Blind students and professors suffer “pervasive and ongoing discrimination” at Penn State University because of the widely inaccessible nature of technology used on the campus, according to a federal complaint filed today by the country’s largest organization of blind people.
In contrast to its other recent campaigns elsewhere, which were narrower in scope, the National Federation of the Blind this time cites accessibility problems across the university. They include Penn State’s course-management software, library catalogue, and departmental Web sites. Even the Web site for its Office of Disability Services is not fully accessible to the blind, said the federation.
The complaint asks the Department of Education to investigate Penn State for allegedly violating the civil rights of blind people under the Americans With Disabilities Act. Christopher Danielsen, a spokesman for the federation, said it hopes the complaint will be “a wake-up call for universities across the country.”
Annemarie Mountz, a spokeswoman for Penn State, said the university is looking into the complaint. “Issues of equity and accessibility are immensely important, and we take them very seriously,” she said in an e-mail. “But since we have not yet received the details of the claim, we cannot offer comment on it.”
The seven-page complaint, forwarded to The Chronicle by the federation, paints a picture of misery for blind students trying to go about basic academic business at Penn State. If they’re trying to pick a major, for example, they may encounter departmental Web sites where images and links aren’t tagged in a way that makes them accessible to the read-aloud software used by blind people to navigate the Web.
Another problem is the university’s Angel course-management software, a digital classroom that “is almost totally inaccessible for blind users,” according to the complaint.
In its full version, Angel’s e-mail, calendar, assignments, chat, discussion groups and gradebook are all inaccessible, the complaint says. Blind students must use a “PDA mode,” the complaint says, which has less utility but some accessibility features.
Blackboard acquired Angel last year. It’s unclear exactly how many colleges use the system because Blackboard does not publicly report the number of clients on different platforms or versions of its software. But a press release issued at the time of the acquisition said Angel had over 400 clients.
Jim Hermens, Blackboard’s senior vice president of product management and strategy, said his company was reviewing the complaint.
“We place a high value on user accessibility, and as a result have designed a wide range of accessibility features into our products,” he said in a prepared statement. He also noted that the National Federation of the Blind had certified the latest release of Blackboard Learn for accessibility.
For faculty, another problem cited in the complaint is technology that allows professors to connect their laptops to a podium and display content on a screen. The touchscreen keypad, the complaint says, forces blind faculty members to depend on help from a sighted person to operate them.
The federation demanded that Penn State take a range of steps to deal with these issues, including hiring accessibility coordinators who report to the chief information officer, and conducting an accessibility audit and writing clear accessibility policies. Daniel F. Goldstein, an outside counsel to the federation, said he hoped that Penn State and the Education Department would develop a template for accessible technology that could be adopted by other colleges.
The federation’s complaint comes a day after the release of a report warning that many colleges could be vulnerable to complaints about accessibility because of the decentralized way they handle ensuring compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act.
The Penn State complaint is the latest step in a continuing campaign against inaccessible technology. In 2009, advocates for the blind sued Arizona State University over its use of the Kindle. They also asked the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to investigate whether e-book practices at several universities violated the rights of blind students under the Americans With Disabilities Act. In January a series of agreements was announced in which colleges pledged not to use Amazon’s Kindle or any similar devices “unless the devices are fully accessible to students who are blind and have low vision.”
39 Responses to Penn State Accused of Discriminating Against Blind Students
paovr - November 12, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Oh shoot!
