Melanie Wilson LIS 768 Fall 2010 Research Paper December 12, 2010

Library 2.0 and Users with Disabilities

ABSTRACT Currently one of the major topics of discussion in the library and information science world is that of Library 2.0, as articulated by Michael Casey and Laura Savastinuk. Like the concept of Web 2.0 it is user-driven, open, and flexible. While it is not dependent on

technology, Library 2.0 does explore methods for using new technologies to better connect with and meet the needs of patrons, particularly through the internet and mobile technologies. One area where there have been great technological advances is that of assistive or adaptive technology (AT) for people with physical or cognitive impairments. This paper discusses the importance of these technologies to library patrons, examines various AT both standard and cutting edge, and explains how AT is an important, if overlooked, component of Library 2.0. It reviews the literature on the topics of assistive and adaptive

technology, designing interfaces for users with impairments, and current opportunities in these areas. It will analyze how these things relate directly to the Library 2.0 model, and propose ideas on how libraries and information centers can use these technologies and the concepts behind them to better meet the needs of all users.

Page | 1

INTRODUCTION Envisioned by Michael Casey and Laura C. Savastinuk in their 2007 monograph Library 2.0: A guide to participatory library service, Library 2.0 is one of the most popular concepts in the library and information science realm today. The world of Library 2.0 is one in which patrons are not merely passive consumers of the materials and programs the library provides, but are instead active participants in shaping the library to better meet their needs and desires. It is less about what we can provide to our users and more out what we can allow our users to

provide themselves (Casey and Savastinuk 2007, xxii). Some of the key components of Library 2.0 are the participation of users in shaping the library, creating and maintaining relationships with our users that adapt to their changing lives, doing more with the same or fewer resources, and allowing for constant change and refinement of programs, collections, and services. The success of this model depends on the participation of as many members of the librarys community as possible, but too often people with disabilities are left out of the picture. To more fully bring Library 2.0 concepts to life in our institutions, it is necessary to understand the needs of patrons with disabilities, the technologies that exist and that are being developed to meet these needs, and how this all fits in with the philosophies of Library 2.0, particularly that of expanding our user base and reaching those we have previously been unable to reach (Casey and Savastinuk 2007, 18). While it is true that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), legally require that libraries provide equitable access to persons with disabilities, the philosophies Library 2.0 provide more compelling

reasons to do so. As stated in the American Library Associations (ALA) Library Services for

People with Disabilities Policy, unanimously approved January 16, 2001 by its governing body,

Page | 2

Libraries play a catalytic role in the lives of people with disabilities by facilitating their full participation in society. They go further to say that the ALAs goals of Equity of Access, Intellectual Freedom, 21st Century Literacy, Lifelong Learning, and Diversity cannot be met without creating effective library services for people with disabilities (ALA Factsheet about Accessibility and ALA Policy 2000).

IMPAIRMENT? OR DISABILITY? There is a wide range of impairments that our patrons be dealing with that interfere

with their ability to take full advantage of the products and services libraries have to offer. The following are just some examples of the various types of impairments:

Visual impairments - total blindness, low vision, color blindness, restricted field of vision, problems with depth perception, peripheral ision only. Auditory impairments - deafness, difficulty in hearing certain frequencies, difficulty in isolating sounds from background noise. Mobility impairments arthritis, lack of coordination, pain, lack of muscle

strength, paraplegia
Cognitive impairments dyslexia, learning disabilities, autism injury or illness. Its important to

There are also impairments that may be temporary, due

keep in mind that most of these impairments are not readily visible, and so while there are statistics on the number of people in the United States with certain disabilities, w doing

research in our own communities, we cannot be sure how many of our patrons or potential patrons are similarly impaired. Its also important to keep in mind that it is not necessary for us to be able to visually identify any of our patrons as disabled. While we should be ready and able to assist any patron who comes to us for assistance, it is far better than services and materials are designed in
Page | 3

such a way that patrons are able to help themselves.

