

                       THE BRAILLE MONITOR

January, 1997

                    _Barbara _Pierce, _Editor


      Published in inkprint, in Braille, and on cassette by


              THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND


                     MARC MAURER, PRESIDENT


                         National Office

                       1800 Johnson Street

                    Baltimore, Maryland 21230

                   NFB Net BBS: (612) 696-1975

              Web Page address: http://www.nfb.org


           Letters to the President, address changes,

        subscription requests, orders for NFB literature,

      articles for the _Monitor, and letters to the Editor

             should be sent to the National Office.

_Monitor subscriptions cost the Federation about twenty-five
dollars per year. Members are invited, and
non-members are requested, to cover the subscription cost.
Donations should be made payable to __National Federation of the
_Blind and sent to:


                National Federation of the Blind

                       1800 Johnson Street

                    Baltimore, Maryland 21230


 __THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IS NOT AN _ORGANIZATION

     __SPEAKING FOR THE BLIND--IT IS THE BLIND SPEAKING FOR
                           _THEMSELVES

_ISSN _0006-8829[LEAD PHOTO DESCRIPTION: The lead photograph is a
view of the entire length of the International Braille and
Technology Center for the Blind. A number of work stations filled
with equipment are visible. CAPTION: The tangible expression of
the NFB's commitment to assisting blind people make sensible
technology choices is the International Braille and Technology
Center for the Blind (IBTCB) housed on the second floor of the
National Center for the Blind in Baltimore. Every screen-reading
product, every Braille embosser, every refreshable Braille
display, every note taker, and every reading machine on the
market today--all these are on display and can be tried in the
eighteen-thousand-square-foot facility. No wonder then that those
attending the third U.S./Canada Conference on Technology for the
Blind seemed to gravitate to the IBTCB in their free time to
examine and work with the displays.]

THE BRAILLE MONITOR
PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND


                            CONTENTS
                                                    January, 1997



         Proceedings of the Third U.S./Canada Conference

                   on Technology for the Blind

Note from the Chairman

                                  What Technology Can Contribute

  by Ray Kurzweil, Ph.D

                            The Role of the International Braille

and Technology Center for the Blind
  by Richard Ring

                      Low-Tech Devices: Do We Have What We Need?

  by Judith M. Dixon, Ph.D.

                       Universal Access: The Goal and the Reality

  by Curtis Chong

                                    A Touching View of the World

  by Tim Cranmer, Ph.D.

                                            The Future of Braille

  by Joseph E. Sullivan

      Teaching Science to the Visually Impaired: The VISIONS Lab

  by David Schleppenbach

               Why Doesn't Technology for Blind People Cost Less,

and What Can We Do About It?
  by Larry Israel

                                        Better, Smaller, Cheaper

  by Tony Schenk

                    Technology for the Blind: What Is Left to Do?

  by David Andrews

                      The Rehabilitation Services Administration

and Technology
  by Fredric K. Schroeder, Ph.D.

                                               Summary of Remarks


                          Access, Literacy, Equality, and Change

  by Jim Halliday

                                          Discussion and Comments



      Copyright (c) 1997 National Federation of the Blind

       __PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRD U.S./CANADA _CONFERENCE

                 __ON TECHNOLOGY FOR THE _BLIND

                      November 14-15, 1996

[PHOTO: Dr. Jernigan and Euclid Herie are seated at the east end
of the fourth-floor conference room at the National Center for
the Blind. The U.S., Canadian, and NFB flags can just be seen
flanking them. CAPTION: Dr. Jernigan opens the third U.S./Canada
Technology Conference for the Blind. Dr. Euclid Herie is seated
to his left.]

