From: Prof Norm Coombs <[log in to unmask]>

This is not exactly standards, but below is a paper on ADA and libraries.  It
was a presentation at the CSUN conference this spring.

THE LAW AND LIBRARY ACCESS FOR PATRONS WITH DISABILITIES

  Sarah Hawthorne
  U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights
  50 United Nations Plaza, Room 239
  San Francisco, CA 94102  (415) 437-7719
[log in to unmask]

Jeffrey Senge, Information & Computer Access Program Coordinator
Office of Disabled Student Services
California State University, Fullerton P.O. Box 34080
Fullerton, CA 92634-9408 Phone: (714) 449-5397
[log in to unmask]

Norman Coombs
EASI: (Equal Access to Software and Information)
PO Box 18928 Rochester NY 14618
[log in to unmask]

Introduction:

The information age arrived in the last half of the twentieth
century. Computers became more than computational devices; they
became writing, reading and storage tools. For the formerly
print disabled population, this suddenly opened exciting new
worlds of information. Where the printing press, four centuries
before, had raised barriers to information, the computer with
alternate input and alternate output devices brought new freedom
and independence. For libraries, this means that there is a new
population to be served: patrons with disabilities. These new
users do not what to expect when they visit a library, and
librarians similarly do not what is possible to provide nor what
they are required to provide.

The Architectural Barriers Act mandated physical access to
buildings. Now disabled patrons are also insisting on access to
the information in those buildings. Educational institutions
understood that the 1973 Rehabilitation Act required provision of
access to educational materials. This traditionally meant
providing either reader services or audio taped materials.
Now this must be expanded to mean access to information
technology. TheAmericans with Disabilities Act, besides
reinforcing the schools' obligation to make information
technology accessible with alternate computer technology, makes
this same obligation apply to public libraries.

Information is power, and a healthy democracy must guarantee
access to this information and power equally for all of its
citizens. Many librarians see these new patrons as an exciting
challenge rather than a threat or burden. What they are looking
for is some concrete help and directions.

Special Challenge to School Libraries

The three predominant areas of concern for most campus libraries
are: providing information in specific alternative formats;
making these accommodations in a timely manner; and, reconciling
issues of responsibility related to reasonable accommodations and
readily achievable practices as specified in federal regulations.
As more information is delivered digitally, providing timely
access to information in a patrons preferred format becomes more
achievable. Regulations set forth under Section 504 and the ADA
have been interpreted to require public entities such as college
and university libraries to assure communications with
individuals with disabilities are as effective as communications
with all others. To achieve this objective, both the type of
information being communicated and the preference of the patron
with the disability must be taken into consideration when
determining the most appropriate access accommodation. A library
may elect to provide a blind patron with a reader or tape
recording of research information but if the nature of the
information is detailed and the patron prefers a directly
accessible format such as braille or electronic text, the library
may be obliged to honor such a request to assure effective
communication of that information to that individual. Thus,
placing preference ahead of convenience when determining specific
formats for alternative communication of information has become
a priority that libraries must recognize.

A second emerging priority for postsecondary libraries is
providing timely access to information in alternative formats.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil
Rights this means providing individuals with disabilities access
to information at the same time all others have access to the
information. For traditional libraries, this creates an enormous
challenge; particularly when it involves converting print
materials into braille or electronic text. Most libraries have
neither the technology nor the trained staff to accomplish this
in a timely manner.

In response to this situation, colleges and universities need to
support the development of systems and strategies to render print
information into alternative formats in a timely manner. One
such system currently under study is the Braille Transcription
Center project at California State University, Fullerton. This
project has been established to study the feasibility of
regionalizing braille transcription services for many colleges
and universities from a central facility. Through the effective
utilization of modern computer-based technologies and
telecommunications capabilities, projects such as this could go a
long way toward reducing the amount of time needed to render
print materials into alternative formats. Finally, the issue of
readily achievable must be considered. This provision has been
granted to public entities such as libraries under both Section
504 and the ADA. However, a review of its interpretation clearly
reveals broader implications for this provision. On the surface
it appears that many areas of providing accessibility are not
readily achievable and therefore need not be addressed by public
entities. Warning, this must be regarded as a provision not a
protection. When evaluating whether a reasonable accommodation
is readily achievable, be sure to carefully consider how your
organization's up-stream planning may affect down-stream
accessibility. For example, declaring access to electronic
information to be not readily achievable when your organization
has control of the document structure, operating systems, and
workstation configurations may be unacceptable.

The positive news regarding these three areas of concern is that
more information is being archived electronically in digital
formats everyday. Properly managed digital information can
provide effective access to information in a variety of
alternative formats in a timely manner for all library patrons.
However, to achieve this level of accessibility for the future,
alternative access to electronic information must be established
as a priority when designing tomorrow's digital information
systems.