As William Mann states in Smart

Technology for Aging, Disability, and Independence, a person with impairments may not be disabled if he or she can find ways to compensate for impairment (Mann 2005, 2).

According to the social model of disability, as articulated by the Disabilities Movement in the 1960s and 70s, the concept of disability is imposed by society on people with physical impairments, through the aspects of the built environment that do not take their needs into

consideration in the planning stages, or the attitudes of society that exclude and isolate them.
There are many physical accommodations we can make in libraries: wheelchair

ramps, handicap parking spaces, adjustable work stations, ADA compliant signage, books in large print and Braille, hand-held magnifiers, and so forth. Equally important is the level of service library staff provides. Some basic guidelines, according to Barbara Mates, former head of the Ohio Library for the Blind and Physically Disabled, are to talk directly to the disabled individual whenever possible, to not raise your voice speaking to someone with a hearing

impairment, and to give precise directions to patrons with visual disabilities (Mates 2010, 41). In addition, the ALAs Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies (ASCLA) provides tip sheets on their website, grouped by specific impairment

(http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/ascla/asclaprotools/accessibilitytipsheets/). For the purposes

of this paper however, the focus is on technologies libraries can adopt to serve this user group

AT INSIDE THE LIBRARY There is a wealth of assistive and adaptive technologies libraries can adopt, varying in cost and ease of use. Touch pads and trackball controllers are ideal for people unable to use a standard mouse, requiring less pressure and allowing one to control the movement of the mouse

Page | 4

with the palm of the hand or a fingertip. On screen keyboards allow those who cannot type with their hands to use various types of pointing devices or joysticks to enter text. Voice recognition software can assist both those with difficulty using a mouse or keyboard and those with impaired vision. There are also alternate keyboards, such as those with larger keys and larger characters on the keys, as well as color -coded keys. For hearing impaired patrons, libraries can have a dedicated teletypewriter connection (TTY) line for direct communication. This set up requires that the patron have a TTY-enabled phone at home, and then the patron and staff member type messages back and forth. Chat or IM virtual reference service can substitute for TTY in those libraries that have them, for patrons who have an internet connection at home. Video phones are another option for patrons who use sign language. Sorenson Communications offers their videophones and service free to deaf

individuals and librar ies (http://www.sorensonvrs.com/); their free service involves a 3rd party sign language interpreter if needed. Libraries can also offer noise-canceling headphones for patrons who have difficulty filtering out sounds from background noise, or place work stations in quieter areas of the library, free of distracting background noise. Casey and Savastinuk propose viewing every library program as an event that can be recorded on video and made available to users to watch when and where they want (Casey and Savastinuk 2007, 95), in which case libraries should ensure that the videos include closedcaptioning. Providing a transcript is an option, but real-time closed captioning that is

synchronized with the actions in the video is preferred (Vandenbark 2010, 24). There are also many options for patrons with visual impairments. For those with low vision, there are many screen -magnification software programs to choose from for library

workstations, depending on the number of added features included. Users can control the level

Page | 5

of magnification, which areas of the screen are enlarged, contrast, cursor size, color, as well as

display sight lines to allow the user to pinpoint specific areas of the screen. Because the software
can be expensive depending on the program, libraries can choose to have one designated workstation with the software installed. Closed -circuit television (CCTV) devices are also useful for these individuals, which can be used to view print materials and likewise control magnification, illumination, color and contrast, even and background contrast. They

