by blind individuals
concerning problems with the accessibility of its products. In 2004
Priceline.com and Ramada.com made a settlement with the State of New York
regarding the lack of accessibility of their websites. The settlement
between the National Federation of the Blind and Target is another well-
known example. In this case the commercial website Target.com was noted to
be inaccessible to individuals with visual disabilities.
The transportation industry has been a notorious example of this
problem. As early as 2002 Southwest Airlines was involved in a lawsuit over
the accessibility of their website in a case which was eventually
dismissed. Also in 2002 the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
was sued because its website was inaccessible to individuals with visual
disabilities. This case, rather than being dismissed like the Southwest
Airlines case, became early proof that the ADA applies to website access
for individuals with disabilities. More recently (in 2010) United Airlines
was sued over the inaccessibility of its airport kiosks (Standen, 2010),
and this was again because of advocacy by individuals with disabilities.
Even after this series of cases, however, many airlines do not comply with
regulations related to disability, and some apparently remain unaware of
the relevant regulations.
The notion of parallel versions and after-the-fact fixes can be found
in the first major disability rights law. Having a tremendous positive
impact on the accessibility of construction in the United States, the
Architectural Barriers Act in 1968 set standards for accessibility in
future construction and retrofitting requirements for existing buildings.
However, it also established the basic approach in which changes to
existing structures are generally made only after complaints have been
filed.
The disability rights laws that have followed over time, including
Section 504, IDEA, ADA, the Telecommunications Act, and Section 508, all
take a similar approach to accessibility, allowing for parallel versions
and after-the-fact accessibility in different contexts, from classroom
education to mobile phones. IDEA promotes integration of students with
disabilities but allows for segregation of many students with disabilities
into separate classes or schools. Some interpretations of Section 508 seem
to allow government agencies to have a separate, accessible website for
people with disabilities and a primary website for everybody else, but
Title II of the ADA specifically mandates integration of people with
disabilities. Though there are exceptions-for example, the Library Services
Construction Act (LSCA) tied receipt of funds to making library buildings
and services more accessible-the overall canon of disability rights law is
built on the notion that making things accessible is a process of
parallelism. Even if this approach successfully results in parallel
versions for persons with disabilities and for everyone else, the goal is
one of separate but equal. The oblique but inherent truth of disability
rights law is that it allows, even endorses, a separate but equal approach
to accessibility.
Separate, However, Is Still Not Equal
Separate, however, is still not equal. In practice this parallelism
does not always occur, much less occur successfully. In the case of
information and communication technologies, the speed of change in the
creation of new technologies and in the change between versions of existing
technologies demonstrates the inherent problem in a parallelism approach.
"The introduction of new technologies sees people with disabilities
overlooked, omitted, neglected, and not considered." The distance between
writing and writing systems for people with visual impairments can be
measured in millennia. The gap between typeset printed books and Braille
and Talking Books was nearly half a millennium. More recent developments,
like TTD/TTY services and closed captioning, came decades after mass
production of the telephone and television. Even when separate websites are
created, the version for people with disabilities is frequently far
inferior in content and functionality to the standard version of the site.
Section 508 and the Americans with Disabilities Act
The federal government itself is a prime example of these delays. In
1998, then President Clinton signed into law Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act, which mandates accessible online materials and the use
of accessible technologies by federal government agencies. The law was to
have been fully implemented by 2001. A wide range of studies has shown low
levels of compliance with the law, often with single-digit percentages of
the websites studied compliant. Both the U.S. Federal Communications
Commission's "National Broadband Plan" and the National Council on
Disability's "National Disability Policy: A Progress Report" noted the
continuing widespread failure of the federal government to comply with
Section 508 requirements. The report equates noncompliance with Section 508
and the common inaccessibility of commercial websites. As noted above, in
the summer of 2010, DOJ announced it planned to query the government
agencies as to the accessibility of their sites. They did not plan actually
to evaluate the accessibility of the sites, but instead to ask the agencies
to tell them how accessible the sites are.
While this is a bit surprising, this is the same method used to
evaluate Section 508 compliance when compliance activities were actually
being done in 2001. The regulations require the DOJ to evaluate compliance
with Section 508 every two years, starting in 2001. While the 2001
compliance survey was completed and data posted on the Web, the DOJ
indicated that a compliance report was done in 2003, but never posted that
data. No further compliance activities have been done since then. The
summer 2010 memo on 508 compliance noted that the compliance activities
required by the law will commence again in September 2010, but the survey
was actually sent out in February 2011. These efforts are the first
attention given to Section 508 compliance since 2003, many years after
agencies were supposed to have been in compliance.
In the age of the Internet, the average time between the introduction
of a new information technology and the availability of a version that is
accessible to people with disabilities is three years. This may sound like
a tremendous improvement over previous technologies, but technological
change happens so rapidly that the gap might as well be measured in
millennia. The accessible versions of information and communication
technologies are often made available long after a technology is current or
are never made at all, since the cycle of change is faster than the cycle
of creation of accessible versions. As a result, retrofitting accessibility
into technologies frequently never occurs. When it does happen, it often
does not work as well as it would have if the technology had been born
accessible.
Some products are intentionally made inaccessible when introduced as
a commercial decision. For example, though portable e-book readers can
easily be built with the capability to verbalize the text of the e-books,
often they are not. Amazon's Kindle reader has the capability, but, when it
was launched, the speech function was blocked in most of the titles
available for the reader, and the navigation options were limited for users
with visual and mobility impairments. And, as newer versions of the Kindle
were introduced, they included text-to-speech capabilities for book
content, but the menus and controls themselves were not accessible. A
number of major universities planned to start using Kindle for textbooks,
and that number continues to grow without consideration of the implications
for students and faculty with visual and mobility impairments. Threats of
lawsuit from a number of disability rights groups were required to change
the attitudes of Amazon and the universities, though people with
disabilities were mocked on technology blogs and websites-and on Amazon's
own website-for fighting for equal access to the Kindle. Educational
institutions were even more enthusiastic to adopt the Blackboard online
course software, which was predominantly inaccessible when it was launched
and only became disability-friendly ten years later. The e-reader barriers
stubbornly persist. Even after the letter was sent out by the U.S.
Departments of Education and Justice in 2010, the newest version of the
Kindle, the Kindle Fire, is not accessible for people with visual
impairments.
Two Separate Applications, or One Application at Two Different Times, Will
Be Inherently Unequal
The launch of an inaccessible product and then a later accessible
one, even if it ultimately results in a universally usable product, is
still a glaring form of inequality, since people with disabilities are
excluded during the time gap between inaccessibility and accessibility.
Another approach is the creation of parallel versions-one accessible and
the other inaccessible. This approach can be seen in the creation of two
versions of the same website or in the creation of a fully functional
product and a light version of the product with fewer capacities for people
with disabilities to use.
Yahoo Mail Classic, Outlook Web Access 2007 Light, and the "basic
HTML" version of Gmail are good examples of this. Yahoo recommends that
users of assistive technology use the Yahoo Mail Classic version of its web-
based email interface rather than the current version of the Yahoo Mail
interface, even though the two web-based interfaces do not have all of the
same features. Due to accessibility problems with its standard web-based
interface for accessing corporate email, Microsoft recommends that users
who are blind, have low vision, or require screen magnification use a
different interface called Outlook Web Access "light." This version of the
web-based email interface is not consistent with the features provided by
the standard version of Outlook Web Access. Google recommends its "basic
HTML" version of Gmail as the best version that has compatibility for
screen readers, yet it is missing features, including spell check and the
ability to manage contacts.
Another common example is maintaining a separate, text-only version
of a website. Many organizations select this as a way to avoid maintaining
a single, accessible interface, and the current version of Section 508, as
well as the previous version of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
from the W3C (WCAG 1.0), seem to permit this. However, Section 508 notes
that separate, text-only pages are an alternative only as a last resort and
must be updated consistently with the primary webpage. Also the newest
version of WCAG (2.0) no longer provides an allowance for separate, text-
only interfaces. Some examples of separate, text-only websites include the
MTA, New York City Transit, some government websites, and some university
websites. Some universities and other organizations rely on products like
Usablenet Assistive from the company UsableNet, which attempts to convert
current website content dynamically into a text-only format.
Another pathway in separate but unequal can be found in what might be
called an accessible-upon-request approach. Once again, higher education
provides painfully apt examples. "Colleges that wouldn't dare put up a new
building without wheelchair access now routinely roll out digital services
that, for blind people, are the Internet equivalent of impassible stairs."
For example, the new Facebook-based virtual student union at Arizona State
University that was made to increase a sense of community among students is
inaccessible for students using screen readers, but the developers would
apparently be willing to make it accessible if there are sufficient
complaints. As mentioned previously, in late 2010 Pennsylvania State
University had a complaint filed against it with the U.S. Department of
Education, stating that the University engaged in "pervasive and ongoing
discrimination" against students and faculty with disabilities due to
inaccessible websites, library catalogue, departmental websites, and course
management software that were often adopted with the notion that they might
be made accessible at some undetermined point in the future.
But other universities have had success in addressing technology
accessibility. For instance, the California State University system had an
Accessible Technology Initiative, in which it refused to adopt software or
hardware products systemwide until companies such as Apple, Google, and
Blackboard made their products accessible for students with disabilities.
Because of the large procurements involved (the CSU system has an estimated
430,000 students), the system was able to pressure the technology companies
to make their products more accessible. Unfortunately, the status of the
California Accessible Technology Initiative is unclear now due to state
budget cuts. Due to all of the attention being paid to technology
accessibility on campus, perhaps it should not be a surprise that the U.S.
Department of Justice has recently begun to focus greater attention on the
inaccessibility of postsecondary education websites.
Undue Burden? Or Unfair Disadvantage?
The largest driver of inequality, however, is probably the concept
known as "undue burden." Under all of the disability laws, covered
entities, both public and private, can claim that the requested
accommodation is not financially or practically reasonable and thereby an
undue burden under the law. If the accommodation is an undue burden, then
the entity does not need to provide the accommodation. Corporate and public
entities both tend to make very wide claims about what constitutes an undue
burden, and courts tend to believe pretty much any claim of an undue
burden. Corporations in particular have employed this exemption liberally
as a defense against making any accessible versions of information
technologies, including both the means to access the Internet and the
websites on the Internet. Yet reliance on industry standards is
insufficient to promote accessibility, and disability rights laws cannot be
revised fast enough to match technological change at this point. As a
result, the passage of Section 508 did not lead to major changes.
A potential reason why government technology did not become
accessible, despite the Section 508 law, is that the focus on enforcement
tended to be in procurement procedures, which is an indirect approach, and
most websites are developed in-house, not acquired through contractual
procurements. Furthermore, a piece of hardware that is procured is
accessible or inaccessible upon purchase and generally does not change
status until someone takes an action, whereas a website is a living,
breathing information source that changes on a daily basis and therefore
may be accessible one day and inaccessible another day. The procurement
approach to monitoring accessibility simply does not work for websites,
which need to have regular, ongoing evaluation for compliance with Section
508.