                   __TECHNOLOGY FOR THE _BLIND

           __AS WE APPROACH THE TWENTY-FIRST _CENTURY


   Planned and Hosted by the National Federation of the Blind

                   Kenneth Jernigan, Chairman


                     Note from the Chairman

  The first U.S./Canada Conference on Technology for the Blind
was held in Baltimore in September of 1991 at the National Center
for the Blind. The occasion was historic since it was the first
time that the decision makers of all of the major organizations
of and for the blind and of the major vendors of technology in
the field had come together to discuss common problems. The
meeting was also significant because of the exchange of
information and the decisions concerning technology which came
from it.
  At the conclusion of the first U.S./Canada Conference on
Technology for the Blind it was decided that a second conference
would be held in 1993. Again invitations were restricted to
decision makers. This meant that the organizational authority of
the participants was sufficient, and the numbers small enough, to
permit meaningful discussion and follow-up.
  We now convene the third U.S./Canada Conference on Technology.
The theme is __Technology for the Blind as We Approach the
Twenty-first _Century. The National Federation of the Blind, as
host and coordinator, welcomes you. We believe that this meeting
will be as positive and productive as the ones held in 1991 and
1993.

  That statement appeared at the beginning of the agenda of the
third U.S./Canada Conference on Technology. Dr. Jernigan opened
the first session at 9:00 a.m. Thursday. President Maurer and Dr.
Euclid Herie then welcomed the guests. Following the keynote
address by Raymond Kurzweil, the first panel of five speakers
presented papers. After lunch two more panels made presentations.
That evening the NFB hosted a reception and dinner for conference
participants in the dining room at the National Center for the
Blind. The Friday morning session began with remarks from the
Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration and
the representatives from IBM and Microsoft. The remainder of the
day was devoted to discussion and plans for the future.
  As one might expect from speakers as diverse as those invited
to present at this third Conference on Technology for the Blind,
the topics, points of view, and outlooks diverged widely. The
problems caused by the graphical user interface (GUI) and the
increasing complexity of visual control panels on consumer
electronics and public-access information kiosks continue to
escalate. On the other hand, real advances are being made in a
number of areas. Conferees were eager to define the problems
facing this field, discuss useful directions for further research
and development, and describe the advances being made. As
accurately as possible, here is the report of what was said. We
begin with an alphabetical list of attendees.
David Andrews, Director
  Communication Center
  Minnesota State Services for the Blind
Susan Benbow, Senior Policy Advisor
  Rehabilitation Services Administration
Deane Blazie, President
  Blazie Engineering
Geraldine Braak, Past President
  Canadian Council of the Blind
John Brabyn, Program Director
  Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Foundation
Brian Buhrow, Chairman, NFB Research and Development Committee
John Bullen, President
  Canadian Council of the Blind
Elizabeth Carr, National Vice President
  Blinded Veterans Association
Brian Charlson, First Vice President
  American Council of the Blind
Curtis Chong, Designer/Consultant
  American Express Financial Advisors
Charles Cook, President
  Roudley Associates
John Cookson, Head, Engineering Section
  National Library Service for the Blind and Physically
  Handicapped
Tim Cranmer, President
  International Braille Research Center and
  Director of Rehabilitation for the Blind (retired)
  Commonwealth of Kentucky
Frank Kurt Cylke, Director