can be configured with televisions, video monitors, an computer monitors, and there are also some smaller table -top and portable versions. For those with extremely low or no vision, screen -reading software can be installed in workstations, which allows the user to choose different voices, reading speed, and the ability to improve pronunciation. Libraries should be sure to house large collections of audio books in various formats (CD, cassette, downloadable), which are also becoming increasingly popular even among patrons without impaired vision. Kurzweil reading machines will scan any printed text and then read it aloud; there are now also handheld portable versions, as well as software that can be installed on any regular computer. For blind patrons who can read it, Braille is preferred whenever possible, due to the inherent high level of information and detail it can transmit (Mates 2000, 55). There are Braille keytops for computer keyboards, as well as refreshable Braille displays, Braille software translators, and Braille printers. A refreshable Braille display is a flat device consisting of rows of pins that raise and lower to form Braille letters, translating the information thats on a computer screen. It allows the user to move quickly from one part on a screen to another, to skip large blank spaces easily, read at ones own pace, to know the relative position of items on screen in relation to one another, and observe specifics about the text such as spelling,

Page | 6

punctuation, and format (Mates 2000, 56). However, refreshable Braille displays and Braille printers, which work with Braille software translators, are very expensive, and will not be feasible for all libraries. Libraries can also acquire free talking books through the Library of Congress National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS). NLS has over 60,000 titles and also provides free devices to eligible individuals for playing the talking books. However its

important to keep in mind that for every 40,000 books published annually in the U.S., NLA can
only add 2,000, due to the amount of time and expense involved in creating talking books and Braille editions. Therefore they do not convert books that contain time-sensitive information (Mates 2000, 2), so it is important for libraries to utilize other methods to provide up to date information resources to their visually impaired patrons. Many of the technologies that assist visually impaired users also benefit those with learning disabilities. Disabilities vary from person o person, but using interfaces with high contrast, simple fonts, and the ability to change font size, contrast, and color will help make materials accessible to most users. Many will also benefit from some of the technologies that assist users with mobility impairments, such as trackballs and touch pads that make it easier to select items on the screen and control the cursor. Despite these various AT, devices and software, there still issues of compatibility that

libraries need to be aware of. For example, depending on how PDFs are formatted, screen reading software may or may not be able to read them properly. While Adobe has made a lot of progress with making PDFs accessible, many databases contain PDFs from older versions of Acrobat which are not properly tagged for screen readers (Vandenbark 2010, 27). Also, the actual articles that database vendors themselves receive from the publishers may not be properly

Page | 7

tagged, even those using a newer version of Acrobat, so vendors might not be able to guarantee that their content is fully accessible. Still, this is something libraries must research and demand from their vendors, to make sure the electronic access theyre purchasing is accessible and compatible with the AT they have. Libraries should also do research in their communities to discover what types of AT most of their patrons are using at home, and try to ensure

compatibility there as well, for library materials that are accessed remotely (Vandenbark 2010,
27).

FUTURE POSSIBLITIES FOR LIBRARIES AND AT As technology progresses, there emerge new forms of AT and new ways individuals with disabilities can utilize new technologies that were not specifically intended as AT to improve their lives. Many of these are innovations that libraries can make goo d use of to increase The new technologies can

accessibility and interact with all of their patrons more closely.

overcome barriers that currently exist between library and user that are due to physical and

mental disabilities. There are some exciting possibilities on the horizon.

In his paper, Redefining Assistive Technology, Accessibility, and Disability Based on Recent Technical Advances, Gregg V. Vanderheiden examines several cutting edge technologies (some in development, some a reality), and envisions their applications as AT. Furthermore he sees them performing as AT in such a wa that they become invisible and allow individuals with disabilities to feel less isolated and singled out by their impairments.

One technology that Vanderhein discusses involves electronics that masquerade as

jewelry and projection systems that can be built into lasses (Vanderhein 2010, 150). This

allows one to see large, easy -to-read projections as needed, that are invisible to everyone else. In