The burden-of-proof statements in IDEA and Section 504 certainly may
contribute to the chronic lack of accessibility and proactive measures to
address it at colleges and universities. Two examples illustrate this
attitude. A quote from the Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) on
a webpage that discusses disability services states the following: "civil
rights laws and the reasonable accommodations they call for are in no way
intended-nor are they able to guarantee success. At most, a student can
expect a more equal chance to do the same work as their peers ... . In
higher education-as well as in employment, public services and public
accommodations-the individual with a disability bears the burden of proof."
During the legal controversy over the accessibility of the Amazon Kindle
and afterward, representatives from Cornell University have also voiced a
similar attitude. When complaints were raised by blind students regarding
the inaccessibility of websites and email at Cornell, although the
University agreed to address the problems, the statement by the associate
university counsel implied that Cornell had a responsibility to provide
accessibility only upon request, rather than preemptively.
Essentially individuals with disabilities are expected to request
accessibility, wait for it to happen, and then potentially be granted
access to resources at a later time, which would inherently provide an
unequal advantage to individuals without disabilities. This often happens
to students when it comes to access to textbooks. Students with print
disabilities need to have access to course textbooks at the same time as
their fellow students. However, they often receive an accessible version of
their course textbooks (e.g., an electronic version of their textbook or a
large-print or Braille version), in the middle of the academic semester
(such as seven weeks into a 15-week semester) or sometimes after the
semester ends. Clearly students with disabilities are then at a
disadvantage compared to their classmates who do not have disabilities. A
delay in access to information is automatically discrimination.
Retrofitting Technology Access
There are many examples of the expense involved in retrofitting
physical structures to address accessibility. The cost of accessibility
when carefully planned and designed is almost zero. However, extreme
challenges and significant expenses are often involved in the process of
retrofitting an existing website for accessibility. To illustrate the
challenges and potential costs, retrofitting a simple Tic-Tac-Toe computer
game for accessibility resulted in the lines of code growing from 192 to
1,412. This type of retrofit would be time-consuming and costly, compared
to a project started with universal access in mind. If the application were
designed with accessibility in mind, the design could have done it with
fewer statements of code.
A good example of the problems raised by retrofitting is the London
subway system. While newer stations on the system are designed with
accessibility in mind, older stations that were not so designed are not yet
all accessible due to the technical difficulties and costs involved.
Another example is the Singapore metro system. A report in 2004 noted the
growing population of individuals with disabilities and the need to
retrofit the metro system to accommodate them. The report noted that the
cost of incorporating accessibility into new construction was minimal
compared to the astronomical costs associated with retrofitting the system
years later. For technology the pattern is very similar. The cost of
retrofitting inaccessible design can sometimes be difficult, resource-
intensive, and costly compared to the cost involved in creating accessible
designs from the onset. Accessibility and usability have also been shown to
add other value to products-as much as a 100-fold return on investment,
according to early research.
People with disabilities, in fact, can serve as an excellent customer
base for accessible products. They control discretionary funds that are
more than twice those of teens and more than seventeen times greater than
those of tweens, the two demographic groups currently most coveted by
businesses. E-commerce use demonstrates the impact of accessible shopping
options. While 53 percent of Internet users with disabilities engage in e-
commerce activities-far lower than the 68 percent of other Internet users
who shop online-online shoppers with disabilities are more loyal to a
smaller number of sites.
Generally, industries have reacted to online accessibility
requirements with "outright opposition, passive ignorance, acts of
omission, or unwillingness to embrace required change." In many cases
corporations view people with disabilities as a niche market that they are
not interested in or do not think it worth the effort to design for. Sadly,
few businesses view people with disabilities as an important market or see
public relations benefits from meeting the needs of people with
disabilities. Developers and business owners are therefore unlikely to make
changes unless they are legally bound to do so. With a minority of
exceptions, providing accessibility is ignored in favor of faster market
entrance for a product or simply because of long-standing assumptions
regarding the need for accessibility and the cost of creating accessible
products.
The most frequently cited reasons for not providing accessible
technologies are that incorporating accessibility into the technology will:
. increase costs of the technology;
. lengthen time of development;
. serve only a small market;
. necessitate special design requirements;
. result in low-tech and uncool products;
. sacrifice aesthetics;
. create difficulties in supporting accessible products;
. never meet the needs of each different disability;
. make the product worse for all other users.
While none of these claims are accurate, these stances are made possible,
if not indirectly encouraged, by the federal laws that provide exemptions
for undue burden, promote the creation of parallel versions of products,
and embrace the anti-subordination approach to disability rights. Because
born-accessibility is not required, retrofitting for accessibility has
become the default approach for most in the private, nonprofit, and public
organizations.
While the discussion above reveals many of the gaps in online access-
equal or at all-for persons with disabilities that have resulted from the
current approach of retrofitting, a more tangible example may help to
illustrate the resistance to accessibility that individuals with
disabilities often encounter. Shopping centers built before a certain time
did not have the curb cuts that facilitate access for wheelchair users as
well as people with carts or luggage, parents with strollers, bicyclists,
and many other unintended beneficiaries. The placement of curb cuts added
to older shopping centers often reflects a lack of interest in making them
effective, such as placing them far from the designated parking spaces that
wheelchair users would likely use, reflecting the fact that retail
associations consistently oppose disability rights legislation.
This same obstructionist spirit is often reflected in the resistance
to accessibility online. Retrofitting for accessibility often occurs only
begrudgingly, after sufficient complaints are made, normally many years
after the accessible version is made available. If a parallel version is
created to provide for accessibility, it often has fewer features and
capabilities, offers far less content, and is frequently out of date. The
combination of these attitudes and the approach of the law has resulted in
disastrous consequences in equal access online for persons with
disabilities.
Social Responsibility
Despite the fact that the focus of this discussion is on legal and
policy approaches and adjustments necessary to prioritize equitable
accessibility, we would be remiss in not mentioning that regardless of the
policy framework and legal environment, it is still incumbent on our
society as a whole to educate developers to incorporate and understand
accessibility better. Lack of training and tools has been a rationale of
developers for excluding accessibility, so the computing and educational
communities must continue both to publicize training and tools and make
them widely available. We also need to encourage a culture of such social
responsibility that corporations no longer feel rewarded for prioritizing
early technology advancements over innovative yet accessible technology. It
has also been suggested that a corporation's attitudes and actions towards
web accessibility may be a strong indicator of its commitment to other
areas of corporate social responsibility and that a lack of commitment to
accessibility can actually overshadow other positive efforts toward social
responsibility. The dream of born-accessible technology motivated by social
responsibility is, however, dependent upon the virtues of both developers
and corporations, which may not always have social responsibility as part
of their bottom line, and this is where strong public policies are of
utmost importance.
Social responsibility can be fostered by other groups as well.
Educators that work with students training to become developers-such as
computer science faculty-could work to incorporate accessibility into
curricula, so that all developers are prepared to make accessible products
and understand that accessibility is the socially responsible approach to
development. Researchers in fields related to accessibility-such as
computer science, information science, sociology, public policy, and
communication-could also support a culture of online accessibility by
producing more research to show the impact of inaccessibility on people
with disabilities, to support the development of accessible products, and
to study policy options related to accessibility.
The greatest driver of increasing focus on and attention to the
social responsibility of accessibility would likely be the federal
government. Significant conceptual changes to policy approaches to
accessibility would demonstrate a greater commitment to online
accessibility that would be a major statement to developers and
corporations. The next section proposes policy changes that could help
foster a culture of social responsibility in accessibility.
Policy Recommendations and Conclusions
It has been suggested that the most effective Internet accessibility
policy might focus on one of the core principles of the online environment--
equity. For people with disabilities the policy approaches thus far have
served more to reinforce inequality than to create equal access online.
Because the social impacts of disability are closely tied to the choices
society makes about disability, equal access online will be achievable only
when federal government policy unequivocally asserts guarantees for
accessible websites, social media tools, mobile devices, and all other
aspects of the online environment. Better efforts to mitigate controllable
risks can reduce the impacts of disability, but the failure to address
systematic barriers to people with disabilities will result in ever-
increasing social costs.
Unfortunately, the way that the disability rights law currently
stands allows the practices of private, nonprofit, and public entities to
undermine the overarching goals of the law concerning accessible
technology. By permitting the general approach of retrofitting for
accessibility through the combination of the anti-subordination approach,
the exemptions for undue burden, and the acceptance of parallel versions of
products, the law encourages the creation of inaccessible information and
communication technologies that may eventually become accessible, but often
do not. The current state of the law allows for separate but equal, but
usually results in simply unequal.
The resulting current levels of Internet accessibility for people
with disabilities are the direct result of policy choices made in the
levels of accessibility expected, the ways in which the policies can be
enforced, and the levels of effort put into enforcement. If people with
disabilities are to move from being the most disadvantaged population
online to equal residents of cyberspace, the philosophical approach of
disability rights law needs to evolve. This evolution hinges on a rejection
of the mentality of retrofitting and separate but equal, incentivizing
instead a philosophy that emphasizes born-accessible technologies that are
designed to be inherently inclusive of people with disabilities.
Such a change would not be a minor policy adjustment, however; it
would necessitate a comprehensive, across-the-board reevaluation of the
language of all disability rights laws. To alter the philosophical approach
to accessibility, the changes to the laws should be based on a strong and
clear legislative mandate that discourages retrofitting and instead shifts
significantly more weight toward planning for accessibility and
implementing accessibility early in the design and beyond only the minimum
that will satisfy the law for today.
Specific changes would need to include:
. Eliminating the ability to avoid compliance by invoking undue burden
clauses or creating separate and unequal versions of technologies;
. Creating a mandate for creating born-accessible technologies capable
of providing the same features to all users, preventing a culture of
retrofitting for accessibility;
. Providing guidelines and best practices that promote the useful
consideration of accessibility throughout design and implementation;
. Ensuring that new requirements are broad enough to encompass the
accessibility of current and future technologies, while also accounting for
the full range of disabilities that can be affected by issues of
accessibility;
. Reducing the burden that an anti-subordination approach places on
people with disabilities by converting the laws protecting them to provide
the anti-differentiation approach that protects all other populations.
These would clearly be significant changes to existing laws and
regulations. However, as the current state of accessibility demonstrates,
major changes are needed if people with disabilities are to have an equal
role in the age of the Internet.