Have you seen this?
amnirov - November 12, 2010 at 9:04 pm
The obvious solution is to cancel Blackboard and ebook use for everyone.
jffoster - November 12, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Agree with Anmirov, and add that Pennsylvania should definitely close all pilot training and air traffic control programs for everybody.
rhythmelody - November 13, 2010 at 12:52 am
I have always complained that difable people were not being giving the free access that present day technological advances afforded to them: all books in libraries and especially those used to teach courses should be in electronic format readable by software used by blind folks. all teaching materials and tests used in-class should be electronically submitted (especially test materials). This will not solve all issues with access to education for this Community, but this would be a good start. Also I discovered that some of us sighted folks can really benefits from the skills developed by sightless people, and some of tools they used can be very helpful to everyone. The moral to this is that by helping others we end up helping ourselves:-)
mreducation - November 13, 2010 at 1:34 am
The National Federation of the Blind are shooting themselves in the foot ( no pun intended ) by pressuring schools to not allow these ebook technologies. Digital technologies are available for the blind and dyslexic in the form of audiobooks and PC text to speech technologies. Also, textbooks available through kindle support text to speech. I browsed over a dozen textbooks available through Amazon. All had text to speech enabled. The nonprofit “Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic” has an audiobook catalog available. A major provider of etextbooks is making efforts to meet web accessibility standards. Windows and Mac based operating systems have text to speech and other accessibility technologies available. I believe that people who are visually impaired should have access to reasonable accommodations, but not at the expense of others who currently benefit from digital and mobile technologies.
johnburningham - November 13, 2010 at 2:35 pm
As a society we must stop bowing to the wants of a few and focus on the needs of the many with our limited resourses.
impossible_exchange - November 13, 2010 at 5:10 pm
WTF is wrong with you people?
You are mocking the disabled.
Second, johnburningham,you talk smack now but if you or someone you loved were blind you’d say something else.
What if we had that same attitude about people in wheel chairs? I mean, to hell with Stephen Hawking right?
If we cannot help those less fortunate in our society what is the point of having a society?
jffoster - November 14, 2010 at 7:55 am
Actually, “impossible_exchange”, it’s not the disabled we’re mocking. It’s people like you.
joshcrary86 - November 14, 2010 at 1:00 pm
These comment sections make me hopeful sometimes, but also sad. I hope that those of you who do not support these movements or progressions, do not work in higher education. NFB is bringing forth these actions to finally get institutions/developers to adress the needs of the blind on the primary level, not at the final stage of delivery of a product/service/education. That is what it is about.
Sincerely, a person who has been completely sighted and is now completely blind.
saracassetti - November 14, 2010 at 10:15 pm
I am appalled by the reactionary ignorance being spouted in response to this rather straight-forward article and can only hope that those of you behind such comments having nothing to do with higher education, or with education of any kind, for that matter. “The wants of a few”??? Wow, really???
This may sound patronizing, but since you all have indicated that you lack even a basic understanding of anything, I’ll say it: Unfortunately, companies and product developers will not concern themselves with accessibility unless pressure is applied by disability advocacy groups or, when that fails, through litigation that forces them to make their products accessible. The opinions expressed above indicate quite clearly that if people with disabilities don’t fight for accessibility, no one else will.
These are very real issues that institutions, particularly educational ones, must concern themselves with as they make decisions regarding web development and software purchasing. New technologies have the potential to improve the lives of people with disabilities greatly, but clearly improvements must continue to be made.
livefreeordie2 - November 14, 2010 at 11:10 pm
saracassetti – Reactionary ignorance? That’s hardly how I would characterize people recognizing a scam for what it is. . . Both blind “advocacy” groups and deaf “advocacy” groups are running these types of scams on colleges and hospitals nation-wide. The blind can’t read the kindle, so sue the college. The blind can’t read a web site. . . it reminds me of the fact that there is braille on drive through ATM machines.
Deaf patient comes into the ED with a hearing family member for “a headache.” Patient can read and write, as well as read lips. The family member can sign and communicate. But because the hospital doesn’t have an American Sign Language translator on duty at 2 AM, it’s time for a law suit. It’s not about communication – it’s a scam. Just like the suit against PSU is a scam.