Page | 8

the same way that libraries could use augmented reality to convey information to users through their Smartphone cameras, they could also provide helpful or interesting information to users with this form of AT. Another technology he describes are flexible personal environments, created by researchers such as those at Phillips Center for Industrial Design (Vanderhein 2010, 151). Walls can become active displays, so that information and graphics are only displayed when needed, and their presentation can be adapted to fit the needs of the individual. Vanderhein uses the example of a thermostat whose size and position on the wall is determined by the needs of the person using it. Likewise, library signage could be presented in larger, high contrast, simple fonts for those with visual or learning disabilities, wheelchairs. A specifically assistive technology that has future potential in libraries is Sanyong, a appear closer to the floor for patrons in

speech enabled communication system developed by Samit Bhattacharya, Sudeshna Sarkar,

and Anupam Basu of the Indian Institute of Technology. Sanyong was designed to help those with severe speech impairments (such as those due to cerebral palsy, cancer, stroke, accidents) to communicate using a series of icons, questions, and predictive text along with a speech synthesizer. For each icon that the user selects on the interface, the system asks them a series of questions with possible answers, also all represented in iconic form.

Once the user has finished, the system forms natural language sentences from the
information, to which the user can add inflections to things such as mood or tense. The

sentence can then be spoken aloud using the text-to-speech functions. There is also an available

on-screen keyboard, so the system supports a range of cognitive abilities in individuals with
speech impairments. Indeed in their paper the developers point out that one very important

Page | 9

feature on Sanyong is that the system content can be customized (Bhattacharya, Sarkar, and Basu
2007, 179). The system also contains prestored messages that the user can call up.

Libraries could use a technology like this on workstations to allow patrons with speech impairments to communicate with library staff and others.
The workstations could have

prestored messages for patrons to use for frequently asked questions, and the interface could assist patrons with reference questions or with locating materials from the library catalog. An interface such as this could also assist patrons with cognitive disabilities. Stock, Davies, Wehmeyer, and Palmer developed a prototype of a smart phone designed to assist people with intellectual disabilities. As they explain, mobile phones play an

increasingly important role in the lives of people who use them, and for people with cognitive impairments they can improve their independence and social connectedness. They found that

PDA/palmtop-based phones with touch-enabled displays, large images, and audio prompts work well for this segment of the population. Such a device could also be useful for people with
memory challenges, age -related dementia, brain injuries, and autism spectrum disorders. Research would need to be done to determine which specific tasks each of these user groups has difficulty with and why, and prototypes developed to find which types of smart phone technologies best meet their needs (Stock et al 2008, 1163). While the design of mobile phones is out of the purview of libraries and information centers, it is important that when we are creating methods for interacting with our patrons via their mobile phones, that we do so with an understanding of the current limitations of these devices for many of our users, and innovate accordingly. As Vanderhein puts it: As human services professionals, it is important to recognize the potential that is on the horizon, and how this could impact on the capabilities of those we work with...It is important that we have an open mind about future potential for independence and ypes of
Page | 10

activity that they may be able to successfully engage .We should be careful that our lack of imagination of what is possible does not translate into limitations that we place on the expectations of those we serve, and the preparation we give them for their future (Vanderhein 2007, 157).

THE ACCESSIBLE LIBRARY WEBSITE Increasingly, libraries are using their websites as a way of interacting with th eir users and increase user access to their collections and services. However when designing the library site,

its important to keep in mind accessibility issues for those with physical and cognitive
disabilities. For users with visual impairments, library websites should allow for text size to be increased without distorting layout and continuity of page elements. Any graphic elements

should have a descriptive alt tag, as screen readers can only translate text. Websites should also use simple fonts, clear navigation buttons with both graphic and text labels, and a simple background to improve readability and reduce distraction (Mates 2000, 5). These considerations will increase accessibility for both those with low vision, cognitive impairments, and learning disabilities. Most users with hearing impairments do not have as muc iculty using the Web as the

visually impaired, as most information online is visual in nature. However, any videos on the library s website should include closed -captioning, and any audio instructions or prompts should be accompanied by text instructions. Users with mobil impairments may use the keyboard to

navigate the site rather than a mouse, so its important that at least the most important elements on the site are accessible by keystrokes and tabbing (Carpenter 20 3). Libraries can also

include a link on their sites to Accessible Google, which is a search tool created by Google to discover accessible websites that meet the users search terms (Peters 2006, 39).
Page | 11

