Hi Linn and everybody,
There are some good points raised here.  I would like to expand
on those and clarify other issues.  Every state has a project
that is funded by the federal government to introduce the issues
of technology access to people with disabilities, service
providers, and mainstream service systems.  Funding for these
projects is set to expire beginning in 1999 and conclude in 2001.
States were staggered into the federal program, so the specific
year of termination depends when one's specific state program
started.  The technology projects are in the middle of a giant
lobbying campaign for a funding renewal, as evidenced by Jim's
post from the Indiana project.  Apparently, these guys are
desperately fighting to save their jobs.

RESNA is a trade association for rehabilitation engineers.  The
services for members of trade associations are not covered by the
Americans with Disabilities Act.  If non-members of this
organization can participate in the certification process, then
it is covered by the ADA.  If this is so, and people were not
accommodated, I would like to assist those seeking to participate
in this process equal to that of non-disabled persons.  Materials
should be in alternative formats and an access plan should be in
place to ensure accessibility for people with print impairments.
However, we must do more than complain to each other.  We must
aggressively pursue our right to live free and equal by taking
action against those who should know better.

I completely agree with Linn that these projects and RESNA itself
have a spotty record of providing access to blind persons.  Some
of the technology projects view blind persons and others with
disabilities as subjects rather then peers with which to work in
collaboration.  Here in Illinois, our project has resisted
including end users of assistive technology at the meetings of
regional advisory committees and found numerous excuses to not
provide materials in alternative formats.  I agree further that
blind persons are one of the most highly organized groups on
assistive technology issues.  Many of those who are working in
the area of assistive technology for the blind are blind
themselves.  For other disabilities, this is a rare occurrence.
It is important to recognize this level of skill and expertise in
our community and work to ensure its continuation.

However, there can be some value in considering a credential or a
high grade in a college course on assistive technology.  Many
college rehabilitation programs offer such a course.  It is not
the problem necessarily of specific sources or credentials
themselves.  Many professionals in the disability industry only
need a general familiarization of assistive technology to be
effective.  Information and referral specialists, rehabilitation
counselors, and workers at college disabled student service
offices could benefit from such a course or the preparation
needed for such a credential.  The problem comes in when such
credentials or courses are equated with the credentials or highly
structured programs of such specialists as physical or
occupational therapists.  The field is still too young and
developing to have a Good Housekeeping technology seal of
approval.  People and organizations must still consider the
experience, training, and the skills of the adapted technology
professional involved.  For more info. check out my article on
how to choose an adapted technology specialist that I distributed
a few weeks ago.

kelly