  National Library Service for the Blind and Physically
  Handicapped
Suzanne A. Dalton, President
  Association of Instructional Resource Centers for the Visually
  Handicapped
Judy Dixon, Consumer Relations Officer
  National Library Service for the Blind/Physically Handicapped
Paul Edwards, President
  American Council of the Blind
Emerson Foulke, Director (retired)
  Perceptual Alternatives Laboratory
  University of Louisville and
  Director, International Braille Research Center
James R. Fruchterman, President and CEO
  Arkenstone, Inc.
Ritchie Geisel, President
  Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic
Doug Geoffray, Co-Owner & Vice President
  Product Development and Support
  GW Micro
William Gibson, President
  National Council of State Agencies for the Blind and
  Director, Utah Division of Services for the Blind and Visually
    Impaired
Jim Halliday, President
  Humanware, Inc.
Ted Henter, President
  Henter-Joyce, Inc.
Euclid Herie, President & CEO
  Canadian National Institute for the Blind
Larry Israel, President
  Telesensory Corporation
Kenneth Jernigan, President Emeritus
  National Federation of the Blind
Rosemary Kavanaugh, Executive Director
  CNIB Library for the Blind
David Kostyshyn, President
  Syntha-Voice Computers, Inc.
Raymond Kurzweil, President
  Kurzweil Applied Intelligence, Inc. and
  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
  Kurzweil Educational Systems
Mary Frances Laughton, Chief, Assistive Devices Programme Office
  Industry Canada
Carlene Lebous, President
  National Council of Private Agencies for the Blind and Visually
  Impaired
David Lepofsky, Lawyer
  Government of Ontario
Gary Magarrell, Executive Director
  Ontario Division
  Canadian National Institute for the Blind
Vicki Mains, National Director, Technology
  Canadian National Institute for the Blind
Marc Maurer, President
  National Federation of the Blind
Brian McCarthy, President
  Betacom Inc.
Dale McDaniel, Vice President for Marketing
  Artic Technologies
Herb Miller, President
  Council of Schools for the Blind
Caryn Navy, Vice President
  Raised Dot Computing, Inc.
Dennis T. O'Brien, Product Manager
  IBM Special Needs Systems
  IBM Corporation
Charles Oppermann, Program Manager
  Windows Accessibility Group
  Internet Products and Tools Division
  Microsoft Corporation
Gilles Pepin, Directeur
  VisuAide 2000, Inc.
Kevin Perry, Senior Program Coordinator
  Assistive Devices Program
  Ministry of Health, Ontario, Canada
David Pillischer, President
  Sighted Electronics, Inc.
William M. Raeder, Managing Director
  National Braille Press
Lloyd Rasmussen, Senior Staff Engineer
  National Library Service for the Blind and Physically
  Handicapped
Richard Ring, Director
  International Braille and Technology Center
Noel Runyan, President
  Personal Data Systems
Sharon Sacks, President
  Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and
  Visually Impaired
Mohymen Saddeek, President
  TFI Engineering and Myna Corporation
James Sanders, National Director
  Government Relations and International Services
  Canadian National Institute for the Blind
Tony Schenk, President
  Enabling Technologies Company
David Schleppenbach, Director
  VISIONS Lab at Purdue University
Elliot Schreier, President
  4X Products, Inc.
Fredric K. Schroeder, Commissioner
  Rehabilitation Services Administration
Dave Skrivanek, President
  Repro-Tronics
Larry Skutchan, President
  Microtalk
Susan Spungin, Vice President
  National Programs and Initiatives
  American Foundation for the Blind
Ian Stewart, President
  Association of State Educational Consultants for the Visually
  Impaired
Joseph Sullivan, President
  Duxbury Systems, Inc.
Tuck Tinsley, President
  American Printing House for the Blind
Jocelyn L. Tremblay, Directrice
  Direction des Services hors-Qubec et programme d'aides
  techniques
Robert Trimbee, Executive Director
  National Broadcast Reading Service
Robert Wynn, President
  Hadley School for the Blind

