From: Kelly Pierce 
Subject: library access
Below is a recent letter to the Disability Evidentiary Conference
Conciliator of the Chicago Commission on Human Relations
regarding a discrimination complaint that I filed against the
Chicago Public Library in January 1994.  Two other blind persons
filed similar complaints charging a denial of access.  The
complaint charges that the library has not provided equal access
to computer software and information to me and others who are
blind or print impaired.  Specifically, the complaint seeks
independent computer accessibility for the blind, primarily
through speech synthesis, in the library's computer lab and
information services provided by CD ROM.  Additionally, the
complaint documents discriminatory behavior by library staff
including staff from the library for the blind who refused to
preform a search of four books on the library's card catalog.  
On October 29, 1997, a Disability Evidentiary Conference was held
at the Chicago Commission on Human Relations to clarify facts in
the complaints I and others brought against the library and to
bring the sides toward resolution.  Present at the conference
were me, complainant #2 Elsie Haug, adapted technology specialist
David Porter, the library's Director of Automation Joyce Latham,
the library's ADA Compliance Officer Jim Pletz, and Assistant
Corporation Counsel Barbara Anderson as well as the conciliator. 
We learned that in four years that the library has made some
progress in increasing access to people with disabilities.  We
learned for the first time about services that we never knew
existed.  One of these services was Internet access through the
Lynx World Wide Web browser and speech synthesis.  As the letter
below shows, access is something more than installing a browser
and plugging in a telephone line to a supposedly accessible
computer.  If you wish to demonstrate your support for access to
library services for people with disabilities at the Chicago
Public Library, check out some of the options below.  . 
Additionally, the letter is shared in this space to assist blind
persons in raising similar concerns at their local library.  We
wish to inform library professionals that as libraries automate
and offer a wide array of information services, it will be
important to consider the needs and access issues of people with
disabilities, particularly those who are blind or print impaired. 
For information and resources on information access at libraries
and how to make your library usable by those with print
impairments, check out the home page of Project EASI:  Equal
Access to Software and Information at http://www.rit.edu/~easi. 
Additionally, the file of letters and related correspondence is
available from me in a zip file via e-mail.
To support those seeking access to technology for the blind and
greater access overall for people with disabilities at the
Chicago Public Library, you can show your support in several
ways.  
1.  Call Mayor Daley at 312/744-5000 and let him know that you
support those who have filed library access complaints and ask
him to immediately resolve the situation.  He can be faxed at
312/744-2324.
2.  Call library Commissioner Mary Dempsey at 312/747-4090 and
let her know that the efforts so far have been insubstantial and
have not led to blind persons being able to use the library on
equal terms of equality with the sighted.  Tell her that you
expect the availability of computers and other information as
available to the blind as others have access to it.  She can be
faxed at 312/747-4968.
3.  Call, e-mail, or fax Illinois State Library Director Bridget
Lamont toll free at 800/665-5576, extension #8. 
blamont@library.sos.state.il.us 
According to the Daily Southtown newspaper, Lamont signs off on
more than $2.6 million to the Chicago Public Library with the
assurance that it complies with the Americans with Disabilities
Act.  Let her know that CPL has not provided access with the
grant monies she provided two years ago and that it should
receive no more money from her until it is accessible to people
with disabilities.  Her rubber-stamping of CPL funding
applications has led to the blind and those with disabilities
being excluded from library services.