What the Law Mandates

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990  (ADA) reiterates
legal obligations that recipients of  federal funds, such as
most public libraries, were already  obligated to do under
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
However, the ADA has had an  especially dramatic impact on
public libraries.
  Conceptually, the enactment of the ADA makes it easier for
courts and others, since they are interpreting a different
statute, to justify taking a new look at information access
issues and to redefine legal
standards in a way that takes  into account newly available
technological solutions for  providing persons with disabilities
information access.  Indeed, many ADA provisions make specific
references to the  multitude of assistive technology devices now
on the market.  In contrast the most advanced piece of technology
mentioned in Section  504 is the tape recorder!

  As an example of the approach taken to libraries under  Section
504, Appendix A of the Department of
Education's  implementing regulations states:

  "...As long as no disabled person is excluded from a program
because of the lack of an appropriate aid, the recipient  need
not have all such aids on hand at all times. Thus,  readers need
not be available in the recipient's library at  all times so long
as the
schedule of times when a reader is  available is
established, is adhered to, and is sufficient.  Of course,
recipients are not required to maintain a  complete braille
library."

  Notice that the emphasis under Section 504 is on making sure
that the person with the disability is not
excluded from  access. By contrast, Title II of the ADA requires
that:  "A public entity [such as a public library] shall take
appropriate steps to ensure that communications with  applicants,
participants, and members of the public with disabilities are as
effective as communications with  others... In
determining what type of auxiliary aid and  service is
necessary, a public entity shall give primary
consideration to the requests of the individual with
disabilities" [28 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.)  35.160].

  The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights,
which has primary responsibility for enforcing the ADA as it
applies to public libraries [28 C.F.R. 35.190(b)(2)], has
repeatedly held that the term "communication" means the  transfer
of information, and it includes the right of a  person with a
disability to equally access the verbal  presentation of a
lecturer, the printed text of a book, and  the vast resources of
the Internet. The shift from simply  ensuring that the person
with the disability is not  excluded, to
emphasizing access that is "as effective as"  that provided to
nondisabled persons, is significant. It is  particularly
dramatic when coupled with the public  institution's obligation
to give "primary consideration" to  the specific type of
accommodation requested by the person  with the disability.

  There are definitely some limits on this obligation. A  public
library is not required to incur an "undue" financial or
administrative burden. When determining what constitutes  an
undue financial burden, available funds of not only the  local
site but also the resources of any overarching parent
organization, e.g., the city, county, state) will be taken  into
account.

  Since optical character recognition scanners and adaptive
computer software programs don't charge an hourly wage to "stand
around" the way human readers do, it is not an undue  burden to
expect most public
libraries will have on hand,  during all the hours that the
library is open to  nondisabled users, a method by which a blind
user can access  the same information provided to nondisabled
users. Some  administrative responsibilities, not imposed on
nondisabled  persons, may be assigned to persons with
disabilities. For  example, a library may be concerned about
leaving expensive  adaptive technology unguarded in an open area
so there may  be prerequisites to using the equipment, such as
obtaining a  key from the librarian.

  Note that when a blind user, who is a novice to the adaptive
technology, needs training, the blind user may be asked to
schedule such training during working hours at a nearby  offsite
high tech center. On the other hand, there should be  a process
whereby the trained user, while operating the  library's adaptive
technology, can get answers to questions  that might reasonably
arise during the use of the equipment.
  With respect to whether a library can rely primarily, or even
exclusively, on personal readers, it is highly unlikely  that any
library organizing its resources through a  computer-based
information system, can justify not having a  scanner with voice
output. And both screen and hardcopy print capacity.

then there is the issue of  Internet access. The home pages of
many Web sites are not  designed to be read by text based
scanners. Therefore,  readers may be used to assist the blind
individual in  navigating through information that is not easily
decipherable when relying exclusively on adaptive  technology.

  The movement toward adaptive technology and away from personal
assistants such as readers has, in some
instances,  worked against the preferences of persons with
disabilities.  Provided the technological method for access is
adequate and  the public entity offers the necessary training
and back up  support, in most cases an institution may opt to
rely on  technology rather than personal readers, even when the
person with the disability prefers readers.

  One of the unclear issues is the degree to which a library can
require the user with the disability to learn new  software
programs, when the user is already proficient in a  different
program. My own thoughts on this are that, if the  library is
employing a program that is generally regarded as  providing
effective access by persons with that type of  disability (e.g.,
blindness), the person with the disability  may be required to
learn the program selected by the
institution. On the other hand, if the library has installed a
program that is generally regarded as providing inferior access
for persons with disabilities, the person  with the disability
can make a strong argument that "primary  consideration" should
be given to his/her particular  software request in order to
ensure that s/he is provided communication that is "as effective
as" that provided to  nondisabled persons.

The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights,  is
currently conducting a statewide ADA compliance review to
evaluate the extent to which California Community  Colleges
provide blind and low vision students access to  printed
materials and computer-based information systems. This review
includes the methods by which the colleges  provide access to
the campus library. Each of the over one  hundred colleges has
already completed written
  self-evaluations, and OCR is planning onsite visits to  several
campuses in the next few months.