Such policy changes would likely face resistance in the quarters that
have traditionally fought against increases in rights for people with
disabilities. Industry organizations, government agencies, and certain
conservative members of Congress previously argued against the
Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, primarily on economic grounds. Similar
concerns were raised against online accessibility when the requirements of
Section 508 were supposed to have been implemented. However, people with
disabilities have overcome resistance to previous increases in their legal
rights through organized support of changes to the law, and there is no
reason to believe that they would be unable to support further changes to
the law actively. Given that online inaccessibility disadvantages most
people with disabilities in one way or another, large numbers of people
with disabilities would have strong incentives to support these policy
changes actively.
With the enormous potential benefits that an accessible Internet
could provide to people with disabilities-online education offering greater
opportunities for higher education and better jobs, telecommuting and
telework offering meaningful employment options, and social networking
offering new ways to engage in social activities regardless of the barriers
of the physical world-it is possible that no population could benefit more
from the Internet than people with disabilities. These benefits will remain
in the realm of the potential, however, until disability rights laws shift
from a philosophy of retrofitting to a philosophy of born-accessibility.
----------
[PHOTO CAPTION: Hands examine a tactile artwork.]
Imagination Unbound
by Ann Cunningham
From the former Editor: On Sunday morning of last summer's convention
my husband and I wandered past a meeting room in which a handful of people
were doing something with art. It was early in the day, and I was just
getting a feel for what was happening on this first day of the convention,
so we stepped in for a moment and tore ourselves away an hour later. I was
not personally tempted by the creative opportunities to make art that were
going on in the center of the room. My focus was the tactile artworks on
display around the edges. I am always fascinated by what seems to me the
disproportion between elements of tactile art as I touch it and what looks
right to a person examining the piece visually. Part of the puzzle, I
recognize, is the visual conventions that convey depth and perspective. But
simply identifying the elements of the composition-falling leaves, a girl
on a swing, the moon shining down on the scene-is endlessly interesting to
me.
Ann Cunningham and Debbie Stein, who organized this experience, were
satisfied with the number of visitors who stepped into the room to make art
or learn about it, but I can't help thinking that lots of people who missed
the whole event would have been as happy as I was to experience even a
little of this extraordinary opportunity. Therefore I asked Ann and Debbie
to write something about this exhibit so that this year's convention
attendees will know about it ahead of time. Here is what Ann Cunningham has
to say about the opportunity awaiting Federationists in July:
"But how do you do it?" people sometimes ask me when they learn that
I teach art to blind people. Then comes an even bigger question: "What can
art mean to people without sight? Art is mostly a visual thing, isn't it?"
"Not necessarily," I explain. "Mostly art is about imagination and
the creative process."
In my years teaching art at the Colorado Center for the Blind (CCB),
I have met many students who are convinced that they can neither understand
nor create art. In nearly every case an hour or two of art class is enough
to dispel their doubts. As they experiment with drawing using raised lines,
students begin to understand how the three-dimensional world is rendered in
two dimensions.
Last summer, with the help of Debbie Kent Stein and one of my
students from the CCB, Amelia Dickerson, I set up a drop-in art room at the
NFB convention in Orlando. In the art room visitors had the chance to
examine art by touch and, if they chose, to create their own drawings or
sculptures. Early on the morning of Sunday, July 3, I got to work setting
up the room. My lifesaver, Pat Davis of Minnesota, began cooking up the
first of many batches of homemade clay. I unpacked the nearly two dozen
sculptures that I had sent to Orlando via UPS. We arranged art pieces on
tables around the perimeter of the room. Most were bas reliefs I had made
in slate or plastic, most of them original pieces and some inspired by
paintings at the Colorado Center for the Arts. We also displayed an
assortment of books with tactile illustrations that had been donated to us
by National Braille Press and Touch Graphics, Inc. On tables in the middle
of the room we spread drawing boards for making raised-line pictures, along
with clay and sculpting tools.
The room was open all day Sunday and again on Monday afternoon.
Visitors were welcome to drop in at any time and stay for as long as they
wished. Volunteers were on hand to show people around and answer questions.
Some visitors asked volunteers to explain the art on display, while others
preferred to explore on their own.
The art room drew people of all ages and backgrounds. We met parents
with blind children and teens, adults who had been blind all their lives,
and seniors who were losing their vision. Teachers and other professionals
came by to observe and quickly got caught up in the fun.
Most people made a thorough investigation of the artwork arranged
around the room. They took their time to examine each piece, not wanting to
miss any detail. After they studied the sculptures and books on display,
many of the visitors sat down to draw or work with clay. On average
visitors stayed for about two hours, which was quite impressive,
considering the number of competing events. We were thrilled that so many
people felt comfortable experimenting with their own creative expression.
The enthusiastic response to the art room reveals how seldom blind people
are allowed to have hands-on experiences with art and shows how much they
hunger for such opportunities.
Look for the art room in the agenda for convention 2012. We will be
back this summer with works by more artists and with some new ideas to
inspire your creative efforts. Please drop in and let your imagination run
free!
----------
A Taste of Dallas
by Elizabeth Campbell
From the Editor: In a busy convention schedule, going to dinner can
be one of the only relaxing times of the day. In the following article
Elizabeth Campbell gives you a sample of the dining possibilities in the
area around the Anatole. This is what she says:
Texans enjoy bragging about the great things we have to offer, and
what trip to the Lone Star State would be complete without the best
barbecue around or delicious Tex-Mex cooking? While you are here for the
convention, take time to venture out and let your taste buds do some
exploring.
A short cab ride from the Anatole are a number of restaurants with
reasonable prices and terrific food, including steakhouses and barbecue and
vegan cuisine. Enjoy and have fun y'all!
Barbecue
Dickey's Barbecue Pit
2525 Wycliff Ave.
Dallas 75219
Phone: (214) 780-0999
Store Hours: Mon.-Sun. 11:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m.
Website: <www.dickeys.com>
Founded in 1941, Dickey's Barbecue Pit still smokes its meats at each
restaurant location. According to Dickey's website, when spicy cheddar
sausage was added to the menu, it was the first change in fifty years.
Today Dickey's serves up beef brisket, pulled pork, ham, Polish sausage,
turkey breast, and chicken, with an extensive array of home-style sides
from jalapeno beans to macaroni and cheese. Buttery rolls are served with
every meal along with complimentary ice cream and dill pickles.
Sonny Bryan's Smokehouse
2202 Inwood Rd.
Dallas 75235
Phone: (214) 357-7120
Website: <www.sonnybryans.com>
Restaurant hours: Monday-Sunday 10:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m.
This famous restaurant features vintage school desks and photos of
famous folks who have enjoyed the barbecue over the years. Sunny Bryan's
also has a gluten-free menu.
Steakhouses
Dunston's Mesquite Grilled Prime Steaks
8526 Harry Hines Blvd.
Dallas 75235
Phone: (214) 637-3513
Restaurant hours: Monday through Thursday: 11:00a.m. -10:00 p.m.
Friday: 11:00 a.m.-11:00 p.m.
Saturday: 4:30 p.m.-11:00 p.m.
Sunday: 4:30 p.m.-10:00 p.m.
Website: <www.dunstonssteakhouse.com>
Dunston's features prime beef at a reasonable price, and the
restaurant is famous for its mesquite-grilled steaks. The restaurant has
the look and feel of a high-end steakhouse with reasonable prices. Make
sure to check out some of the favorites such as a chicken-fried rib-eye or
fried catfish.
Texas Land and Cattle Company
3130 Lemmon Ave.
Dallas 75204
Phone: (214) 526-4664
Call for restaurant hours.
Website: <www.texaslandandcattle.com>
Known for its signature smoked sirloin and Texas rib-eye steaks.
American Diners
Mama's Daughters' Diner
2014 Irving Blvd.
Dallas 75204
Phone: (214) 742-8646
Website: <www.mamasdaughtersdiner.com>
A quote from the website: "Mama's been home cookin' breakfast and
lunch for the good folks in the Dallas area since 1958, baking our own
pies, cornbread, and rolls."
Original Market Diner
4434 Harry Hines Blvd.
Dallas 75204
Phone: (214) 521-0992
Website: <www.originalmarketdiner.com>
Restaurant hours: Monday-Wednesday 6:00 a.m.-3:30 p.m. Thursday/Friday 6:00
a.m.-9:00 p.m.
Saturday 6:30 a.m.-9:00 p.m., and Sunday: 7:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.
The diner features homemade pies, daily specials, and burgers.
Note: the menus are in PDF form and don't appear to be accessible.
Mexican
El Fenix Mexican Restaurant
1601 McKinney Ave.
Dallas 75202
Phone: (214) 747-1121
Website: <www.elfenix.com>
Open seven days a week: Sunday-Monday 11:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m.; Tuesday-
Saturday 11:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.
Serving the best in Tex-Mex cuisine since 1918.
Ojedas Mexican Restaurant
4617 Maple Ave.
Dallas 75219
Phone: (214) 528-8383
Website: <www.ojedas.com>
Restaurant hours: Sunday-Thursday 10:00 a.m.-9:30 p.m.; Friday and Saturday
10:00 a.m.-10:30 p.m.
Note: this site is written in Flash, and it is very difficult to
navigate because music is playing in the background, making it difficult to
listen to a screen reader.
A quote from a review on the City Search website: "The original
location on Maple Avenue opened in 1969, and not a whole lot has changed in
forty years. Everything about the place is comfortable, from the sincere
waitstaff to the old-school decor to the endless number of combo plates. We
like Ojeda's dinner: guacamole salad, tostada with queso, two beef
enchiladas, puff taco, and rice and beans. Countless famous faces have
dined at Ojeda's, including President Bill Clinton, Owen Wilson, and Dr.
Phil."
Indian
Taj Express
4436 Lemmon Ave.
Dallas 75219
Phone: (214) 528-0200
Hours: Monday-Sunday from 11:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.-10:00 p.m.
Acrylic murals in rich gold, purple, and orange tones adorn the
concrete walls of this former Pizza Hut turned Indian food favorite.
Throbbing Hindi dance music and a polite turban-wearing owner and his wife
greet you at the door. Regulars favor the inexpensive buffet, which
includes salad with fresh chutney and raita, naan, and basmati rice as
staples. Hot and spicy dishes include tandoori chicken, creamed spinach,
cauliflower and potatoes, and creamy tikka masala sauce.
Chinese
Panda's Chinese
3917 Cedar Springs Rd.
Dallas 75219
Phone: (214) 528-9999
Website: <www.mrpandasdallas.com>
From the website: Late-night Oak Lawn hangout serves authentic Hunan
and Szechuan delicacies to starved bar-hoppers and businessmen alike.
Delivery till 4:00 a.m.
Full bar, great desserts.
Vegan
Kosmic Cafe
2912 Oaklawn Ave.
Dallas 75219
Phone: (214)521-6157
Hours: Monday-Thursday 11:00 a.m.-10:30 p.m.
Friday and Saturday: 11:00 a.m.-11:00 p.m.
Sunday: 12:00 noon-10:00 p.m.
