AT and the Evolving DS Service Model

Like many Disability Services offices my department is examining how it does what it does. This is not new and many offices have been doing this for several years now. The basic thrust of these evaluations is to move from a medical model definition of disability to a social model definition. Without getting too into this (and it is a field of study) the medical model focuses on the individual and treats disability as an impairment, while the social model attributes “impairments” to an inadequately designed environment. The medical model leaves “prescriptive” decisions to “experts” rarely consulting the person with a disability; while the social model puts the opinion of the person with a disability first and foremost. As I said, this is a field of study and my two sentences hardly do it justice, if you want to learn more, then web search “disability medical model” and “disability social model.”

What this means to most DS offices is a move from “clearing paths” for individual students with disabilities to promoting a campus environment in which most paths have had the barriers removed. For example, rather than hunt down a classroom for a student in a wheelchair, invest time in ensuring all classrooms are wheelchair accessible. If this sounds like something you are not going to accomplish overnight, you’re right. And if it sounds like you’re putting your campus on the path toward Universal Design, you’re right again.

There are a number of reasons for doing this. Not the least of which is higher education’s commitment to inclusion and diversity. Read through your school’s mission regarding inclusion and how can you not want to revamp how students with disabilities are treated? There are, however, other reasons for considering this change. Not only are the service models built on social and cultural assumptions that are being challenged, and the older models are not really sustainable. The old model cannot handle the increasing numbers of people and the broadening definitions of disability.

Of course a change like this does not occur on a campus easily or without the support of other departments. And we have found that there are quarters on our campus that are quite comfortable with the older definitions and service models. To be fair, there are also departments who ask, “What took you so long?” Just remember this is a transitional process and incremental gains are good gains.

What We Can Learn from AT

Now having set the stage, let me discuss AT’s place in all this. At my school AT has already started down this path and the reasons are rather pedantic. Fifteen years ago the typical personal computers in student labs ran a handful of programs and replicating them in an AT lab was not too difficult. Now, however, the typical computer is running dozens of programs in general student labs and the departmental labs run highly specialized software dedicated to an academic field. There is simply no way an AT lab could keep up with all this diverse technology. And even if you could technically, you would not have the lab assistants that could help students to the depth that a specialist in a departmental computing lab could.

Sustainability has forced AT out of our AT lab and onto computers all over campus. Basically I have had to learn to partner with the IT people on campus. And my campus is highly decentralize which means I’ve had to deal with various personalities and attitudes over the years. Add to that the systems change efforts that I and other AT coordinators have had to promote around accessible web and electronic documents and you get a fairly good dress rehearsal for what many DS offices themselves about to embark on.

Another preview of things to come is the advocacy of accessible web and electronic documents. AT coordinators find themselves trying to convince campus communicators to produce accessible electronic publications, but it is frequently a steep up-hill battle.

One problem with the new model (as far as “others” are concerned) is that it shifts the work and responsibility from one office (the DS office) and distributes it among the campus community. I have actually had web designers suggest that I should retrofit accessibility on their campus sites rather than them build it in to begin with! That would be hilarious if it if it hadn’t been a sincere suggestion.

Universal Design includes, but also extends well beyond, technology. The deployment of AT into mainstream computing labs does serve, however, as a great map for at least one method of moving toward access or all.

Universal Design and Access is the obvious direction for human interface development. It is inevitable, but DS programs can quicken the pace of adoption. Colleges and universities are immense organizations, but they’re usually more flexible than business organizations in implementing new ideas. DS offices are great motivators for the campus implementation of UD and the AT area may have some insight into dealing with some of the essential stakeholders on campus.

There are two take-aways from this. One, is that your AT people may have some useful input and advice as your office embarks on modernizing “disability services’ on our campus. And two, is that the old rationales of legal consequences, higher moral obligations etc. just aren’t as persuasive as they once were. Spreading Universal Access is going to take more sophisticated organizational change methods.

---

WebAIM Training
I'll be attending WebAIM's accessibility training on February 17 and 18. I plan to "twitter" from the training. Follow me at jbailey on Twitter during the training.

Experimental or Applied Accommodations?

Many students are fluent and facile AT users and, as such, may want to “push the boundaries” of the technology access afforded by AT. Which means we may encounter requests for what amounts to experimental accommodations. “Experimental” means an adaptation that, for whatever reason, is not widely used. It could deal with new technology such as touch screens (although those aren’t really new). It could also be applying new technology to an old obstacle.

The opposite is an applied accommodation. Applied accommodations are fairly routine deployments of AT. For example, a student who uses a screen reader requests that the university’s supported screen reader be installed in a departmental computing lab. This is a fairly cut-and-dried request for an applied accommodation.

To some this may sound like the idea of an inveterate bureaucrat, but it doesn’t have to be. Allow me a quick side note here: ideas like this are rarely inherently good or bad. The good or bad comes with the implementation. If an idea like this appeals to you, be sure you implement it in such a way that it clarifies and streamlines your workflow.

Since these types of requests are handled differently, the identification initiates either one process or another. With routine and applied AT the process should be a rather quick deployment of supported AT in an area of campus where it is lacking. With a more experimental request, time needs to be spent evaluating the purpose of the accommodation and its technical feasibility.

