TABLE OF CONTENTS
Editorial: In Search of Universal Design
NFB:AE’s 2003 Conference a big Success
Highlights of Recent Activities
Accommodation Versus Normalization of Disability
Trust and Technology, the Key Enablers
Finding a Way Round Cyberspace
Accessible Automated Banking Machines, Increasing Independence and Freedom of Choice
Let Your Text Do the Talking
German company Invents Talking Washing Machine
Over There
Textbook Woes Hamper Students with Low Vision
Blind Students Can Succeed in Chemistry Classes
Studying Abroad
Accommodating and Employing Students with Disabilities
Blind Teen Makes History as Queen’s Park Page
Employment Equity Vital to Future Labour Market
Workplace Breakthroughs for the blind
Two Worlds are Colliding; Social Policy is Coming Up Against a Survival-of-the-Fittest Strategy
Suffering in Poverty
Improving Supports for People with Disabilities in Ontario
Ottawa’s Disabled Live in Poverty
Disabilities Supports: A Blindness Perspective
Why Choose Co-operative Housing as a Place to Live?
Karl Marx and the Technology Gap
Markham First in North America to Vote Online
City to Offer Braille Ballots in Next Municipal Election
Serving on a Criminal Court Jury
Via Asked for Answers on Access for Disabled
Understanding and Reporting on Disability
The Best and Worst, Some Journalists Get It, Others Miss the Point
Check for the Checkered Eye
Disabled See Increase in Sensitivity
Parties’ Web Sites Difficult for Disabled Users
Still Cleaning Up After 25 Years
2003 AM President’s Report: The Times They are A-Changin’
2003-04 NFB:AE Board of Directors
New Resources
EDITORIAL
IN SEARCH OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN
By: John Rae
Whenever the term "access" is mentioned, most persons immediately think of curb cuts, ramps and accessible washrooms. This is somewhat understandable, since the International Symbol of Access remains a stylized wheelchair. However, other groups of persons with disabilities also face "access"
barriers, which require attention and action.
For persons who are blind, partially sighted or Deaf-blind, our "access” barriers include the lack of print materials in formats we can read (braille, large print, audio cassette or computer disk), the need for more interveners, increased availability of mobility instruction, access to a
growing range of everyday products which are increasingly operated through digital menus, and the right to vote and bank independently and in private like other citizens do.
These are some of the access issues that will be explored in this issue of the Canadian Blind Monitor.
The Trace Research and Development Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison has defined Universal design as "the process of creating products (devices, environments, systems, and processes) which are usable by people with the widest possible range of abilities, operating within the widest possible range of situations (environments, conditions, and circumstances)."
Universal design has two major components:
Designing products so that they are flexible enough that they can be directly used (without requiring any assistive technologies or modifications) by people with the widest range of abilities and circumstances as is commercially practical given current materials, technologies, and knowledge; and
Designing products so that they are compatible with the assistive technologies that might be used by those who cannot efficiently access and use the products directly.
Clearly, many of our access barriers could be overcome by incorporating "universal design" principles and features into the design of all new products and services. This way, all persons could use a given product, and there would no longer be the need to retrofit, which is usually far more
costly. Isn't it time business, which increasingly talks about the benefits and growing markets associated with making products usable by all, walk this walk and implement universal design features so all of us can go about our daily lives independently and with dignity?
Last September, the NFB:AE was ten years old--an important milestone in the history of any organization. At our biennial Conference held this May in Montreal, we celebrated this important event by presenting Certificates of Recognition to ten individuals who have played an important part in our ten year history. This issue also includes some material from our Conference, an
event which was characterized throughout by Montreal's famous joie de vivre.
I believe those present in Montreal came away revitalized, and we hope those who could not attend will get involved and join in this important work of barrier removal so that we may achieve our goal of first-class citizenship for all Canadians, including those of us who are blind, partially sighted or Deaf-blind.
NFB:AE’s 2003 CONFERENCE A BIG SUCCESS
By: Carole Robertson
Editor’s Note: Carole Robertson is President of the NFB:AE Toronto Chapter.
If enthusiasm and high spirits as shown at the NFB:AE’s 2003 National Conference in Montreal,Quebec are hallmarks of success, then the NFB:AE is well on its way!
Conference attendees gathered together at the downtown Courtyard Marriott hotel on Thursday evening, May 15, for a wonderful reception hosted by the NFB:AE Montreal chapter. It was heart-warming to greet old friends from around the country and to make many new ones. The atmosphere was warm and friendly, the food was delicious, but most of all, one could feel the excitement in the air in preparation for the actual conference.