Sadly, some (not all) folks who are disabled try to use the ADA as a club to make a buck. Sorry. . . all the law suits in the world aren’t going to make it possible for a blind person to read a web site. . . or a Kindle. Or drive a car, for that matter. Life’s not fair – even to sighted and hearing folks.
jffoster - November 15, 2010 at 7:40 am
Thank you, livefree…. We really aren’t going to provide ASL translators and hearing-ear-dogs for a person who’s deaf but has a burning desire to become a Navy sonarman. Or must we now say “sonarperson”:? Notice that it’s in things our society generally doesnt regard as very important that these scams, er, movements are taken more seriousluy. In things our society considers important: brain surgery, airline polot, Navy sonarman, …&c, these, er, movements are not taken nearly so seriously.
profmomof1 - November 15, 2010 at 8:19 am
Well, most of us just develop our course materials and course learning management sites according to how we know how to do it. I have no clue what I might need to do differently to ensure my course sites are all fully accessible. And if it’s something that requires a lot more time, I don’t have any resources to add that on on top of an already-grueling workload. If institutions intend to meet the law and have accessible courses, they need to provide some centralized resources and expertise to make sure that it happens. It can’t just be up to individual faculty members to all figure out how to do it and fund it themselves.
dank48 - November 15, 2010 at 9:39 am
Very nice comments. It’s gratifying to know that social darwinism has survived into the twenty-first century.
Good to know also that anything some lowlife tries to exploit for money can simply be dispensed with. Some unscrupulous parasite runs a scam on the ADA? No problem: dispense with the ADA. . . . After all, there aren’t a whole lot of blind, deaf, wheelchair-bound, and other “disabled” people around, so to hell with them.
Irony aside, the comments on this article include some of the most blatantly intolerant, pig-ignorant, shameful cracks I’ve ever seen in the CHE. Does anyone really think blind people are studying to become pilots? Perhaps you think the deaf are planning to take over the school of music and the wheelchair-bound have designs on the football program.
These comments do at least serve as a reminder that passing a law like the ADA isn’t waving a magic wand. Frankly, I’m reminded of the nitwit (who at least was a student, not a teacher) complaining that my daughter had an unfair advantage because she had an interpreter.
There are people who are not fit to be in a college classroom, but not because they can’t see or hear or walk. And not all of these unfit people are facing the front of the room.
impossible_exchange - November 15, 2010 at 9:50 am
You’re worried about scams?
Everything is a scam. It is a country of scams that we’ve got going here nowadays.
If the blind are scamming, good. There take will be small change and a smaller price compared to the fact that the can see the leaves on the trees change color, can’t see the sun set, can’t see the latest Hollywood blockbuster, can’t see the face of their spouse, their family, etc.
There are other scamers worth lamenting their success, whose champions are worth of mockery (not that I see the point in mockery other than as a cheap substitute for therapy).
Mock the GOP their supporters who want to ensure that Warren Buffet pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary does. That is a scam.
Mock Obama and his crew for the whole Hope and Change BS that looks more like little to no hope and certainly no change.
Really, mock away.
If spewing derision like monkey’s throwing sh!t is what gets you through the day, do what you got to do.
But know that I know it’s a scam to get me to provide you with a way to work out your hostility that is cheaper than plunking down $150/week on the therapy that you need otherwise.
impossible_exchange - November 15, 2010 at 9:56 am
“their” not “there” damn homophones and sorry for other typos.
I shouldn’t have been typing; I’ve work to do.
livefreeordie2 - November 15, 2010 at 10:33 am
The one thing I love about some folks who comment on CHE is that whenever they disagree with a comment, the immediate reaction is to suggest that the person who made the comment should not be in higher education. . . should not be in the classroom. Swell. I mean, let me get this straight, Dank48. Only people who agree with you should be allowed in the front of a classroom? Really?
The intent of the ADA was never to make it possible for everyone to do everything. It’s one thing to insure that a wheelchair bound person can enter a stadium and get to a viewing area – it’s another (and totally unreasonable) to suggest that a paraplegic must be allowed to play on a soccer team. There are lots of questions – legitimate questions – that are raised by this type of law suit. Should the hoops in basketball be lowered because I can’t jump as high as others? Should football players be required to walk rather than run because I’m not as fast? And who should pay for all this “equalizing.” If I stutter, should the state pay for me to have a speaker for classroom presentations to insure that I’m not at a disadvantage? If my IQ is lower than that of others in my class, should the state provide a proxy to take tests for me? Or more to the point in those two situations, should faculty be prohibited from using classroom presentations and tests for measuring individual accomplishment because it’s not “fair?”