Website: <www.cosmiccafedallas.com>
Check out one of the restaurant's signature dishes made with tofu,
grilled asparagus, bell peppers, and onions.
We hope you enjoy your stay in Dallas and at the luxurious Anatole
Hotel. At the convention look for the restaurant guide that will have more
information and restaurant listings.
----------
[PHOTO CAPTION: Angela Marin is pictured here making clothing labels.]
An Important Step in My Life
by Angela Marin Rivera
From the Editor: Ashley Bryant from the National Clearinghouse on
Disability and Exchange submitted this article. The Community Solutions
Program is a professional development program for community leaders from
around the world to contribute to U.S. community projects. In her mission
to increase opportunities for people in Peru who are blind, Angela Marin
Rivera sought an opportunity to do professional development with a U.S.
blind organization, while expanding her own independent living skills. Here
is Angela's story:
I was born in Lima, Peru, and I have been blind since birth, due to
cytomegalovirus, a condition caused by rubella, which affected my mother
when she was pregnant. I have lived with my parents, Fernando and Carmen,
and my sister Daniella for most of my life.
My parents have always cared about my education and helped me to grow
up like any other child. I first went to a school for the blind called San
Francisco de Asis, a primary school, where I learned Braille and all the
academic subjects I needed. For high school I went to Hector de Cardenas,
which was a regular school. I was the only blind student there, but the
teachers helped me to take regular classes. Being included in a regular
environment made this a wonderful experience.
After high school I applied to the National Women's University
(UNIFE) to study languages and translation. I did well and finished my
college career successfully. During that time I took some cane travel
classes so that I could travel to and around the university. After I
graduated from college, I worked as a computer teacher, translator, and
switchboard operator, which helped me to be useful and gain more confidence
in myself.
One day I was doing some research on my computer, and I read about
the Community Solutions Program managed and funded by the Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs of the U.S. Department of State and
implemented by IREX. This program searches for good leaders around the
world who want to promote development in their communities. So, after
thinking about this interesting opportunity, I decided to apply to the
program. I know several organizations of the blind in Peru, and I had
experience teaching computer courses to blind people, so I decided to
continue helping others to be successful in life. One of my main goals is
to help blind people to have more opportunities, as I do myself.
I later received an email from a staff member of IREX which said that
I had been accepted to participate in the Community Solutions Program on a
fellowship to come to the U.S. This would be a four-month fellowship to
work with a host organization. After the training I would do a project in
my home country.
I was told that my host organization would be the National Federation
of the Blind. I was excited and nervous at the same time, since I knew it
would be a challenge for me to live in another country without my family
and friends, but I decided to go ahead with this opportunity to learn to be
a good leader.
When I first arrived in the U.S., all the CSP fellows got together in
Washington, D.C., to receive general training from the IREX staff about our
four-month fellowships. After three days of training all of the
participants went to their host organizations. I went to Baltimore and
stayed at the National Center for the Blind for a week. There I met Mrs.
Joanne Wilson, a great and powerful woman. I talked with Joanne about my
goals and the project I wanted to accomplish. She helped me to understand
the philosophy of the NFB and told me about training centers for
independent living in the country. She suggested that it would be great if
I had the opportunity to attend one of these centers, and I thought it
would be very helpful in reaching my personal and professional goals. We
talked to staff from the Nebraska Center for the Blind to see if I could
become a client in the following months.
Within a few days I arrived in Lincoln to start my training. The
center's rehabilitation program director and the apartment resource
counselor showed me my new apartment, and I felt more comfortable. After my
first interview we decided that my program would emphasize developing home-
management and cane-travel skills because these are what I most needed to
learn. I was already quite comfortable with computers and Braille.
My home-management instructor helped me to learn a lot of cooking
skills and made me feel comfortable in the kitchen. I tried some new
recipes that turned out well. The most amazing thing was that I could
prepare meals for other people by myself. I also tried some of my mom's
recipes, and all of my family was impressed that I was learning how to cook
and manage my own apartment. I truly thank my instructor for all the time
she spent with me and all of the knowledge I acquired.
In cane travel class, I learned how to use the cane properly and how
to travel independently. I also learned how to cross the streets on my own,
explore different places, and ask for directions. It was very important
that the cane-travel instructor had a lot of patience, knowledge, and
experience. As a blind instructor he really understood our needs.
I appreciate all the support they and the entire staff gave me during
my program. The instructors at the Nebraska Center for the Blind are the
best I have ever met and are a great example of what we can make out of our
lives.
I have new friends in America, and I will always remember the time I
spent with the clients at the center, at the apartments, and during social
gatherings. All of these friends helped me to change my life and be a
better human being. I now feel strong enough to achieve my personal and
professional goals.
To apply as a professional or a host organization in the Community
Solutions Program, visit <www.irex.org/project/community-solutions>. The
National Clearinghouse on Disability and Exchange is sponsored by the
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the U.S. Department of State
and administered by Mobility International USA. For more information about
people with disabilities participating in international exchange programs,
visit <www.miusa.org/ncde> or contact <clearinghouse at miusa.org>.
----------
[PHOTO CAPTION: A blind woman enjoys a workout.]
[PHOTO CAPTION: A young man does curls.]
The United States Association of Blind Athletes
Affects Lives through Sports and Recreation
From the Editor: The lack of physical activity in our country is
often cited as a contributing factor in what is frequently called the
obesity epidemic. Weight gain has long been associated with disabling and
life-threatening conditions. It has often been observed that man is a
growing machine, meaning that the older one gets, the harder it is to keep
from gaining weight.
What worries many healthcare professionals, dietitians, teachers, and
parents is the alarming rise in obesity among children. Arguably blind
children, as part of society, share this problem, but the following article
convincingly argues that blind youngsters are even more likely to suffer
from obesity because physical education teachers don't know how to make
accommodations to allow their blind students to participate. Here is what
the United States Association of Blind Athletes has to say:
An estimated 52,000 school-age children are blind or visually impaired
in the United States; nearly 70 percent do not participate in even a
limited physical education curriculum. The barriers that blind or visually
impaired youth face are numerous and primarily the consequence of moving
their education from residential schools, where physical educators with a
knowledge of blindness deliver specialized services in relatively small
classes, to public schools, where educators may have less knowledge, time,
and resources to apply to students who are visually impaired.
In 1976 the United States Association of Blind Athletes (USABA) was
founded by Dr. Charles Buell to improve the lives of people who are blind
or visually impaired. Since then USABA, a Colorado-based 501(c)(3)
organization, has evolved into a national organization that provides sports
opportunities to thousands of athletes of all ages and abilities who are
blind or visually impaired. A member of the U.S. Olympic Committee, USABA
enhances the lives of people who are blind or visually impaired through
sports and physical activity by providing opportunities in various sports,
including, but not limited to, track and field, Nordic and alpine skiing,
biathlon, judo, wrestling, swimming, tandem cycling, powerlifting, rowing,
showdown, triathlon, archery, and goalball.
USABA recognizes that sports opportunities allow people who are blind
or visually impaired to develop independence through competition without
unnecessary restrictions. Like the sighted, people who are blind or
visually impaired must have the opportunity to experience the thrill of
victory and the reality of defeat.
The benefits of sports and recreation have been shown to continue from
childhood through adolescence and into adulthood. A recent survey of USABA
members revealed that not only do participants benefit academically from
their involvement in sports during elementary and high school, but 57
percent of USABA members went on to higher education to pursue a college
degree--which is more than double the national average of 23 percent for
their visually impaired peers. Helping to increase the involvement in
physical activity and the likelihood of higher education, eighteen agencies
assisting youth who are blind or visually impaired are working towards a
healthier lifestyle with the start of the National Fitness Challenge
created by the United States Association of Blind Athletes and funded by
the WellPoint Foundation. "Each participating agency submits baseline data
and monthly updates that are used to create and modify achievable fitness
and weight loss goals for the teens to help them decrease their Body Mass
Index," said Mark Lucas, executive director of the United States
Association of Blind Athletes. USABA and the WellPoint Foundation are
actively working towards a healthier lifestyle by providing talking
pedometers as well as fitness and nutrition coaches for each agency. Each
athlete has the opportunity to be the top boy or girl from his or her
agency and participate in the final National Fitness Challenge. This is a
four-day camp in Colorado Springs, Colorado, June 18 to 21, 2012, where
they will participate in track and field, goalball, swimming, and strength
and conditioning workouts to learn more about fitness and become more
involved in their local communities.
Mark Lucas says, "Our goal for the National Fitness Challenge is that
the top thirty-six teens will go back to their communities and join sports
teams. We want to reward the teens for their hard work and dedication
towards leading an active and healthy lifestyle. Each participant will be
provided skill development that can lead to national and international
competitions."
Participants from each of the eighteen agencies have a special sport
they are practicing in order to become more physically fit while having
fun. Some are playing goalball, while others have a running league, swim
team, ski team, or tandem cycling group. "The WellPoint Foundation is
committed to helping children and adults have active lives and avoid the
health risks associated with sedentary lifestyles and obesity," said Mike
Walsh, president and general manager of WellPoint's Specialty Business,
which includes dental, vision, workers' compensation, voluntary, life and
disability benefits. "We believe no one should ever be denied the right to
enjoy the physical and emotional benefits of exercise, and we are proud to
partner with the USABA to ensure that vision impairments do not limit the
recreational opportunities afforded to teenagers across the country."
The WellPoint Foundation is the philanthropic arm of WellPoint, Inc.,
and through charitable contributions and programs the Foundation promotes
the inherent commitment of WellPoint, Inc., to enhance the health and well
being of individuals and families. These seven hundred teens are taking
leaps and bounds to break down stereotypes and become more physically fit
by showing how active people with disabilities can be while enjoying
themselves. As the National Fitness Challenge year comes to a close, USABA
and the WellPoint Foundation hope the athletes meet their goal of a 50
percent total decrease in body mass index (BMI). Not only will these teens
lower their BMI, but, through participation in sports and physical
activity, they will realize new levels of independence, confidence, and
determination.
USABA is dedicated to providing physical activities for everyone who
is blind or visually impaired, especially veterans and military service
members. Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom resulted in the
highest percentage of eye wounds of any major conflict since World War I,
so it is particularly important that USABA provide opportunities to
returning wounded warriors. USABA began Operation Mission Vision in the
summer of 2008. Its goal is to bring normalcy back into the lives of
veterans and active duty service members who are blind or visually impaired
and to accelerate their rehabilitation through sport, recreation, and
physical activity.
Lonnie Bedwell, a forty-six-year-old Navy veteran, lost his sight
fifteen years ago and has been a member of USABA for many years. He says,
"I want to thank all of you for these opportunities and allowing me to be a
part of USABA. USABA and all of you that run it are absolutely first-class.