One of the evenings highlights was the presentation of Certificates of Recognition in honour of our 10th anniversary, to members who have greatly contributed to NFB:AE over its ten year history. Recipients were Sharlyn Ayotte, Don and Bubbles Jacobs, Joyce Mainland, Richard Marion, Peg Mercer, the late Alan Neville, Denise Sanders, Chris and Marie Stark, John Rae, and Ken Westlake. Congratulations to each of these outstanding individuals!
We all had the opportunity to explore a wide range of very interesting and innovative exhibits during the conference’s first couple of days. The newest technologies were demonstrated, and we had the opportunity to try them.
The next morning, Friday, we enthusiastically came down for breakfast looking forward to a day of workshops, speeches and activities. We started by listening to the President’s report (reprinted elsewhere in this issue). John Rae described the past year’s activities, explained some of the projects we are currently working on and his hopes for the future. It was an inspiring speech. It informed us of much that is happening in our organization and how much we have progressed.
During the next 2 and ½ days we were busy with workshops, speeches, nominations, elections, resolutions, visiting the exhibits and participating in interesting discussions.
One of the highlights of the convention was the keynote address by the Honourable Jane Stewart, the Minister of Human Resources Development Canada, whose positive remarks encouraged our delegates as she recognized the good work we are doing. She is very hopeful for our continued work.
We were very proud to give out our annual scholarships. We had many high quality applications and it was a difficult choice to make. One of the scholarship recipients, John Robert Doyle, who was present at the conference, explained how the scholarship would help him in his studies and showed his deep appreciation for his award.
Friday also saw a panel discussion on the delivery of services for persons who
are blind living in Quebec. Other speakers included a representative of the Royal Bank of Canada who assured us that the bank is being proactive in installing more audible ATM’s across Canada. It is also having its statements and other material made accessible in different modes.
Another interesting speaker demonstrated to us how to prepare and deliver an effective speech.
Saturday morning engaged us all when we broke into four groups to discuss membership, public relations, fund raising, and advocacy during which lively discussions occurred. Some of these workshops produced concrete ideas that will be acted upon by various committees. This brainstorming session proved very successful.
There were many resolutions adopted, including that the NFB:AE will work to reduce the travel barriers posed by the electric car, support the checkered eye initiative, attempt to overcome registration issues concerning CNIB, and investigate a possible name change for our organization.
During the election process, many new people stood for positions on our national Board of Directors. The new elected board is: President, John Rae; 1st VP, Beryl Williams; 2nd VP, Paul Thiele; Treasurer, Denise Sanders; Secretary, Marcia Cummings; and Directors Without Portfolio, Brian Moore and Linda Bartram.
Other activities included a pre-conference visit to a Montreal Rehabilitation Centre and a guided stroll through downtown Montreal. There were also many other informal get togethers.
We were all impressed with the spirit of the convention and the willingness of the delegates to work together for a successful NFB:AE year. Much appreciation for the hard work of the Montreal Chapter which organized this convention, provided door prizes, delicious food and such a positive fun loving spirit that was felt by everyone! Next year’s annual general meeting will be held in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. We all look forward to continued success.
HIGHLIGHTS OF RECENT ACTIVITIES
* We've moved! The new address for NFB:AE's National Office is: Suite
6-1638 Pandosy Street, Kelowna, BC V1Y 1P8
Fax: 250-862-3966 - Toll Free: 1-800-561-4774 -
Email:
* Revised Mission Statement: at our 2003 conference in Montreal, the
participants adopted a revised Mission Statement for our organization. It
is:
"To increase awareness of rights and responsibilities, so blind, Deaf-blind
and partially sighted individuals can have equal
access to the benefits and opportunities of society."
* Submitted three Briefs to the CRTC, supporting VoicePrint's licence
renewal, calling upon specialty channels to initiate video and audio
description, and developing programs to employ more persons who are blind in
the broadcasting industry, and requesting the CRTC to initiate a process to
regulate the development and deployment of mobile telephone equipment in
Canada.
* Submitted Brief in connection with the Review of Canada's Foreign Policy,
which discussed peace as a disability rights issue and offered support for
the proposed UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities.
* Participated in teleconference discussion with various other disability
organizations and federal officials concerning the proposed UN Convention on
the Rights of Persons With Disabilities.
* Participated in the Council of Canadians With Disabilities' National
Council Meeting and AGM which focused on human rights, CPP, federal tax
policy, and the annual CCD Awards were announced. The Board of the NFB:AE
had voted to bestow its on the late Alan Neville.
* Submitted comments concerning the review of the Advisory Committee on
Accessible Transportation (ACAT).
* Wrote a letter to Via Rail after a number of conference participants
discovered Via does not offer braille copies of its safety brochure.
* New Contractors:
As you will recall from the last issue, we had hired Karen Klemp as our new
bookkeeper. Unfortunately, she has left us due to various personal reasons.