3257 N. Clifton Ave. 
Chicago, IL  60657-3318 
(773) 472-7206 
Internet:  kelly@ripco.com 
Monday, 22 December 1997 
Ms. Kathleen Yannias 
DEC Conciliator
174 North Elmwood Avenue
Oak Park, Illinois  60302
Case No. 94-PA-08 
     
Dear Ms. Yannias:
This letter is to document the validity of accessibility claims
that representatives of the Chicago Public Library made at a
disability evidentiary conference at the Chicago Commission on
Human Relations on October 29.  In that meeting Americans with
Disabilities Act Compliance Officer Jim Pletz said that
government publications were accessible by using the Lynx browser
on the World Wide Web and the Vocal Eyes screen reader.  The
World Wide Web is part of the Internet global computer network,
availability of which was claimed to be accessible at the
meeting.  On November 19, 1997, I visited the computer center on
the fifth floor to use this service to conduct a search of the
Code of Federal Regulations.  I could not use the computer in any
way to access the Internet independently.  Unlike previous visits
documented in the complaint, staff were friendly, cooperative,
and wanted to assist me.  However, they lacked the tools to do
so.  CPL provided no instructions on how to use the Vocal Eyes
screen reader in either Braille or on a cassette tape.  While the
manual might have existed on the hard drive of the computer, one
needed to use the screen reader to read it.  Further, the
training tapes that Donald Mitkey described in my site visit in
my July 26 response were also unavailable.  Mr. Mitkey was not
working at the computer center during the time that I visited and
the staff person who assisted me, Karen, could not even locate
the print version of the Vocal Eyes manual so she could read it
to me.  Apparently, it had been checked out and CPL failed to
make a photocopy for reference.  Staff were unable to determine
when its return was likely, if at all.  Later that day I
telephoned Jim Pletz and reported the incident and how it likely
violated the Human Rights Ordinance as I did not have access to
the same services in the same manner as non-disabled persons. 
Persons without disabilities have access to software
documentation and tutorials for software installed at the
computer center.  I spoke to Jim Pletz directly by telephone on
november 20.  He said that he would inform me when access was
achieved.  I have received no communication of any kind from CPL
that would suggest an improvement of the situation described
above.
I believe that during my visit to the library I was deprived of
the full use of library services as defined in regulation
520.110.  Further, I was denied a reasonable accommodation as
defined by regulation 520.120.  These regulations are copied
below.
     REG. 520.110    Definition of "Full Use"
     "Full use" of a public accommodation means that all
     parts of the premises open for public use shall be
     available to persons who are members of a Protected
     Class at all times and under the same conditions as the
     premises are available to all other persons, and that
     the services offered to persons who are members of a
     Protected Class shall be offered under the same terms
     and conditions as are applied to all other persons.
     REG. 520.120   Definition of "Reasonable Accommodation"
     
     "Reasonable Accommodation," for purposes of Part 500,
     means, but is not limited to, accommodations (physical
     changes or changes in rules, policies, practices or
     procedures) which provide persons with a disability
     access to the same services, in the same manner as are
     provided to persons without a disability.
Full use in my visit would have included maintaining a copy of
the instruction manual in print as other documentation is
available.  The neglect by CPL to maintain this bare level of
service maintenance obviously produces a result that prevents me
and other blind persons from the full use of electronic resources
at CPL.  Further, CPL failed to provide a reasonable
accommodation because no documentation or instructions on using
the adaptive equipment were available in an alternative format,
even though the producer of said software provides it on the sale
of its product.
This instance demonstrates the flawed logic by the library in its
position to rely solely on staff assistance to aid patrons with
print disabilities.  Often such specific assistance can only be
provided by one person.  When that person is not available, other
staff do not have the familiarization to provide the assistance
necessary to the task involved.  It should be noted that the
Chicago Public Library applies apparently a separate standard of
software and electronic systems availability for people with
disabilities compared to people without disabilities.  The
standard of providing no documentation and reliance solely on
staff assistance while sighted, non-disabled persons have
documentation available to them is inferior and hence
discriminatory.
I should note that the terminal that is intended to provide
access to the Internet, card catalog, periodical indexes, and
newspaper archives is available only at the computer center,
which has limited hours of availability compared to that of the
library as a whole.  Terminals that provide these services are
located throughout the library for non-disabled persons and are
available whenever the library is open.  I believe that This
additional limitation of  access is another violation of the full
use guideline.  Obviously I was not able to validate the claim
that periodical indexes were available on the library's card
catalog terminals and accessible to the blind as described in the
evidentiary conference of October 29.