When you give your time to help others, that's something that can never be
replaced. It's phenomenal. I just wish I could repay these guys. I feel
like the only way I can do that is to pay it forward. It's like I was in
front of a huge brick wall--no way around it, no way through it, and they
put a door in it, and then they took me through it. The events--a lot of
the time I don't know how you put into words what they do for people,"
Bedwell said.
Participation in physical activity is often the most critical mental
and physical aspect of rehabilitation for both the injured person and his
or her support network. In partnership with the United States Olympic
Committee's Military Sports Program, USABA fully funds veterans and their
coaches so they can attend and participate in the USABA summer and winter
sports festivals.
In order to help veterans especially, goalball was developed after
WWII to keep veterans who had lost their sight during the war physically
active. Goalball is a unique ball game played by people who are blind or
visually impaired, but many sighted people also play on local teams for
fun. Goalball has become a premier team game and is a part of the Summer
Paralympic Games. It is played in 112 countries in all International Blind
Sport Association (IBSA) regions. In partnership with the U.S. Paralympics,
a division of the United States Olympic Committee, USABA manages the sport
of goalball from the grassroots to the elite level. Goalball is played with
bells inside the ball so the players can locate it audibly. For this reason
silence at events is vital. Goalball is played on a court with tactile
markings so players can determine their location on the court and the
direction they are facing. All players wear eye masks to block out light
and thus equalize visual impairment between the athletes. USABA's goalball
season is starting soon, and teams around the nation will play in
tournaments with hopes of becoming national champions. The goalball
schedule can be found on the USABA's website listed at the end of this
article.
USABA offers many other sporting events for youth such as the IBSA
World Youth Championships that occur every two years. In addition, more
than 250 athletes ages twelve to nineteen from more than twenty countries
compete in sports, including judo, goalball, swimming, and track and field.
Team USA is represented by young athletes currently competing on their high
school or club teams. USABA also provides regional goalball tournaments,
sports education camps, summer sports festivals, annual winter sports
festivals, and cycling camps.
Sports and physical activity is the gift that keeps on giving from
childhood through adulthood. Regular exercise can help protect us all from
heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, noninsulin-dependent diabetes,
obesity, back pain, and osteoporosis. It can improve our moods and help to
manage stress. For the greatest overall health benefits, experts recommend
that we do twenty to thirty minutes of aerobic activity three or more times
a week and some type of muscle-strengthening activity and stretching at
least twice a week. USABA strives to be an easy access portal for
information and events for all blind or visually impaired people who seek
participation in sports and physical activity. Parents, teachers, community
program leaders, coaches, volunteers, and people who are blind or visually
impaired can easily seek out USABA staff and coaches for their expertise.
What the United States Olympic Committee is to the Olympic movement, the
United States Association of Blind Athletes is to the blind and visually
impaired athletic movement.
For more information about any of these programs or the USABA, call
Lacey Markle at (719) 866-3222, email her at <military_pgm_asst at usaba.org>,
or go to USABA's website at <www.usaba.org>.
----------
[PHOTO CAPTION: A group of teachers creates a tactile twister board.]
[PHOTO CAPTION: Mark Riccobono teaches Amy Lund to use a chain saw.]
The NFB Teacher Leader Seminar 2012
by Emily Gibbs
From the Editor: Any teacher will tell you that January is usually the
hardest month of teaching. It is long, dark, and in most places cold. So,
when the education staff of the NFB Jernigan Institute decided to conduct a
weekend seminar for teachers of blind students, they settled on late
January as the best time to provide participants with a shot in the arm.
The idea was obviously a great success. Here is Jernigan Institute staffer
Emily Gibbs's report of the event:
Throughout the country teachers of the blind are often isolated in
their schools because blindness is a low-incidence disability. In addition
to this isolation, teachers of blind students face various other
professional challenges. They have overwhelming caseloads, with one teacher
sometimes serving fifty or more students in several districts or counties.
Teachers are frequently not provided the resources they need to educate
their students successfully. The National Federation of the Blind
recognizes these teachers' struggles and stands ready to support them and
provide needed training. The NFB Teacher Leader Seminar was conceived to
provide this much needed professional development for teachers of the blind
and other blindness professionals. During the last week of January teachers
flocked to Baltimore to participate in this brand new program.
The agenda was established with the consultation of experts in the
field of education. Planners decided that the Teacher Leader Seminar should
consist of four tracks: science, technology, engineering, art, and math
(STEAM); access technology; multiply impaired students; and building blocks
for successful itinerant teaching. These four tracks offered focused
discussions on the topic. Participants could choose to stay within one
track for the entire seminar or participate in several tracks throughout
the weekend. For example, based on the needs of the individual teacher,
participants might attend all three sessions in the multiply impaired
students track or attend one session about STEAM and the next about access
technology. The flexibility of the agenda allowed teachers to attend the
seminars that most closely met their students' needs.
When teachers were not attending track sessions, they were attending
special breakout sessions created by experts in their fields to give them
experiences unique to the NFB. They learned about NFB philosophy and the
National Reading Media Assessment. They toured the International Braille
and Technology Center for the Blind. Some even used a chainsaw, grilled a
steak, or traveled, among many other things-all under sleepshades,. Five
breakout sessions were scheduled concurrently, so one could always find an
interesting and engaging session.
One feature of the 2012 NFB Teacher Leader Seminar was the way we
incorporated social media. Participants were encouraged to communicate with
each other using several social media websites on their computers and
mobile devices. We used the Twitter website extensively. Twitter uses 140-
character messages (tweets) to post status updates to the world. If you
aren't following--connected with--a given user, there is no way for you to
see that user's communications. However, if you include a hashtag, a word
with a # sign in front of it, other users can search for that hashtag and
read the tweets of all the people discussing that subject.
For example, at the 2012 NFB Teacher Leader Seminar our hashtag was
"#TLS12." Using this hashtag, everyone who wanted to hear about the seminar
could participate in the discussion. Teachers used Twitter to post tweets
about what they were learning during track sessions and breakouts. They
posted pictures of themselves and the new people they had met traveling
under sleepshades, grilling, and using adaptive science tools. Teachers
interviewed each other on video and uploaded those conversations to Twitter
as well. This was a way for people to experience different sessions and
keep track of what others were doing. It was the ultimate solution to the
age old problem of being unable to be in two places at once.
All of the tweets could be read online or viewed on an eight-foot-tall
screen in the northwest corner of Members Hall that constantly updated
during the day. For those who didn't bring a computer, the southwest corner
of Members Hall was transformed into a social media lounge. The area was
set with café tables and chairs. Here computers were available all day long
for people to use to check email and update Twitter and Facebook, as well
as access the TLS Forum.
The forum was an online bulletin board accessible only to participants
inside the building. It contained information about the building and about
Baltimore itself. The forum was where you could find cab or bus
information, the names of nearby restaurants, and other information about
the NFB and Baltimore. This information was especially important for
teachers who weren't staying in the building and for people who went out on
the town to explore Baltimore on Saturday night.
One unique aspect of the NFB Teacher Leader Seminar was the
Unconference, an event unlike a traditional conference in every way. It has
no agenda. An Unconference is created and organized the day it happens by
the participants. The people who attend are the ones who volunteer to run
sessions and speak about things they are passionate about.
To organize the unconference, we depended on the TLS Forum. People
suggested topics on the forum throughout the first two days. Unconference
ideas could be anything. People were encouraged to suggest topics they were
excited about and knew enough to run a discussion about as well as topics
about which they knew nothing but hoped to learn more. Anyone could run a
session or suggest a topic simply by posting it on the forum.
For thirty minutes before the Unconference began on Sunday morning, we
conducted a town hall meeting to decide the schedule for the day. The
agenda was agreed by consensus of the entire group and was based on
suggestions posted on the forum. Sessions were chosen quickly, and in every
case someone happily volunteered to lead the discussion. The only rule for
the day was the two-feet rule. If you weren't learning in a session or it
wasn't what you expected it to be, you could walk out.
Unconference sessions covered a wide range of topics. Some sessions,
such as "Creative Braille-Teaching Tools," were led by one person who
talked to the group. Others were conducted by the entire group discussing
one topic, such as the accessible app session. During this time there was
even a philosophy discussion aptly described as "Myths of the NFB."
Participants were invited to discuss honestly what they had heard about the
NFB and what they had learned during the seminar.
We asked teachers to fill out an anonymous survey about their
experiences. The teachers themselves said it best. When asked if they felt
that this conference had expanded their professional learning network, all
thirty-two responders said yes. When asked if they would recommend this
conference to other teachers, thirty-one of thirty-two people said that
they would. One participant exclaimed, "I will definitely recommend this
conference to other blindness professionals in future years. It is a great
way to share ideas and learn from one another. It is also a good way to
introduce people to the NFB's philosophy." Another responded, "My goal is
to get all of my program to come next year." No matter what topic
participants came to the conference hoping to learn about, they all agreed
that they had learned a lot about the topic at this seminar.
According to the participants themselves, the inaugural 2012 Teacher
Leader Seminar was a huge success. The people who attended offered positive
feedback as well as insights and suggestions for the future. Because of the
overwhelmingly positive response, planning has already begun for the 2013
Teacher Leader Seminar. We hope to see lots of teachers there.
----------
[PHOTO CAPTION: Ron and Jean Brown]
Fun with Fashion
by Ron and Jean Brown
From the Editor: The way we act and what we say has a lot to do with
the way we are perceived, but so do the clothes we wear. How does a blind
woman determine the colors that make her look her best? How does a blind
man follow current styles to ensure that his wardrobe is appropriate in
2012 and not a classic from the 1990s? To answer some of these questions,
we sought out two of the most stylish dressers we know, people who dress
appropriately in every situation, both of whom are totally blind. Here is
their advice about dressing for leisure, fun, and success:
The fashion do's and don'ts can be as simple or as complex as we make
them, and to the inexperienced blind clothes shopper walking into a mall,
it can be a nightmare. Our advice: just determine to have fun shopping and
enjoy it for the special treat it is.
We like shopping with people who know the styles we wear, and Ron and
I are thankful for family members with good fashion sense and the ability
to coordinate clothing. Stand your ground. If someone has no fashion sense,
don't let him or her select your clothes. Some clothing is beautifully
designed, but the pattern or the colors are atrocious--don't make the awful
mistake of bringing a piece home just because you like its texture, for
everything that's pleasing to the touch is not necessarily pleasing to the
eye, and everything that has a high price tag is not necessarily beautiful.
As you plan your day, make plans to wear the right attire. Can you
divide your clothing into casual wear, business/business casual,
sportswear, and evening wear? If so, you have already won half the battle.
Be sure that the style you choose compliments your figure, your complexion,
and your personality. Ladies, don't be afraid to accessorize your outfits;
add a scarf or a piece of jewelry to give it a touch of class.
Men, let your clothes compliment your physique. For most men selecting
the appropriate business wear is a challenge; just remember no written rule
says you must wear a tie with a sports jacket. A blazer is also very
fashionable with a turtleneck sweater or a collarless shirt and dress
slacks.