Bookkeeper: Lois Benko
Lois Benko has worked in the accounting field since 1981, and taught at OUC
for ten years. Main courses were: Computer Accounting Certification program
and MS Office certifications, as well as intro courses in MS Publisher,
Windows, Bookkeeping and job re-entry programs.
Fund-Raiser/Fund Developer: Karen Leboe
Born in Thunder Bay, Karen leboe has lived in Kelowna for over 30 years. She
graduated with a BSW from the University of Victoria (decentralized
program) and worked in the Social Services Sector for 17 years.
She was a counsellor at the Central Okanagan Emergency Shelter for a couple
of years, then became Executive Director for 11 years.
"I am very keen on sleuthing out new and lucrative sources for the NFB:AE."
Clerical: Monika Penner
As a community activist, Monika Penner has much experience with non-profit
organizations, including present volunteer work on the board of directors
for the Kelowna Women's Resource Centre, The Responsible Animal Care Society (TRACS), and Kelowna Drop-In and Information Centre, which assists and
advocates for homeless, poor and otherwise marginalized persons.
Her work experience includes coordinating the Sexual Assault Help Line and
Response Team for the Elizabeth Fry Society's Women's Sexual Assault
Services (1998-2003), respite care for mentally disabled children and youth
(1990-present), and coordinating the Kelowna Planned Parenthood clinic
(2000-2002). This fall, she will begin working as a Visual Language
Interpreter for Disability Services at Okanagan University College.
Monika Penner received her undergraduate degree in Sociology in 2000 at
Okanagan University College and is currently pursuing a graduate degree in
Counselling Psychology through the University of Victoria. Her studies focus
on social constructions of gender, 'race', and sexuality, and the ways in
which various oppressions (i.e. classism, ageism, ableism) perpetuate and
interact with one another.
Please join is in welcoming Lois, Karen and Monika to our team.
ACCOMMODATION VERSUS NORMALIZATION OF DISABILITY
By: Ray Barfitt
Editor’s Note: This article makes the case for universal design of products and communities. Ray Barfitt is a free lance writer, who lives in Ottawa, Ontario.
Lately, I have been thinking about the difference between accommodating people with disabilities and normalizing disability. I will attempt to explain it as I see it.
To get to work in the morning, I use the OCTranspo bus system. Most bus drivers do not announce bus stops even though their regulations require them to do so. A bus rider who can see looks through the window to determine when the desired bus stop has been reached. Since I cannot look out the window, I must ask the bus driver to announce my stop. If the driver remembers my request, he/she accommodates my disability by announcing my bus stop when the bus gets there. Frequently, the driver will patronizingly say, "This is your stop." If the driver would follow the prescribed regulations and announce all stops, whether or not a blind person is on the bus, my disability would be normalized. I could site many more such examples to illustrate my point.
I believe that the vast majority of persons with disabilities would prefer to have their disabilities normalized rather than accommodated. Accommodation smacks of charity and paternalism and often robs us of dignity, self-respect and independence.
Curb cuts are not an accommodation for people who use wheel chairs. They are a normalization of a public facility to include people using wheel chairs. The same is true of audible pedestrian traffic signals, building entrance ramps, television and film signage for people who are deaf, talking elevators, braille elevator button indicators, wheel chair accessible washrooms, tactile and large print signage and so on. These are not accommodations for people with disabilities. They are normalization of facilities to include the greatest possible number of people.
We must stop thinking of disability as exceptional. We make doorways sufficiently high to permit tall people who are otherwise able bodied to pass without having to stoop. So why do we think of disability as exceptional? It is because when it comes to disability we have a them and us mentality.
This is reflected in the language we use. We refer to "the disabled", "the blind", "the deaf", "the handicapped" and such. This language objectifies people in these groups and separates them from the rest of us.
Until recently, we listed equity groups as women, visible minorities, aboriginals and the disabled. People with disabilities were always objectified and listed last. This has changed somewhat. We now say "persons with disabilities" but we still list them last, and this new terminology has not yet permeated our social consciousness.
So why do we have a “them and us” mentality when it comes to people with a disability? I believe it is based on fear at the conscious and unconscious level. Traditionally we have dealt with this fear with the "out of sight out of mind" approach. People with disabilities stayed at home or were institutionalized. So we did not normalize them into our public consciousness, facilities and systems.
And what is it that we fear? People with disabilities remind us that there but for the grace of God go I. And we dread that we may yet go there before our time is done.
We are often awkward and stiff in our approach to people with disabilities. Our conscience tells us to help them, but our instinct is to run. We see them as helpless, but we don't want to offend them by letting them know we think this so we say things like "May I be of assistance?" and "I don't know if I am doing this right" and we become stiff and rigid while escorting a blind person. Some people even tremble. So with these attitudes, it is not surprising that planners do not normalize their facilities, products, systems and services for “them.”