In the case of an unusual or untested accommodation you must communicate to the student that an applied adaptation does not exist and that your efforts may take additional time and the results are not certain.

It is important to keep the student involved in the process. And not simply by keeping him or her informed, enlist the student to do some research into the idea. Do they have friends or colleagues that are using technology applied in this way? Or, in contrast, is this a hypothetical idea in which the student speculates this combination of technologies might work together?

Various factors effect how you might respond to such a request. You may not have the personnel or other resources to conduct much experimental work. In that case, you might ask the student to fairly thoroughly research the question and narrow down the possibilities. Some DS coordinators may not like the student-research idea, but the alternative – for many schools that I know of – is to have a policy to provide only fairly routine technical accommodations.

The take away here is to consider how you will manage a technological accommodation request for which there is no obvious – and generally accepted – solution. What process will you use to evaluate such a request? Who might you consult about such a request? If you decide to try and provide the accommodation, what will that process look like?

You do not need really detailed answers for these questions. It is important to have considered these points and have some idea about how you might proceed. Students are always more confident in your responses if they are reflective and deliberative rather than appearing to have been made up on the spot.

Uncommon Tech Accommodation Requests

As assistive technology (AT) in higher education matures the requests for accommodation tend to become fewer and those we do get are apt to be somewhat sophisticated or complex. A complex accommodation request requires thoughtful consideration.

Focus on Tasks and Not Technology
I recently worked on an issue of making a touch screen accessible for a screen-reader user. The user is faculty and the environment is a new classroom in which all the technology is driven from a touch screen. In the early conversations I was concerned that there was too much focus on the touch screen itself and not enough on the tasks involved. The tasks were pretty routine; things like, play a DVD, run a PowerPoint, play an audio file etc. These sorts of tasks are easily done from a laptop, so I didn’t want to put too much time into retrofitting some commercial interface.

The take away here is that if you encounter a request for an accommodation for which there is no commonly applied adaptation, then stay focused on the tasks involved and not necessarily on the offending technology. As I said in one of the early meetings on this request, “We didn’t reinvent wheelchairs to climb stairs, we provided ramps.” The goal of an accommodation is to get people
doing the same things as their peers, but they may not accomplish it in exactly the same way.

This story actually has a twist ending. This particular touch-screen product has a screen-builder component. IT support can make custom screens. I looked at it very briefly and it does hold out promise that it may make for keyboard accessible touch screens. I will look into this in the weeks to come and report back here. If the touch screen cannot be easily adapted, then I go back to the idea of running the various playback devices from the faculty member’s laptop.

Accommodation vs. Preference
This is a very slippery slope but it must be considered when evaluating accommodation requests. Sometimes a request or an aspect of a request may actually be more of a convenience for the student rather than an accommodation. Several years ago I was involved in deploying AT into general student computing labs. These labs were popular and there was usually a wait to get on a computer. A student with a disability requested an accommodation that would eliminate his having to wait in line. When DS evaluated the request, documentation and the student’s disability they did not see this as an accommodation and did not provide it.

DS offices need an articulated and published definition of an accommodation that they can refer to in instances like this. This is not about strict definitions or splitting-hairs, but it is about understanding the purpose of an accommodation and providing adjustments or adaptations that meet that purpose.

Legacy Accommodations and Expanding Technological Options
When you deployed your campus-wide AT it was built on some sort of prototypical computer system. Whether intentional or not that was the case. And this prototype included one, possibly two, internet browsers. These days there are up to four nearly mainstream options for internet browsers and each of them may interact differently with your AT.

If an AT user tries a new browser, they may very well have some trouble with its interaction with the screen reader. And then they may ask your AT staff for help. This is a bit of a grey area. It is mostly dependent on your staffing resources. I truly know of schools where one person is handling every aspect of DS management and deployment. In that case, the student may need to stay with the supported browser. If, on the other hand, you have AT staff then it may be appropriate for them to look into the issue.

DS should know and post what AT they support and what specific computer applications they support. Then DS is responsible for maintaining the functionality of those combinations on campus computers. And this list needs routine examination to consider either new software products or new versions of older supported software.

An aside to this topic is whether or not you want to work on student computers. My school has decided that the AT Center does not work on student computers. We simply do not have the skills to go into any brand of laptop or desktop and start making changes.

Carefully Consider Your Response
Don’t be hasty in offering your response to a request for a new accommodation. Your response should be thoughtful, clear and unambiguous. If it requires information gathering and testing, then you communicate this to the student. This is particularly true if you are trying something new. If you cannot guarantee meeting academic deadlines like the start of classes or finals, then don’t.

Steps in Evaluating a Request

• determine that it is within your institutional definition of an accommodation
  
• focus on tasks rather than “fixing” technology
  
• if this is new technology you may ask the student to stay with your supported technology, but consider adding the application on your next AT rollout
  
• provide a clear response including any unknowns that may effect the outcome

By now, most of us have fairly robust computer accommodations deployed across our campuses and they are used routinely and successfully by students with disabilities. Technology, however, is not a static field, it changes constantly. Those changes inevitably bring requests for new types of technological accommodations. Careful assessment and response to these requests will help your students and grow your AT program.

---

Next Month's Blog
Experimental vs. Applied Accommodations

---

Conference Calendar
Accessing Higher Ground
November 10-14, 2009

---