Many of the rules that apply to men also apply to women. Go ahead--
dress up your jeans with a dressy blouse or cowl-neck sweater, your
favorite heels, and a blazer. Evening wear has certainly changed over the
years; it's no longer just a flowing gown; it can be a tea-length skirt or
dress or an elegant suit. Once again, don't overlook accessories if needed.
Men, take your pick-a suit, a three-quarter-length jacket, or a basic
cut jacket, as long as the shirt and tie colors are coordinated. I am
tempted to stop there but should point out that your shoes and socks should
match your suit for a finished look--now you've got it going on.
Casual wear is what you are comfortable in away from home; it can be
the same as sportswear. Clothing in this category should not be mixed with
anything in your business casual suits unless it is a weekender. Sportswear
is a category by itself, and it seems that the list keeps growing as our
fashion designers create more and more looks. Have fun with this category,
but keep in mind what is age appropriate and what accentuates the positive.
Don't hold back by being shy or reserved; ask what the latest fashions
are, touch materials so you will know what they are, take someone with you
who loves to shop so that you are not rushed; and remember, ladies and
gentlemen, that our sighted public can see us coming long before we can
hear them speak, so let's put our best look forward. A central tenet of our
philosophy is that it is respectable to be blind, so leave your home with
pride, with confidence, and with style.
----------
[PHOTO CAPTION: John Nagle]
The Struggle for Minimum Wage: 1968
by Anna Kresmer
From the Editor: The following is another in our series of historical
documents in the Jacobus tenBroek Library.
As most readers know, our federal legislative agenda for 2012 includes
the Fair Wages for Workers with Disabilities Act of 2011 (H.R. 3086). This
bill would amend Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to
end the practice of government-issued permits that allow employers to pay
their disabled workers subminimum wage, a practice often, although not
exclusively, used in sheltered workshops. Supporters of the bill believe
that, in addition to paying an unfair wage, these permits encourage low
expectations and reinforce the stereotype that disabled people are
incapable of surviving in a competitive workplace. As of late March the
bill was continuing to make progress in the House of Representatives,
thanks to the efforts of the NFB and our allies among other organized
groups of disabled Americans.
The struggle to attain the minimum wage for the disabled is nothing
new to the NFB. Evidence of the Federation's activism on this issue over
the decades is preserved in the archives at the Jernigan Institute. The
tenBroek library staff recently encountered one such piece of documentation
in the papers of Jacobus tenBroek and is pleased to present it this month.
This 1968 unsigned draft of a never-published Braille Monitor article--
presumably written by John Nagle, then chief of the NFB Washington office--
details the wage situation faced by blind workers of the day. We do not
know why this article was not published, but perhaps it was lost in the
organizational shuffle surrounding President tenBroek's death on March 27,
1968.
Regardless of why it never appeared in print or Braille, this article
provides a solid description of the status of the subminimum wage issue at
the time. It points out the victories already won through collective effort
on the part of the organized blind, and it highlights the problems still
left to solve. It accounts for just one battle in a greater war on
employment discrimination. But--even though the road may seem long today
and the battle tiring--just as it did in 1968--the Federation spirit is as
strong as ever. Today this archival document serves as a historical
snapshot, reminding us of how far we have come, showing how far we have
left to go, and encouraging us to keep fighting.
Sheltered Shop Minimum Wage Up!
On February 1, 1968, 80 cents became the hourly minimum wage rate
applicable to the earnings of handicapped workers employed in sheltered
workshops. This upping of the sheltered shop wage is in accordance with the
second-step federal minimum wage rise provided for by the 1966 amendments
to the Fair Labor Standards Act. These amendments established the overall
federal hourly minimum wage at $1.40 on February 1, 1967, and at $1.60 on
February 1, 1968--and they also included the historic action of imposing a
wage minimum on sheltered shop hourly earnings, providing that such minimum
be not less than 50 percent of the federal hourly minimum wage. Thus, on
February 1 of last year, 70 cents was established as the statutory hourly
minimum wage in sheltered shops, and, on February 1, 1968, as the federal
minimum advanced from $1.40 to $1.60 an hour, the sheltered shop minimum
rose from 70 cents to 80 cents an hour.
This sheltered shop minimum wage can hardly be considered as assuring
handicapped workers anything approaching a decent standard of living, even
when they are able to earn the minimum--and many do not, because of the
nature of the work they are offered to do. And then, too, many shop workers
are specifically excluded from even the meager minimum wage provided for in
the Fair Labor Standards Act. Still, the congressional imposition of any
minimum wage at all on sheltered workshops remains a historic milestone in
the centuries-long effort to secure equity and opportunity for handicapped
people, to secure the same rights and protections for handicapped people
which are so generally available to physically fit people.
Nor is the National Federation of the Blind willing to rest on its
congressional gains for sheltered shop workers in 1966 and accept 80 cents
as the permanent statutory floor for hourly sheltered shop wages. For a
time there had been the hope that the study of wages in sheltered shops
conducted by the secretary of labor in response to congressional mandate
would bring about a recognition of the total inadequacy of the wage
structure in sheltered shops and would result in earnings improvements for
handicapped workers. But the secretary's sheltered shop study has been
issued, and it offers no basis for assuming that sheltered shop wages will
be bettered by administrative action. So the organized blind will return to
Congress and again plead the cause of all physically disabled employees in
sheltered workshops.
A new minimum wage in sheltered workshops bill is now being drafted
which will provide for the raising of the sheltered shop hourly minimum
wage to the existing federal minimum in two stages--first to 75 percent,
and then, a year later, to the federal minimum. The Federation will look
again to the same congressional leaders who worked so closely and so
successfully with us before, Congressman John H. Dent, Pennsylvania, and
Senator Wayne Morse, Oregon. And the Federation will again also look for
support and cooperation from the AAWB [American Association of Workers for
the Blind] and the AFB [American Foundation for the Blind], who worked
shoulder to shoulder with the organized blind in the 89th Congress when,
finally, victory was achieved by the enactment of the sheltered shop
provisions of the 1966 amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
(Attention: I think it would be helpful to print the sheltered shop
minimum wage provisions of the 1966 Fair Labor Standards Act amendments at
the conclusion of this article.)
----------
Recipes
This month's recipes have been contributed by members of the NFB of
Hawaii.
[PHOTO CAPTION: Nani Fife]
Fresh Mango Bread
by Nani Fife
Nani Fife is president of the National Federation of the Blind of
Hawaii. She is married to Larry Fife, and they have three children and ten
grandchildren. Nani lives on the island of Oahu in Nuuanu Valley. Nani
works for the City and County of Honolulu as a city manager. She says that
frozen mangos may be substituted for the fresh fruit if necessary.
Ingredients:
2 cups flour, sifted
2 teaspoons baking soda
1 teaspoon ground cloves
1 teaspoon ground allspice
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 1/2 cups sugar
3 eggs
1/2 cup vegetable oil
1/2 cup (1 stick) butter, melted
2 cups mangos, partly mashed, partly diced
1/2 cup macadamia nuts, chopped
Method: Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Grease and flour two standard
loaf pans and set aside. Combine all dry ingredients. In an electric mixer
beat eggs and then add oil and butter and beat for approximately two
minutes. Beat in dry ingredients and mangos. Stir in the nuts. Divide
batter between the two pans and bake for forty-five to fifty-five minutes.
Bread is done when a toothpick inserted in center comes out clean. Remove
pans to racks. Allow bread to cool for a few minutes before removing from
pans to cool completely.
----------
Easy Chicken
by Nani Fife
Ingredients:
1 can condensed cream of mushroom soup
1 envelope onion soup mix
1 can beer
6 chicken thighs
Method: Combine all ingredients in a pot. Simmer covered until done,
thirty to forty-five minutes.
----------
Portuguese Bean Soup
by Ann Lemke
Ann Lemke is president of the aNueNue Chapter of the NFB of Hawaii.
Ingredients:
2 or 3 medium-sized smoked ham hocks or ham shanks
3 cups chicken broth
1 pound Portuguese sausage, halved lengthwise and sliced (I use hot
sausages, but they make mild ones as well.)
1 large or two small Maui onions, coarsely chopped
3 medium potatoes, peeled and cubed
1 cup carrots, in chunky dice
1 cup celery, diced
4 cups cabbage, coarsely chopped
3 15-ounce cans kidney beans with liquid or 1 bag kidney beans soaked
overnight
2 cups garbanzo beans (chickpeas), soaked overnight
2 14.5-ounce cans diced organic tomatoes (or one large can)
1 6-ounce can tomato paste
1/2 pound elbow macaroni
8 cloves garlic, minced
1 bunch cilantro (Chinese parsley), coarsely chopped
1 bunch flat-leaf (Italian) parsley
2 tablespoons black peppercorns
5 fresh or 3 dried bay leaves
Method: In large stock pot combine ham hocks, onion, garlic, black
peppercorns, and bay leaves. Add chicken broth and just enough water to
cover the ham hocks completely. Bring to a boil and then lower the heat.
Simmer covered for about two hours. This slow cooking gives the soup its
rich flavor. Remove the ham hocks and de-bone. Dice any meat and set aside,
discarding fat. Place the pot in a large bowl of ice and after about thirty
minutes skim any fat off the surface. Return pot to the stove. To the pot
add tomato paste, diced tomatoes, beans, carrots, celery, potatoes, half
the parsley, half the cilantro, and all of the cabbage. Simmer soup over
low heat for about twenty minutes. Add diced ham and Portuguese sausage.
Continue simmering the soup for thirty minutes. Add macaroni and cook until
just tender, about ten minutes more. Serve topped with remaining fresh
chopped parsley and cilantro and cracked black pepper.
All amounts are approximate. Feel free to add or reduce any
ingredient, depending on your taste. I have combined several recipes to
make this one. I even think that fresh corn cut off the cob would be a fine
addition when it is in season, which is almost all year in Hawaii. This
recipe also freezes quite well.
----------
Energy Bars
by Gladys Okada
Gladys Okada is a member of the Kauai Chapter and a member of the NFB
of Hawaii board of directors.
Ingredients:
2 cups quick cooking oatmeal
1/2 pound (2 sticks) butter
2 1/2 to 3 cups Rice Krispies
1/2 cup peanut butter (creamy or chunky)
3/4 cup unsalted peanuts
1 package miniature marshmallows
1 cup raisins (Dried blueberries or cranberries may be substituted.)
Method: Lightly brown the oatmeal in the microwave for 1 1/2 to 2
minutes on medium to medium-low setting. In top of double boiler or deep
pot melt butter, peanut butter, and marshmallows, cooking at medium-low
heat. Stir often. Add dry ingredients to the marshmallow mixture. Mix well.