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Ray Kurzweil]

                __WHAT TECHNOLOGY CAN _CONTRIBUTE

                    __by Ray Kurzweil, _Ph.D.


             __Chairman and Chief Executive _Officer

              __Kurzweil Educational Systems, _Inc.

  It is a great pleasure to be here and see so many people I have
known and worked with over the years. This conference marks
twenty-three years that I've been in this field, and it is
remarkable to me how many of the people who have devoted their
careers to this field have remained the same over the past couple
of decades.
  I'd like to talk to you today about the nature of information
technology and the impact it is having on our world, particularly
in creating opportunities for those with disabilities, especially
visual disability. I would also like to comment on the proper
role of technology--what it can contribute--but also what is
outside its province. Incidentally, I have always felt that there
is a salient difference between the word "disabilities" and the
word "handicaps." A disability does not necessarily need to
result in a handicap. Through technology and the fostering of
improved public attitudes, I believe most handicaps can be
overcome.
  Computer technology in general has been a very positive
                          development in providing access to
information for persons with visual impairments, and indeed the
blind population is significantly more computer-literate than the
rest of the population as a result. Information in computer form
can be made readily accessible through screen readers, Braille
displays, and the like although the graphical user interface
(GUI) has been a bit of a setback. A GUI, such as Microsoft
Windows, is a computer operating system which uses those little
icons, a mouse, and bitmapped graphics. It is difficult to
translate into speech because it places information on the screen
in two dimensions.
  If you recall the last U.S./Canada Conference on Technology for
the Blind over two years ago, someone asked "What is Windows
anyway?"
  Euclid Herie responded "it's a real pane."
  I'll have more to say about technology for the visually
impaired, but let me start with a little story that my parents
liked to tell. They were from Vienna, so they liked to talk about
Viennese pastries:

  Four pastry shops competed on the same street, eking out a
living, but the market demand was not sufficient to support four
shops. So one shop brought in a management expert, and the next
morning there was a small sign in the window, "Best Pastries in
Vienna," and they started to get a lot of curious pastry
shoppers, and pretty soon they had a booming business.
  So the second shop brought in their own turnaround consultant,
and the next morning they had a bigger sign in their window,
"Best Pastries in Austria," and they too attracted a lot of
curious shoppers. The third shop soon followed suit with a really
big, six-foot-high sign--"Best Pastries in Europe." So shoppers
flocked to this shop.
  Finally, the fourth shop owner decided that she needed to do
something as well, so the next morning there was a really big
sign that took up the entire window--"Best Pastries on this
Block."

