LEGAL GROUP TAKES ON PHONE FIRMS OVER LACK OF ACCESSIBILITY
By: Helen Henderson
Editor’s Note: The following article is reprinted from the Toronto Star, October 4, 2003.
*Image: Head shot of Chris Stark and Marie Stark.
More than a decade ago, after George Bush Sr. was elected President of the United States, American pollster Louis Harris did a survey. The Harris poll showed 50 percent of the votes that secured the election for Bush Sr. in 1988 were a direct result of his support for what would become the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act.
We have no way of knowing the role played in this week’s Ontario election by the Conservatives’ weak, ineffectual 2002 Ontarians With Disabilities Act. Indeed, so few surveys are taken on disability issues anywhere in Canada, there’s little wonder that related policy decisions are few and far between. If you’re interested in seeing what research has been done, one of the best places to go is right here in Toronto.
ARCH: A Legal Resource Centre for Persons with Disabilities has been gathering information for more than 20 years. It’s about to formally open a library housing a wealth of information on everything from human rights and employment to accessibility. (See details below about an open house.) It’s also in the midst of a David-and-Goliath battle, pitting a blind couple against major telecommunications giants like Bell Canada and Telus. The outcome could affect the way all of us use telephone products in future, so it’s a good time to start paying attention.
ARCH, which started in 1980 as the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, specializes in precedent-setting cases. At issue in the battle over telephone equipment is whether the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) should regulate it and, if so, what kind of regulations are needed to make sure people with disabilities can use it easily.
Think about the rapidly growing array of telephones, electronic message pads, hand-held computers and the like. They have thousands of applications that rely on visual acuity and manual dexterity. If your fingers have difficulty pinpointing targets, how do you master a tiny, cramped keyboard? If you are blind and there’s no uniformity in the way keys are placed, how do you know whether you’re pushing “hold” or “redial”? And what use is call display for screening calls?
Chris and Marie Stark, an Ottawa couple, have fought long and hard to help those with so-called perfect vision see the other side of the coin.
Because of the Starks and other pioneering advocates, banks have tried to make automatic teller machines more accessible to people with disabilities. But the marketers of telephone equipment haven’t been so accommodating.
The technology exists to use audio instead of visual cues. And it’s not difficult to manufacture raised symbols that can be identified by touch. But Canadian marketers have chosen, by and large, to ignore accessibility issues.
The Starks note that phone keypad layouts are not consistent and function keys are seldom at the same place, even on different models from the same manufacturer. “The most frustrating thing about this issue is that all the equipment is new,” says Marie Stark. “It was developed without considering the needs of people who are blind. Operation without sight thus becomes an after-the-fact retrofit, rather than a design element to ensure that the terminal is usable by as many people as possible.”
The Starks initially took their complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It referred the issue to the CRTC.
The Ottawa couple hopes regulation by the commission would, among other things, force manufacturers to build in accommodation for customers who are blind. ARCH has joined the battle, hoping to get the commission to recognize the needs of all people with disabilities.
“The goal is to improve the quality of life for others,” says Stark. And that includes able-bodied people. Take car cellphones, for example. A driver who has to reach out and press buttons to make a phone call does not have both hands on the wheel. If phone numbers could be reached by giving voice commands, it would be safer and more convenient for everyone, Stark points out.
The CRTC suspended proceedings on the issue, saying it wants more time to do research on the accessibility of telephone equipment.
ARCH has already consulted a number of disability groups but it is still interested in hearing from anyone with ideas to share, says staff lawyer Lana Kerzner. You can email her at kerznel@lao.on.ca More information is also available on the CRTC’s website: www.crtc.gc.ca
Reprinted with permission–Torstar Syndication Services.
ADVOCACY AND PERSONAL EMPOWERMENT
By: Chris and Marie Stark
*Image: Chris Stark and Marie Stark with dogs Ritchie and Zena
Editor’s Note: Chris and Marie Stark are long-time advocates for increased access, universal design and true inclusion for blind persons. They live in Ottawa.
People who are blind, deaf-blind and partially sighted have been sucker punched for years by product and service providers, who say that universal design and retrofits are too costly to ensure usability for all.
But advocacy provides a practical vehicle for change and empowerment, and it can have a direct positive impact on quality of life and personal well-being.
In 1996, we settled a human rights complaint with the Royal Bank of Canada on condition they develop and implement an accessible automated banking machine (ABM). The first accessible ABM was introduced in Ottawa in 1997.
Once the technology was proven, we believed access to most ABM’s in Canada would follow. Seven years later, however, less than one percent of ABM’s can be used independently by blind Canadians and none by People who are deaf-blind.