W3C created their Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) guidelines to assist web masters in designing and testing for accessibility, and the U.S. General Services Administration s (GSA) Section 508 website (www.section508.gov) provides free online training modules for learning about accessibility requirements and how to create accessible websites. Many web designers are under the impression that accessible websites are unattractive, boring, or expensive, but this is not necessarily the case (Carpenter 2008, 13). Web designers could instead see it as a creative challenge. In fact some websites have already created interesting content specifically for the increasing number of people with visual impairments who are going online. For example, the Salvador Dali and Surrealism site by Art Education for the Blind (AEB), Art Beyond Sight

(www.artbeyondsight.org/ahtts/dali-listen.shtml) not only has audio files giving detailed

descriptions of works of art, but also features downloadable software for printing on thermal paper, which when heated forms a tactile representation of the artwork. The user then can use their fingers to go on a guided tour of the artwork, w their screen reader dictating the tour

from text on the site (Walsh 2006, 31). AEB also provides support to museums and libraries, so
certainly libraries could include special features on heir site for patrons with disabilities when putting together themed programs and events. Designing library websites with accessibility in mind ot only serves users with

disabilities, but many of these same strategies can also enrich the experience of those who are perhaps temporarily disabled due to illness or injury, as well as non-disabled individuals (Carpenter 2008, 6). Accessible web sites also load faster, which meets the needs of those with slower internet connections and/or older computers and software. Not only does all of this meet the Library 2.0 goal of reaching all users, but in fact accessible websites are simpler to maintain

Page | 12

and more likely to be found by search engines, thereby increasing the visibility of the library (Vandenbark 2010, 27).

CONCLUSION: LIBRARY 2.0 AND ACCESSIBILITY 2.0 Library 2.0 is participatory and user-driven; adopting AT allows users with physical and

intellectual disabilities to be an active part of their libraries, and is tailored to meet their needs
and desires. Library 2.0 allows users to personalize ir spaces (Casey and Savastinuk 2007,

63), and AT likewise allows patrons to make library materials and services accommodate their preferences and specifications. Library 2.0 puts a focus on doing more with the same or fewer resources, using low-cost and free applications to expand service offerings, and reaching out to

new users without losing current ones (Casey and Savastinuk 2007, 76 -77). W ith AT we see that
much of our current equipment and software have accessibility features built in, that there are business and government agencies that will provide free or low cost equipment, materials and services to libraries, and that many of the accommodations we make for our users with disabilities also improve our services for non -disabled members of our communities.

It is vital that libraries conduct research in their communities to discover what their users
want and need, that libraries are aware of currently available technology and how to use it, and that we keep up to date on emerging technologies and assess how they might be needed to serve

our users. Library schools should include instruction on AT and strategies for serving users with impairments, as well as provide opportunities for experiences in
areas. Libraries need to these services and

make outreach and development in this area a priority, and to public

offerings. Without doing so we find ourselves in a vicious cycle: users with disabilities won t

Page | 13

come to us because they think we have nothing to offer them, and

no one is using the

AT we have to offer, we will n ot continue to acquire it (Peters 2006, 38 and Sunrich 2006, 39).

To move forward into the future with our users, libraries need to be creative, proactive,
and flexible. We must improve our ability to serve the ever-changing needs of our users, and we must allow and encourage them to be active participants in conversation. As Michael

Desjardins states in his article on Invisible Disabilities, Libraries are more than the lenders of books. They are part of society and community. They stand for inclusivity (Desjardins

2010, 108). By incorporation AT as a core part of Library 2.0 strategies, we can better ensure that the largest possible number of our patrons are able to make the library their own and grow along with us.