Working quickly, transfer mixture to a greased 9-x-13-inch pan. Cover with
a sheet of waxed paper. Press the mixture flat. Turn the mixture onto a
cutting board and press down if not packed firmly enough to hold its shape.
Cut into bars of desired size while they are warm. Wrap in waxed paper for
storage.
----------
Butter Mochi
by Charlene Ota
Charlene Ota is secretary of the aNueNue Chapter of the NFB of
Hawaii.
Ingredients:
1 16-ounce box mochico (rice flour)
2 teaspoons baking powder
2 1/2 cups sugar
1 12-ounce can evaporated milk plus enough water to make 2 cups (about 1/2
cup)
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1 stick butter, softened
4 eggs
1 12-ounce can coconut milk
Sesame seeds, optional
Method: Place all ingredients except coconut milk in a large bowl and
beat well with an electric mixer. Then add coconut milk and continue
beating until well blended. Pour mixture into a greased 9-x-13-inch baking
pan. Sprinkle with sesame seeds if desired. Bake one hour at 350 degrees.
----------
Onolicious Chocolate Chip Caramel Bars
by Kyle Laconsay
Kyle Laconsay is president of the Honolulu Chapter of the National
Federation of the Blind of Hawaii. She is a remarkable person. A little
over a year ago she had a successful liver transplant. Kyle lives on the
windward side of Honolulu. She is married to Michael and has two lovely
children. She explains that the word "ono" means yummy in Hawaiian.
Ingredients:
4 cups brown sugar
1 1/2 cups (3 sticks) butter, melted and slightly cooled
4 eggs
3 cups flour
4 teaspoons baking powder
2 tablespoons vanilla extract
1 cup semi-sweet chocolate chips
Method: Generously butter a half-sheet-cake pan (11-by-16 inches). A
jelly roll pan (10-by-15 inches) would do. Sift together flour and baking
powder in a large bowl and set aside. Whisk together eggs and brown sugar
and then add cooled butter and vanilla extract. Slowly add the dry
ingredients to the wet ingredients and mix thoroughly. Pour mixture into
prepared baking pan. Bake at 350 degrees for twenty minutes. Sprinkle 1 cup
of chocolate chips on top immediately after you remove pan from oven. Let
cool, then cut into bars. Makes 18 large pieces or 36 small ones.
----------
Monitor Miniatures
News from the Federation Family
Resolutions for Convention:
Here is a message from Sharon Maneki, who chairs the NFB resolutions
committee:
Do you think we should change a government policy, take a stand
concerning an agency for the blind, or create new regulations? If you do,
consider writing a resolution. At the 2012 national convention the
resolutions committee meeting will be held on Sunday, July 1. The committee
will debate and discuss resolutions on a wide variety of subjects. If
passed by the Convention, these resolutions will become the policy
statements of the organization.
To ensure that your resolution will be considered by the committee,
please send it to President Maurer or to me by June 15, two weeks before
the committee meeting. If you send a resolution to me by email and do not
receive a response acknowledging your email in two or three days, please
call or send it again. If you miss the deadline, you must get three members
of the committee to sponsor your resolution and then get it to the chairman
before the meeting begins. I will be pleased to accept resolutions by
email, <nfbmd at earthlink.net>; fax, (410) 715-9597; or snail mail, 9013
Nelson Way, Columbia, Maryland 21045.
How to Pay for Your Hotel Stay in Dallas:
This helpful information comes from Tony Cobb, who has been a fixture
in the lobby of our convention hotels for as long as I can remember. Here
is his advice about paying for your hotel stay:
Every year at our national convention we have serious trouble with use
of debit cards or cash payments at hotel check-in, and, having worked to
solve these problems for years, I can tell you they can nearly ruin the
convention week for those experiencing them. Planning to attend our
national convention should therefore include thinking seriously about how
to pay the hotel, and I cannot urge you strongly enough to avoid using cash
or a debit card as your payment method. Doing so may seem convenient, but
you should not do so. If you do not have a credit card of your own to use
instead, prevail upon a close friend or family member to let you use one
just for convention. Here's why:
If you are paying in actual currency, most hotels will want enough
cash up front at check-in to cover your room and tax charges for the entire
stay, plus a one-time advance incidentals deposit to cover meals, telephone
calls, Internet service, and other things you may charge to your room. The
unused portion of the incidentals deposit may be returned at check-out or
by mail after departure. Understand, however, that, if your incidentals
charges exceed the incidentals deposit credited, you are responsible for
payment of the full balance at checkout. The total can end up being a very
large sum indeed.
If you use a debit card, however, you are really at a potentially
painful disadvantage. The hotel will put a hold on money in your bank
account linked to the debit card to cover the estimated balance of your
stay-that is, for the entire week's room and tax charges plus a one-time
incidentals deposit to cover meals, movies, and so on charged to your room.
You should be aware that the hold can therefore be a considerable amount of
money and that you will not have access to that amount for any other
purchases or payments with your card. (Hotels sometimes also put
authorizations on credit cards, by the way, but those are not often a
problem unless they exceed your card's credit limit.)
Holds can remain in effect for three to five days or even a week
after you check out. If you have pre-authorized payments from your bank
account, for example your monthly mortgage payment, or if you try to make a
purchase with your debit card and it's refused, the hold from the hotel can
cause you trouble or result in very large overdraft fees for payments you
thought you had money in your account to cover. I have seen this hit some
of our members in the form of hundreds of dollars in overdraft fees.
This means that, if you use a debit card, you would have to be certain
you have a high enough balance in your checking account when you come to
convention to cover any debit card holds. This is a perilous practice since
charges may exceed your estimate by a considerable amount. (Some frequent
travelers even open a separate checking account used only for debits like
these.) Remember, a hold is going to be placed on your debit card
regardless of how you end up paying the bill, and the hold is not
necessarily released right away, even if you pay with a credit card or cash
when you check out of the hotel.
Planning ahead in this area can ensure an untroubled week at
convention, leaving you free to enjoy fully the world's largest and most
exciting meeting of the blind. See you as usual in the lobby at check-in-
using a credit card, I hope.
Attention All Federationists with Cerebral Palsy:
Come one and all to form a new division of the National Federation of
the Blind to help improve the lives of blind people with cerebral palsy. It
will be the National Federation of the Blind with Cerebral Palsy Division.
If you have cerebral palsy and you are blind, or if you know someone who is
blind who has cerebral palsy, this is a good opportunity for networking to
develop this division. The purpose of the division is to provide support
for blind people with cerebral palsy in pursuing successful and independent
lives. If anyone is interested in developing this division, contact Alex
Kaiser at <AScottKaiser90 at inbox.com>. He can also be reached at (973) 525-
8096. Meetings of this group will be held by telephone conference call on
the first Monday of each month from August through June from 7:00 p.m., to
8:30 p.m. Eastern in a free Conference Pro conference room. The conference
dial-in telephone number is (218) 632-3715. The access code to enter after
the greeting is 999999 followed by the pound key. Feel free to contact Alex
with additional questions.
The 2012 National Convention Youth Track:
Meleah Jensen of the Jernigan Institute Education Department sends us
the following information:
The annual convention of the National Federation of the Blind is
always jammed with exciting activities, and this year in Dallas will be no
different. If you are between the ages of eleven and eighteen or are
bringing a young person to convention who is, you should definitely plan to
participate in the Youth Track activities. These activities on the
convention agenda are specifically for young people. They will foster
positive attitudes about blindness and encourage social interactions
between blind youth and successful blind adult mentors.
This year the Youth Track will consist of twelve activities spread
across six days. In some of the activities the whole group will stay
together. In others the group will be divided into eleven- to fourteen-year-
olds and fifteen-to-eighteen-year-olds. All of the activities are
interactive and high energy.
The Youth Track will open with a creative problem-solving activity
called "Balloon Build or Bust," first thing Saturday, June 30. Activities
will continue throughout Saturday and will include opportunities for
creative expression, exploration of NFB popular culture, and our own
Federationbook activity, the social media network you may not have heard
of. Throughout the rest of the week youth will participate in activities in
which they will explore the Federation, socialize, recreate, and put on
their creative-writing caps.
We are looking forward to seeing all the youth in Dallas. As we get
closer to convention, we will publish an official Youth Track agenda. Watch
for it on the listservs and at <www.nfb.org/YouthTrack>. Some of the
activities will have limited space and will require prompt registration.
For more information and to ask questions, please contact Meleah Jensen at
(410) 659-9314, extension 2418, or by email at <mjensen at nfb.org>.
NAGDU Now on Facebook:
The National Association of Guide Dog Users, (NAGDU), a division of
the National Federation of the Blind, is pleased to announce its move into
social media. NAGDU now has a Facebook page in which guide dog users, puppy
raisers, guide and service dog trainers, and those interested in the
training and use of guide and service dogs can discuss and exchange
information about these wonderful animals and the human-animal bond. Please
check out our page by following these steps:
1. In the search field of your Facebook page type "National
Association of Guide Dog Users" or "NAGDU" and click on groups. Please take
note of the capital letters and the symbols when searching for the NAGDU
group.
2. You can also access the NAGDU group directly by clicking on the
following link:
<http://m.facebook.com/groups/124908860968667?view=members&status=1&stype=at
gs&number=0&refid=0&_rdr>.
3. If the link does not take you to the NAGDU page, copy and paste the
link into your web browser and press enter. NAGDU is please to make this
forum available to everyone and hopes that you will join in discussions,
provide comments, and share information with everyone.
New Chapter:
The newly formed At-Large Chapter of the NFB of Illinois elected the
following board at its April meeting: president, Leslie Hamric; vice
president, Linda Hendle; secretary/treasurer, Charlene Elder; and board
members, Sid Weiner and Danny Mandrell.
Rice University and CCB Students in the News:
The following story appeared in the Wednesday, March 7, 2012, edition
of the Littleton Independent:
Center for Blind Students Host Visitors from Texas
by Jennifer Smith, Community Media of Colorado
A team of students from Rice University in Houston spent part of
their spring break in Littleton [Colorado] on "The Mile High Mission:
Overcoming Disability." Part of the mission was to help Colorado Center for
the Blind students move into the apartment building the center recently
purchased near Lowell Boulevard and Bowles Avenue. But a larger part was
walking in the blind students' shoes for a few hours, learning that
blindness does not equal defeat.
"You're all to be congratulated," Julie Deden, the center's director,
told the Rice students on March 2, the last day of their visit. "You've
learned so much in such a short period of time. ... With good training,
being blind does not have to be a barrier at all. It can be very natural."
The visit was arranged through Rice's Community Involvement Center,
to which students have to apply and be accepted. The beginning of their
week was spent skiing with disabled students in Winter Park, in cooperation
with the National Sports Center for the Disabled. "The NSCD and the CCB are
both so unique in their approach to working with disability and so
established throughout the country that the trip is made more effective by
going all the way to Colorado to study the social issue," according to
Rice's website.