As the regulations of the Commission barely touch upon access to
services and do not speak specifically about computer
accommodation, I enclose federal regulations that codify what is
an accessible computer and accessible computer environment.  The
regulations were created in 1989 by the General Services
Administration in response to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation
Act as amended in 1986.  This provision requires the federal
government to purchase computer hardware, software, and
electronic systems that are accessible to people with
disabilities.  The regulations clearly define documentation in
alternative formats as an essential ingredient to providing an
accessible computing environment.
In its September 19 reply, the library cites Section 28 C.F.R.
35.133 of the Americans with Disabilities Act as an explanation
of its failure to provide access on July 11, 1997.  This
provision permits isolated or temporary disruptions of equipment
for disabled persons for maintenance and repair.  Further, the
library argued in reference to an April 7, 1997 letter of finding
from the Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of
Education that "... Mr. Pierce ignores the fact that the April 7,
1997, OCR letter does not give an individual with a visual
impairment carte blanche to impose his computer preferences on
public entities that he chooses to utilize.  In fact, the April
7th letter expressly acknowledges that the disabled person
himself may have to adapt to the computer technology already in
place."  
To respond to these arguments at the disability evidentiary
conference scheduled for January 6, I request again the ability
for Mr. David Porter to attend the conference.  Mr. Porter is an
adapted technology specialist who has assisted individuals and
institutions in providing access to computers and computer
environments through speech synthesis and braille displays.  He
can provide expertise on how blind persons learn how to use
software.  
I have maintained from the filing of the complaint that my
requests for accommodation are reasonable and are of benefit to
other blind persons.  I believe that the library's failure to
provide full use of its services or a reasonable accommodation
was systemic, not temporary or incidental and not a carte blanche
imposition of computer preferences.  To support this claim, I
shall describe the experience of Ms. Armena Ghosten who
experienced the same denial of full use and reasonable
accommodation that I experienced.
On November 4, Ms. Ghosten sought to browse the Internet using
Lynx and the Vocal Eyes screen reader.  Ms. Ghosten is blind and
needs such accommodations to access the electronic resources
available.  She spoke with Donald Mitkey whom was described as
"knowledgeable" in previous claims by CPL.  She requested from
him material in an accessible format on how to access the
information and a demonstration on how to use this accommodation. 
He said that such services were not available but "we are working
on it."  Mr. Mitkey assisted her in going online and visiting
several World Wide Web pages.  She visited the computer center on
the fifth floor on other occasions subsequent to the November 4
visit and could use the computer in only a limited way as she
could not remember all the commands shown to her by Mr. Mitkey. 
The instructions on use of the computer were not in any format to
which either she or sighted staff could refer.  Mr. Mitkey was
unavailable during these subsequent visits.
To counter the library's arguments of temporary disruption or
carte blanche imposition of computer preferences by a single
individual, I request the participation of Ms. Ghosten as a
witness in the January 6 conference.  Thank you once again for
your efforts in working to bring resolution to this situation.  
Respectfully,
Kelly Pierce 
cc:       Barbara Anderson 
     Mary Dempsey 
     Elsie Haug 
     Bridget Lamont 
     Joyce Latham 
     Miriam Picas 
     Jim Pletz
     David Porter 
E.  FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR TECHNOLOGY
ACCESSIBILITY From FIRMR Bulletin 56, Managing End User Computing
For Users With Disabilities, 
Appendix J (GSA 1989): 
     These specifications are organized by functional requirement
into three categories: input, output, and documentation.  This
organization reflects the major areas that need to be addressed
during agency acquisition planning and procurement.  All the
capabilities set forth in these specifications are currently
available from industry in various degrees of functional adequacy
except for access to screen memory for translating bit-mapped
graphic images. 
     a. Input. Access problems concerning the input interface to
a microcomputer differ by the type and severity of the functional
limitation of the employee.  Some users with disabilities are
capable of using a keyboard if it can be modified slightly. 
Other users with disabilities require an alternate input
strategy.  The following is an overview of common input
---
 # Origin: NFBnet  Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)
---------------