Page | 14

References
Alliance for Technology Access. 2004. Computer resources for people with disabilities. Alameda, CA: Hunter House, Inc. Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies (ASCLA). 2010. Library services for people with disabilities policy. American Library Association (ALA). http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/ascla/asclaissues/libraryservices.cfm Association of Specialized and Cooperative Library Agencies (ASCLA). 2000. Factsheet about accessibility and ALA Policy. American Library Association (ALA). http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/ascla/asclaissues/ALA_print_layout_1_284023_284023.cfm Bhattacharya, Samit, Sudeshna Sarkar, and Anupam Basu. 2007. "Sanyog: A Speech Enabled Communication System for the Speech Impaired and People with Multiple Disorders." Journal of Technology in Human Services 25, no. 1/2: 177-180. Burke, John J. (2006). Library technology companion: A basic guide for library staff. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc. Carpenter, Cheris. 2008. http://eprints.rclis.org/14528/ Making Web 2.0 Accessibility Mainstream. Report.

Casey, Michael E., and Laura C. Savastinuk. 2007. Library 2.0: A guide to participatory library service. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. Desjardins, Michael. 2010. "Invisible Disabilities." Feliciter 56, no. 3: 106-108. Golub, Koraljka. 2002. Digital libraries and the blind and visually impaired. Paper presented at 4th CARNet Users Conference - CUC, Zagreb (Croatia), 25-27 September 2002. http://eprints.rclis.org/702/ Gonzlez Perea, Lourdes and Martnez Usero, Jos Angel. 2006. Strategies for tailoring web contents for specific devices : the case of usable and accessible contents for assistive technologies of web mobile devices. Paper presented at International Workshop on the Implementation of a Device Description Repository, Madrid (Spain), 12 -13 July 2006. Irvall, Birgitta, and Gyda Skat Nielsen. 2005. Access to libraries for persons with disabilities: checklist . IFLA professional reports, no. 89. The Hague: IFLA. Jeong, Wooseob. 2008. "Touchable Online Braille Generator." Information Technology & Libraries 27, no. 1: 48-52. Kelly, Brian, David Sloan, Stephen Brown, Jane Seale, k Lauke, Simon Ball, and Stuart Smith. 2009. "Accessibility 2.0: Next Steps for Web Accessibility." Journal of Access Services 6, no. 1/2: 26 5-294.
Page | 15

Mann, William C, ed. 2005. Smart technology for aging, disability, and independence: The state of the science. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Mates, Barbara T. 2000. Adaptive technology for the internet: resources accessible to all. Chicago: American Library Association. Making electron

Mates, Barbara T. 2010. "Assistive Technologies." American Libraries 41, no. 10: 40-42. Peters, Tom, and Lori Bell. 2006. "Assistive Devices and Options for Libraries." Computers in Libraries 26, no. 9: 38-40. Senf, Kimberly, Fiona A. Black, and Debra Mann. 2010. and Training for Serving those with Print Disabilities: Exploring the International Scene." Feliciter 56, no. 3: 102104. Stock, S. E., D. K. Davies, M. L. Wehmeyer, and S. B. 2008. "Evaluation of cognitively accessible software to increase independent access to cellphone technology for people with intellectual disability." Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 52, no. 12: 11551164. Sunrich, Matthew, and Ravonne Green. 2006. "Assistive echnologies for Library Patrons with Visual Disabilities." Journal of Access Services 4, no. 1/2: 29. Vandenbark, R. Todd. 2010. "Tending a Wild Garden: Library Web Design for Persons with Disabilities." Information Technology & Libraries 29, no. 1: 23-29. Vanderheiden, Gregg C. 2007. "Redefining Assistive Technology, Accessibility and Disability Based on Recent Technical Advances." Journal of Technology in Human Services 25, no. 1/2: 147 -158. Walsh, John. (2006) "Improving Web Accessibility for the Visually Impaired", Library Hi Tech News, Vol. 23 Iss: 8, pp.29 31 Web Accessibility Initiative. 2005. Introduction to Web Accessibility. http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility.php W3C.

Page | 16