Judging from the emotional goodbyes after the going-away luncheon,
which everyone helped prepare while wearing sleep shades, the social aspect
of the visit was successful. "You guys make it seem like a vacation," said
Rice student Natalie Lazarescou. "You feed us every day and you tell us
stories. And we get the pleasure of seeing a different community, of
stepping out of the hedges and realizing it's not all about us. It's so
refreshing."
The Rice students did, however, use words like "disorienting" and
"isolating" to describe their sleepshade experiences. "It's absolutely
amazing what you guys do on a daily basis," said Rice student Shaurya
Agarwal.
The CCB students, in turn, enjoyed teaching their visitors about
their lives. "Thank you for the time you took away from your spring break
to be with us," said CCB student Trish Cavallaro. "Now you know we have a
great life, and we experience great things, just like you."
Requests for Accommodations Based on Disability:
The convention of the National Federation of the Blind is intended to
be accessible, especially to blind people. Materials are offered in
accessible formats, and other nonvisual aids are provided. If you require
specific accommodations based on your disability other than the blindness-
related accommodations routinely provided by the Federation in order to
participate fully and equally in the convention, let us know as soon as
possible. Because of the size and complexity of this convention as well as
the need to plan for additional human and other resources, requests for
specific accommodations must be submitted no later than May 31, 2012. In
order to make a request, 1) preregister for the convention by visiting
<http://www.nfb.org/registration>; and 2) send your request for specific
accommodations in writing to the attention of Mark Riccobono by email at
<mriccobono at nfb.org>. Be sure to include your name, the dates you plan to
be at the convention, information on the best method of following up with
you, and your specific request.
[PHOTO CAPTION: Anna Walker is loaded with Braille books she picked up at
the Braille Book Fair.]
Attention Braille Book Lovers:
Last month we carried a notice entitled "Braille Book Fair 2012."
Here is additional information about the event from Barbara Cheadle:
Last year Peggy Chong announced the Braille Book Flea Market/Fair,
and introduced me as the new coordinator. Thanks to our book donors and
volunteers, it was a great event. Here are the details about this year's
event and information about how you can help.
Date and Location: Monday, July 2, 2012, NFB convention, Hilton
Anatole Hotel, 2201 North Stemmons Frthat's eeway, Dallas, Texas 75207.
Donations: If you can donate Braille books, send them to the address
below. As always, we desperately need print/Braille children's storybooks.
Ship the books to Vanessa Pena, 10155 Monroe, Dallas, TX 75229. You can
ship them Free Matter for the Blind using the Postal Service. Please keep
volumes of the same book together if at all possible.
Recognition: If you donate books, please send me a note telling me
how many books or boxes of books you are shipping. We want to recognize
your donations in our magazine, Future Reflections, after the event. We
don't have time to check return addresses when we unpack and sort the books
at the event, so sending me a note when you ship the books is the best way
to make sure we can recognize your generous donation. Send your information
to Barbara Cheadle at <bacheadle at msn.com> or 230 North Beaumont Ave.,
Catonsville, MD 21228; home (410) 747-3472; cell (410) 300-5232.
Volunteers Needed: We need print- and Braille-reading volunteers to
unpack, sort, setup, assist customers, and clean up. Please contact me if
you can volunteer for two or more hours any time between noon and 8:00 p.m.
on Monday, July 2, 2012, at the NFB convention. The actual event will occur
between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m.
Elected:
The White Sands Chapter of the NFB of New Mexico conducted elections
at its February 2012 meeting. The results are as follows: president, Larry
Hayes; vice president, Kay Boyd; secretary, Ray Thomas; treasurer, Soledad
Vigil; and board members, Bea Thomas and Larry Lorenzo.
Elected:
At its April meeting the Chicago Chapter of the NFB of Illinois
elected the following officers: president, David Meyer; first vice
president, Denise Avant; second vice president, Jemal Powell; secretary,
Debbie Stein; treasurer, Steve Hastalis; and board members, Mary Grunwald,
Debbie Pittman, Gina Falvo, and Patti Chang.
In Brief
Notices and information in this section may be of interest to Monitor
readers. We are not responsible for the accuracy of the information; we
have edited only for space and clarity.
HeartSight Cards Still Available:
HeartSight Cards has been through some changes. Unfortunately, the
HeartSight website is no longer available. However, HeartSight Cards is
committed to its current and future customers and will continue to be
available to help you celebrate life's special occasions by offering
beautiful print/Braille cards. A single custom card will remain only $4.95
(plus shipping and taxes).
When you wish to send a HeartSight card, contact Haley Dare at (269)
779-2216 or send an email to <heartsightcards at att.net> describing the
occasion, your personalized message, and any ideas you have. HeartSight
will still design and ship your card within three days. You may pay by
debit or credit card, or you can ask to receive an invoice.
Adventures at Oral Hull Park:
How will you spend your summer vacation? At Oral Hull Park in Sandy,
Oregon, we challenge the status quo and encourage you to take advantage of
an exciting variety of adventures including whitewater rafting, kayaking,
rock-wall climbing, jet boats, hiking, bicycling, hay rides, and much more.
Blind and visually impaired people will find plenty of fun and
challenges. Our adventures vary with each camp, and we have a few add-ins
such as skydiving, windsurfing, and bungee jumping. The camp itself, Oral
Hull Park, is twenty-two acres of beautiful green countryside with lots of
trees, gardens, a fishing pond, nature trails, walking/jogging track, and a
heated indoor pool. The property for the camp was a gift to the Oral Hull
Foundation for the Blind. Oregon's summer weather is ideal, with highs in
the seventies or low eighties in July and August. Nights are usually just
cool enough for a sweater or hoodie.
Adventure camps ($450) and traditional camps ($395) for adults start
on July 22, August 1, August 11, and August 21. Complete date information
can be found on our website: <www.oralhull.org>. Call for more information,
and we will gladly mail or email applications to you.
Many of our campers come year after year, form friendships that
stretch across the country and the Internet, and sometimes schedule two
back-to-back weeks so they can spend more time with the friends they've
made on the rivers and hiking paths of lush, green Oregon at the foot of
majestic Mt. Hood. You are invited to join us at Oral Hull Park in this,
our fiftieth year of providing recreation and socialization for the blind
community.
Attention Illinois School for the Visually Impaired Alumni:
From 3:00 p.m., May 24, until noon, May 27, the ISVI Alumni
Association will conduct its reunion. Hotel rates for this event are $66 a
night plus applicable taxes. Reservations can be made now by calling (888)
707-8366 or (217) 529-6626 in Illinois and requesting a room in the ISVI
alumni block. You can also contact Melissa at the hotel by email at
<Melissart66 at gmail.com>. For additional information about the hotel and its
services, visit the website <http://www.rt66hotel.com>.
The reunion banquet is scheduled for Saturday, May 26, from 6:00 to
8:00 p.m. at the school's dining room. The menu is grilled ribeye steak,
cheesy potatoes with crisp topping, seasoned green beans, dinner rolls,
cole slaw, assorted fruit pies, coffee and tea. A meatless entree is
available upon request. The banquet cost, including transportation from the
hotel to the venue, is $30 per person. If you wish to attend, make your
check payable to ISVI Alumni Association and write "Banquet" or "Dinner" in
the memo line. Mail checks and attendance form to ISVI Alumni Association,
P.O. Box 82, Springfield, IL 62705-0082.
For more about the Illinois School for the Visually Impaired visit
its website <www.isvi.net>.
Iowa Department for the Blind Gets New Commissioner:
Michael Barber, president of the NFB of Iowa, writes as follows: Our
own Jim Omvig, director of the Iowa Adult Orientation and Adjustment Center
many years ago, has received a three-year appointment to the board of the
Iowa Department for the Blind from Governor Terry Branstad. Jim will be an
excellent addition to the Department board, bringing with him a vast
knowledge of rehabilitation programs for the blind and a lifetime as a
dedicated and committed member of the National Federation of the Blind. We
all congratulate Jim on this achievement. The blind of Iowa will all
benefit through his service on the Department board.
A Site to Match Tandem Riders:
With Spring in full swing what better way to enjoy the fresh air than
on a bicycle? The U.S. Blind Tandem Cycling Connection is a free resource
dedicated to matching interested blind participants with sighted tandem
captains. Even if you do not own a tandem, there are probably cyclists in
your area who have one to share with you. Visit
<http://bicyclingblind.org>, create your profile, and use your zip code to
search for cyclists in your area. The site provides tutorials to make your
first ride enjoyable and safe. You can also communicate with potential
riders anonymously through the site. You can keep your contact information
safe until you are ready to share it.
If you have any questions about the site, tandem bicycles, or anything
related to cycling as a blind person, contact Ron Burzese, NOMC, (916) 716-
5400 or email <rrburzese at gmail.com>.
Monitor Mart
The notices in this section have been edited for clarity, but we can
pass along only the information we were given. We are not responsible for
the accuracy of the statements made or the quality of the products for
sale.
For Sale:
Benjamin Vercellone is selling a BrailleNote Apex QWERTY with 32
cells and with Sendero GPS Version 2011 included. Other accessories are
also included. It was purchased in December 2009 and comes in its original
box. It includes the latest software, Keysoft 9.2. The Braille dot quality
is very good. He is asking $3,050 with shipping included inside the U.S.
Additional items include the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, The
Nemeth Tutorial, a GPS receiver with a sleeve and an AC adapter, an extra
battery, an 8 GB SD card containing North America maps from New England and
Mid Atlantic plus some other points of interest, a leather carrying case
for the Apex, an AC adapter for the Apex, a serial-to-USB cord, and a
Braille user's manual for the Apex.
He is also selling an Alva BC 640 with Feature Pack for $2,050, with
shipping included inside the U.S. The Braille dot quality is very good. He
purchased this item in the summer of 2009. It includes the carrying case,
the AC adapter, a USB chord to connect it with a computer, and a CD with
the drivers (burned from the Internet). This unit works especially well
with Windows. If interested in either item, contact Benjamin by phone at
(201) 218-7618 or by email at <benvercellone at gmail.com>.
For sale:
I have a PAC Mate OMNI QX, with or without its 40-cell Braille
display, in excellent condition. The asking price without the display is
$500; the asking price including the 40-cell Braille display is $1,000. For
more information email Angela Griffith at <agrffth at sbcglobal.net> or call
her at (510) 969-6125.
Intel Reader for Sale:
I have an Intel reader with capture station that has been used once
and is about one year old. I am asking $650. For more information call me,
Kirk Buzzard, at (810) 845-2404 or email me at <kirk.buzzard at yahoo.com>.
----------
NFB Pledge
I pledge to participate actively in the efforts of the National
Federation of the Blind to achieve equality, opportunity, and security for
the blind; to support the policies and programs of the Federation; and to
abide by its constitution.
More information about the Brl-monitor
mailing list