No one, certainly not me, is suggesting that we don’t continue doing our best to use technology to assist those who are disadvantaged. But the attitude seen in some of these lawsuits seems to be, ‘If I can’t see (or hear, or walk), no one else should be allowed to see either’ or ‘Since I can’t (fill in the blank), society OWES me assistance for which it must pay.” It’s preposterous and foolish. Every individual has issues that put them at a competitive disadvantage in one way or another. Tryint to force an equality of outcome is doomed to failure.
seminoleshapman - November 15, 2010 at 10:41 am
We use ANGEL at my institution and have students who are blind use it with no issues. Yes students may need to turn on what is called 508 mode. This creates a text only interface which makes it easy for screen readers. I am not sure what the specific complaints about the Learning Management System might be but we have only praise for how ANGEL handles itself for the visually impaired.
ccnorm - November 15, 2010 at 10:48 am
This issue needs some clever compromises or it will be one more problem that helps sink higher ed as legislatures cut spending.
It would seem reasonable in cities with more than one educational institution to consolidate access to one or two public institutions, hopefully those with the most liberal admission policies. Such consortia would diminish the cost of having every campus invest in the overhead cost of authoring all their access systems and materials in accessible form. The real cost is not so much in hardware but in the salaries to keep all the media in accessible formats. Clearly that would still allow people with these specific needs to have access in a reasonable geographic proximity.
dank48 - November 15, 2010 at 11:04 am
Livefreeordie2 likes to put words in others’ mouths; easier than answering what they actually said. Find one phrase in my comment that suggests I think agreement with me is the criterion for fitness to teach. I didn’t say it, didn’t imply it. The accusation is nonsense on its face; anyone can read what I said.
Reductio ad absurdum is a useful tool when examining the implications of some argument. However, dreaming up a list of ridiculous scenarios and then attributing the nonsense to someone else is, how shall I say this? Intellectually dishonest for starters. It’s true that the ADA was not intended to make it possible for everyone to do everything; following that statement with a dog’s breakfast of ludicrous fictions is rhetorically lame and morally contemptible.
Nobody with an IQ above the ambient temperature outside Sarah Palin’s front door advocates forcing equality of results, and implying that I do is dishonest. The intent of advocacy, as I’m sure Livefreeordie2 knows perfectly well, is to provide equality of opportunity.
I realize that some people simply cannot be inconvenienced by these pesky, nonstandard, ill-fitting, and sometimes esthetically suboptimal students, and it’s a real pity that anyone would disturb their blissful Dick-and-Jane fantasy. And I admit that a wheelchair or an interpreter or whatever can be even harder to get used to than females and dark-skinned people.
Would a two-word synonym for “copulating members of the National-Socialist German Workers Party” violate CHE standards?
gplm2000 - November 15, 2010 at 12:31 pm
When do Irish-Americans get their privileges?
crankycat - November 15, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Was the lawsuit the first step here? Did those needing better access ASK for it? What I see here is neither a callous institution, nor an undeserving minority, but a missed opportunity to convey and to learn how best to set up e-course material for students with disabilities. If the first step is to throw a legal tantrum because the university was not able to predict the need, that doesn’t really help anyone. The professors and students will still be frustrated by inadequate technology and the resources that could have gone to material development will go to legal fees. We work in EDUCATION, people – sometimes we all get to teach, including the students.
dank48 - November 15, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Crankycat, if the lawsuit were over a professor being fired for disagreeing with the administration, say, or over whether your department could be dispensed with, would you wonder whether “the first step” was “to throw a legal tantrum”? I doubt it.