We first received our bank, credit card and other statements in braille, but we kept pushing and now we can get most of that information online or via email. The Royal Bank has made its websites and telephone banking service reasonably functional for people who are blind.
But exclusion is a chronic problem, and it is a part of Canadian corporate culture. Nowhere is this more evident than the telecommunications sector.
In the mid 90’s, we first became entangled with Bell Canada over a plan to charge people who are blind for directory assistance, even though they didn’t provide us with accessible phone books. Other decisions related to pay phone and yellow page accessibility, and the provision of phone bills we can read independently. A decade later, we are still struggling to gain equal and equitable service, like in the use of cell phones.
Television service providers apparently didn’t think they had to serve people who are blind either.
When we asked the weather network to make its visuals accessible, it offered a separate, inferior and not-real-time information weather broadcast service designed especially for “the Blind”.
We asked that cable companies like Rogers make their channel line-ups, bills and terms and conditions of service available to us in formats we can read. They were ordered to do so.
Again, we expected that awareness of our needs would lead to inclusion. Imagine our consternation when digital television came along with on-screen programming menus that we cannot use!
On a more local level, the ability to vote privately and independently in municipal elections has long been a fundamental issue for persons who are blind. In the good old days, citizens who are blind were asked to bring someone to mark their ballots or election officials occasionally insisted on marking the ballots. On one memorable occasion, we were forced to go into the utility closet among the mops and brooms and verbalize our selection to an election official. We did this in order to cast as secret a ballot as possible given the inaccessibility of the voting process at the time, including the lack of ballots we could use independently.
More recently, we were offered a template with our ballot, along with a list of candidates in large print and braille. We placed our marked ballots in a privacy sleeve and inserted it into the machine ourselves. We felt confident that our votes were counted accurately. As the machine will indicate if a ballot is unmarked, destroy the ballot and direct the voter to cast another ballot, gone are the days of spoiled ballots, which was always a concern for voters who are blind.
Sidewalks, or lack thereof, are a never-ending community issue. We do not like walking along the curb on the edge of streets. It is hazardous to move around cars that are parked in the road.
We have had many sidewalks built as retrofits. The first was along a busy street so that we could walk our six-year-old daughter to dance class in safety. At first we were told not to worry because drivers could see that we were blind and would react accordingly. We pointed out that drivers could not see a white cane against a snowbank in a blizzard. It was a lovely sidewalk that enabled us to go to several stores as well, and others use it today with their children.
Access to information is perhaps the greatest barrier that we face as citizens who are blind in attempting to live independently. The strongest case for readable material centres around the right to know what you are paying for, including hydro, water and property tax bills. Technology has made providing this information easier, and we now get some sent to us electronically and securely over the internet.
Obtaining shopping information is a continuing challenge. Some stores like the local market will email us their specials. After a prolonged and protracted struggle with Canadian Tire involving a human rights complaint, its website and e-flyer were made usable. Zellers, M and M Meats and a few other chains have dabbled in making their sales flyers accessible to persons who are blind.
One of our information needs is for grocery store specials. For many years, again after a human rights complaint, The IGA in our former community made its specials available to us and provided a store person to assist with shopping. When we moved, Loblaws became the largest nearby grocery store. We asked for its flyer, and after a letter to the President pointing out the irony in having a Loblaws Charitable Foundation while refusing to provide sales information in a readable form to people who are blind, the flyer was provided for a time. More recently, however, the employee responsible for this work left, and we have been waiting for the service to resume. We will have to fight this battle a second time.
It is discouraging that new services start out as inaccessible and informed consumer choice is still not a practical reality for Canadians who are blind. Universal access is still dependent on individual initiative.
Here are a few do’s and don’ts that we have found helpful:
Be specific in the demand, expressing clearly what you want and why.
Be explicit about why the existing arrangement is not appropriate. Often this relates to equal access.
Be careful not to let the service provider pass your request off to a charity.
Be prepared for the exclusion arguments like: number of users; too costly; who do you represent?; what do the experts in blindness think?; who else must we consult?; and who else is doing it?.
Try to prevent the issue from taking on a life of its own–requiring studies, standards and other excuses–something that hinders the development of a solution now.
Try to avoid solutions that segregate or are labelled “special”–solutions just for you.
Try to work with the appropriate officials, but be clear that the price of cooperation is progress now.
Be prepared to go outside the system in order to remove resistance, like by involving the media, elected representatives or regulatory bodies.
Do not apologize for your commitment, beliefs or feelings.
Decide how much effort the issue is worth in terms of your valuable time and stamina, and be prepared to walk away sometimes with just the satisfaction of trying.
To us, advocacy means personal choice and commitment. It is a life force for bettering our human condition and a value to be cherished. Self-advocacy is a lifelong occupation–from the cradle to the grave.