Does anyone think the civil rights movement had nothing to do with the legal system? Or were those “outside agitators” we used to hear so much about really the problem? Hadn’t been for those legal tantrums, those pesky upstarts would still be out bending their backs in the fields as God intended, right?
g8briel - November 15, 2010 at 2:47 pm
There have been insinuations that the National Federation for the Blind is suing for money, which is not true.
From the official complaint: “We request that the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights investigate these and any other violations under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 occurring at Penn State University and require that they be appropriately remediated.”
They simply trying to get the University to comply with existing law, not make a buck for themselves.
In regards to ebooks: there is a general lack of understanding that ebooks are often not as accessible as they seem like they should be. There would be huge promise to be had for visually impaired users if the full capability of ebooks were allowed, however, many publishers purposely disable screen readability. Presumably they are concerned the computer screen readers will somehow eat into their audio book market (which is pretty unlikely). The visually disabled are fully within their rights to request that institutions not support publishers that cannot be bothered to allow full accessibility of their content. An analogy might be having a ramp up to a building that would be accessible to people in wheelchairs but installing barriers that prevents them from doing so because people with Segways might use it.
Lastly, I think it is work pointing out that it is much cheaper to make reasonable accommodations for the disabled so they may have productive careers (read: tax paying citizens making contributions to society) than to insist that they do nothing on public assistance.
crankycat - November 15, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Hello dank48 – I don’t see that the situation you outline has much in common with this case. In this case, there is no evidence of “intent to harm” or silence a group of students or faculty. There is also no evidence in the story that a local solution was sought before a federal complaint was filed. There are better remedies for everyone involved than immediately jumping into an adversarial stand-off.
While I certainly believe in the right of each citizen to seek redress for harm done, I also think we could do better than seeking harms to be redressed where none were intended. There are too many lawsuits and not enough open discussion. Universities are places where open discussions should thrive .
dank48 - November 15, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Crankycat, your point seems reasonable, but you (at least seem to) assume that no “local solution was sought before a federal complaint was filed.” I certainly agree that legal action should not be the first, or the default, step.
I don’t know the specifics, but I find it hard to believe that this flashed from one specific disappointment to federal court. In my experience, such as it’s been, the disabled have perforce acquired a wealth of experience to help them educate the “temporarily able” public, teachers and administrators included. Most people are willing to accommodate those with disabilities, once they understand what is expected of them. Through twelve years of elementary, middle, and high school, then two years of community college, my daughter advocated for herself effectively, with very few exceptions.
The exceptions, however, can be unbelievably obdurate. The head of the foreign language department in her high school claimed, in writing, that ASL is not a language, since it lacks a literature. Never mind how many languages in use today lack a written form and yet fully qualify as languages (“tongues”); a closed mind is a closed mind. It turns out the department head had somehow mistaken the manual alphabet for ASL, which is a bit like mistaking A-Z for English.
Disabled people know a lot more about the “normal” world than “normal” people know about the world of the disabled. Again, I doubt that the Penn State situation involved a hair trigger, but please correct me if I’m wrong.
jmandy - November 15, 2010 at 3:21 pm
I am shocked by the small-minded comments made here. Wow. So much for enlightened intelligentsia.
There are 52 million Americans with some form of disability. That is not a minority. And even if it were, it’s completely beside the point.
The ADA is a CIVIL RIGHTS LAW. People with disabilities have the same rights to access media and education as anyone without a disability. It’s that simple.
ANGEL is not accessible to the blind. Chat and email features are not accessible at this point.
Only about 20% of RFB&D books are college textbooks.
Kindle is not accessible, even though it has a screen reader, because if you are blind you cannot navigate the buttons that it takes to get to the screen reader.
And who is the dolt that thinks blind people can’t read web sites? They already do. Every day. Those that are created in an accessible format, anyway!
If people would employ UNIVERSAL DESIGN into all concepts (teaching, technology and otherwise) we wouldn’t be having this discussion (which is not much of a discussion as it is a ‘character assisination’ of people with disabilities as a whole).
crankycat - November 15, 2010 at 3:44 pm
dank48 – Truly, all I know about this is in the article above. There is no information about the course of events. Only that there were students encountering difficulties, not for how long, or what the university did to try to accommodate them before the complaint was filed.
It is frustrating that many of us are ignorant of the needs of students who are differently abled than ourselves. I am learning this now from one of my own students. We are working on it together, with patience for each other, as it is a slow process.
lakemendota - November 15, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the law that the ADA copies in educational settings, was passed in 1973. The implementing regulations were issued in 1977. Don’t you think that it’s time for colleges and universities to be in compliance with Federal law?
catlkelley - November 15, 2010 at 4:20 pm
I cannot believe the ignorance and ill-will expressed here, but there has been far too much of that going around, lately.
What people may not realize is that developing course materials and websites to be ADA comppliant really isn’t that hard. Yes, it is another step; and yes, faculty do need assistance to do this right. But it is not a huge bureaucratic or technical nightmare. And the side benefit is that materials and websites designed this way are more usable by ALL individuals, with or without disabilities.
There are many teachable moments here, but in my opinion the most important is this: Universities should take care to ensure that their web pages and course materials have some rudimentary level of quality control, one element of which is ADA compliance. Take a look at almost any university website or LMS and you will see a giant mess – some stuff centrally developed and professional, other stuff that could be done better by your average 8th grader. We really need to respect course design and web design as professions with standards, not something that anybody can pick up overnight. There are too many DIYers out there without the most basic idea what they are doing. I don’t blame them – I blame the universities for not providing the level of support required to design high quality materials, and not recognizing how critically important good design really is.
livefreeordie2 - November 15, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Fascinating. The word hysterical comes to mind. Interesting what we hear from those who think anyone is questioning blind allegiance to the ADA.
jmandy – “small minded comments”
impossible_exchange – WTF is wrong with you people
joshcrary86 – I hope that those of you who do not support. . .do not work in higher ed.
saracassetti – reactionary ignorance, hope that those of you. . .have nothing to do with higher ed.
dank48 – (a too clever by half phrase to call someone an f****ng nazi)
Is this what we should expect from those who claim to be supporting improvements for the disabled? Hysterical name calling? Vicious nonsense? Of course! What wonderful representatives you folks are for your point of view. Sheesh! And take a note, Dank. I think the way your daughter was treated seems unfathomably cruel. I think for your daughter and for anyone else that’s disabled, we have both a legal and a moral obligation to make “reasonable accommodations.” I think we should continue to plow money and sweat into technologies that make living a “normal” life easier. But the key word is “reasonable.” There are some folks doing just what I said – trying to use the ADA as a club by making demands that are not reasonable. You need to take a deep breath and understand that people can support making things better for the disabled and still be opposed to frivolous lawsuits or scam operations.
dank48 - November 15, 2010 at 5:23 pm
So, Livefreeordie2, why do you assume it’s a frivolous lawsuit? (At any rate, that was the way I understood your first comment; perhaps the fault is mine.) God knows I agree with you about the lowlifes who attempt to exploit the ADA, but these are in fact a tiny minority, and the pattern has become recognizable. They’re indistinguishable from the people who will say and do anything to get on Jerry Springer.
The ADA, like anything else, is subject to some abuse, which is what makes for headlines. Relatively little attention is paid in the press to the substantial good it’s done, since good news seldom makes the paper. As Catkelly points out, it’s really not that hard to make materials accessible, once people understand how to do so. And these materials are accessible to all, like the closed captioning on television that my kid relies on . . . and that I have come to rely on as well.
Anyway, to whatever extent we’ve just been talking past each other on this emotionally charged issue, I apologize for my contribution to the misunderstanding.
jmandy - November 15, 2010 at 5:28 pm
So “LIVE FREE” — you call us names for calling names of those who called disabled people names…hmmmm….nice pedestal ya got there.
The ADA is not a club. IT’S A CIVIL RIGHTS LAW. And with any law, there are people who will push the envelope. However, this complaint does not appear to be frivolous in any way.
Looking forward to the time when you naysayers become disabled and don’t have access the basic things like, I dunno, education….!
jamesholloway - November 15, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Drive through ATM machines have braille on them because they are the same machines as walk up ATM machines.
duchess_of_malfi - November 15, 2010 at 8:22 pm
As Penn State alumna and a faculty member elsewhere who tries to do my part to help students enjoy their right to equal access to education, I am ashamed. It’s obvious when something doesn’t work, it’s wrong not to correct it, and it’s the law to do the right thing. The only reason I can think of for PSU not to make it right is that it didn’t seem worth it to someone. I hope that person or people will be given a one-way bus ticket out of Happy Valley before the month is out.
fullprof99 - November 15, 2010 at 9:28 pm
ADA compliance really isn’t that difficult. On line for the blind it’s a matter of using programs that allow it and of labeling items (photos, for example) that can’t be perceived directly by them. In face to face classes it’s a matter of making sure that you pay attention to what students need. And, surprise, a student with some sort of particular need is an expert on what he/she needs. Thus I’ve had deaf students who needed sign interpreters (provided by the campus accessibilty office) and turning on the closed captions when showing videos. Others not profoundly deaf got by quite well with amplification via cordless headphones–or simply needed to sit where they could see my lips.
You might be surprised by what people can do. I’ve had several blind students do quite well in my film classes. One had limited sight, the other none, but both had been watching films all their lives and knew what they thought about them before getting to my courses.
mreducation - November 16, 2010 at 5:37 am
“Only about 20% of RFB&D books are college textbooks.” – The point is that a resource is available for the visually impaired if they need to use it. To clarify, this resource should be expanded to include the majority of textbook publishers.
“ANGEL is not accessible to the blind. Chat and email features are not accessible at this point.” – Yes. It is accessible to the blind. In fact, there are tutorials on how to use the accessibility features for e-mail and chat through blackboard learn – angel edition.
“Kindle is not accessible, even though it has a screen reader, because if you are blind you cannot navigate the buttons that it takes to get to the screen reader.” – Kindle has features that allow some accessibility, but more improvements are needed. A law should be in place that requires reading material to be made accessible for the visually and hearing impaired on mobile devices, such as text to speech and close caption. I’m not sure if such a law exists. Kindle should be used for educational purposes to develop the technology for needed accessibility improvements. By allowing the option to use kindle in the classroom, not as the only option, accessibility features can be improved. Consumers have to use the product in order to learn about its strengthens and weaknesses. To pressure a target market ( students and institutions ) not to use certain tools for learning, is counterproductive to the development of learning products for usability. In terms of kindle, a simple button can be integrated to turn on text to speech capabilities. I’m not sure if that has been integrated.
There is certainly more work to be done. There are many institutions that are most likely resistant to accommodating people with learning disabilities and physical disabilities in distance education. As a person who has visual impairments and worked with the visually impaired in classroom settings, I am not insensitive to the issues of accessibility in higher education and to those in need of better tools for educational pursuits.
jmandy - November 16, 2010 at 9:27 am
mreducation – I have a blind adaptive technology specialist that uses Angel everyday that will argue it’s accessibility with you.
RFB&D is not and should not be an alternative to Kindle. Separate but equal is not the goal. And even if it were, it will take a lot of money and time to make RFB&D anywhere close to being “equal” for blind students.
dhill - November 18, 2010 at 2:32 pm
A lack of standards hinders technology accessibility in every arena. On the Web, we adhere to standards and best practices as closely as we are capable. However, it is a frustrating disappointment to face an array of assistive devices of various functional capability. Why are not the assistive device developers held to industry standards like the web browser developers are?
Industry standards could go a long way toward off-loading the burden institutions now bear to ensure accessibility in the classroom, too. Imagine a technology standard that set the stage for every phase of a curriculum, from creation, through delivery, to archiving. It would inform software and hardware development alike.