  The moral of the story is that you don't have to be the best in
the world; you only have to be the best in your neighborhood, and
you have to be in the right field. In the Vienna of 1930, the
right field was pastries. I grew up eating those Viennese
pastries, but I don't eat them anymore, not since my nutrition
book came out.
  In 1996 the right field is software. But you don't have to be
in the right neighborhood anymore. It doesn't matter whether
you're in Vienna or Massachusetts or St. Louis because the
Internet is the great leveler, the great equalizer. Everyone has
ready access to the marketplace.
  A couple of Yahoos in California can be as prominent as
Microsoft. I was in Israel recently, where access to export
markets used to be a big issue, but with the Internet high tech,
and software in particular, is booming. So Israel today has a
gross national product that is twice that of Saudi Arabia.
Software and the intellectual content it represents exceed the
value of oil.
  Some of you remember the movie _The _Graduate; for some of you
it may be before your time. Remember the enigmatic advice that
Dustin Hoffman received? (I don't remember the name of his
character.) I remember thinking at the time, "Plastics?" Even
then I thought "computers" would have been better advice. Today,
the advice would be "software." Some might say Internet, but in
my view that is just another manifestation of software. After
all, NetScape is a software company. You've no doubt noticed the
extraordinary value of software companies. In my view this is not
a passing trend; it is not a bubble that's going to burst, which
is not to say that there will never be a correction or that none
of today's high flyers will crash.
  But what we are seeing today is a fundamental transformation of
the nature of wealth away from commodities and towards knowledge,
as embodied in intellectual property. In fact, you can draw a
reverse exponential curve where the y axis is the percentage of
value of a product represented by natural resources and the x
axis is time, and the percentage of value represented by natural
resources is asymptoting to zero as we go forward in time, and
every product and service is on the curve. Some are closer to
zero than others, and some categories of products are moving
faster than others as they travel down the curve, but every
product is on the curve, marching on down to nearly zero
contribution from material resources and nearly 100 percent
contribution from intellect.
  Indeed, over the past twenty years the value of commodity
resources, as measured in constant dollars, has fallen
substantially, about 40 percent, and this trend is accelerating.
So sell short on your natural resource stocks. That is my only
stock tip for today. Today the correct answer to the question of
how to advance economic competitiveness is to foster the creation
of intellectual property, which is information--that is,
sequences of 1's and 0's that have economic value. And that has
not always been the case in human history.
  Now what is fueling this extraordinary and, in my view,
permanent shift to knowledge, to intellectual property, to
software as the foundation of wealth and power in this second
industrial revolution? The answer in my view is Moore's Law.
Moore's Law is the driving force behind a vast revolution. Okay,
now what is Moore's Law? Moore's Law states that computing speeds
and densities double every eighteen months. In other words, every
eighteen months we can buy a computer that is twice as fast and
has twice as much memory for the same cost.
  Now I won't subject you again to my chessboard analogy since I
think that most of you have heard it before. If you recall, it
concerns the reward that the inventor of chess receives from the
Emperor of China. He gets one grain of rice for the first square,
which is then doubled for each square of the chessboard. And we
end up with a very big number of grains of rice--about eighteen
million trillion as I recall, which would require rice paddies
covering twice the surface area of the Earth, oceans included.
  So actually I've ended up sharing the chessboard analogy with
you anyway. That might remind you of the Presidential debates
when Senator Dole said he was not going to bring up Whitewater
and then went on to talk about it anyway. The chessboard analogy
is meant to illustrate the power of exponential growth. What
appears to start out in a subtle fashion ends up being rather
overwhelming.
  Now one might object to the notion of Moore's Law continuing
for very much longer on the basis that exponential trends cannot
continue indefinitely. For example, if a species happens upon a
new habitat, its numbers will grow exponentially for a time until
its needs outstrip the capacity of that habitat to provide for
those needs. But it would be premature in my view to predict the
demise of Moore's Law anytime soon.
  First of all, Moore's Law is not a recent phenomenon. It has
actually been going on for at least one hundred years from the
mechanical card-based computing technology of the 1890 census, to
the relay-based computers of the 1940's, to the vacuum tube-based
computers of the 1950's, to the transistor-based machines of the
1960's, to all of the generations of integrated circuits that
we've seen over the past thirty years.
  If you put every calculator and computer for the past 100 years
on a logarithmic chart, it makes an essentially straight line.
Actually, it has been going on even longer than that. In my view,
Moore's Law is a corollary of a broader law I modestly call
Kurzweil's law on the exponentially quickening pace of technology
that goes back to the dawn of human history--I mean, not much
happened in, say, the tenth century, technologically speaking. In
the eighteenth century quite a bit happened. Now we have major
paradigm shifts in a few years' time, but that's another speech.
  If you look at the computing technologies currently in
development, we can have confidence in at least several more
decades of the turning of Moore's screw. We have not even begun
to explore the third dimension in chip design. Chips today are
flat, whereas our brain is organized in three dimensions. We live
in a three-dimensional world; why not use the third dimension?
  Improvements in semiconductor materials, including the
development of superconducting circuits that do not generate
heat, will enable the development of chips (I should say cubes)
with thousands of layers of circuitry, which when combined with
far smaller component geometries, will improve computing power by
a factor of many millions. There are more than enough new
computing technologies being developed to assure a continuation
of Moore's Law for a very long time.
  Moore's Law is providing us the infrastructure in memory,
computation, and communication to embody all of our knowledge and
methodologies and to harness them on inexpensive platforms. It
enables us to live in a world today in which all of our
knowledge, all of our creations, all of our insights, all of our
ideas, our cultural expressions: pictures, movies, art, sound,
music, books, and the secret of life itself are all being
digitized, captured, and understood in sequences of ones and
zeroes.
  Now I would like to examine some of the ways in which
technology can contribute in the future, but before we do that, I
think it would be worthwhile reflecting for a moment on the
proper role of technology. The delegates to this conference hail
from two great democratic nations, and perhaps the most important
goal of a democracy is to provide equal opportunity for all of
its citizens. To accomplish the goal of equal opportunity for
people with physical and sensory disabilities, there are in my
view three requirements.
  The first is education. Consider the issue of mobility for the
blind. A blind person can travel across town and across the globe
as the participation at this conference attests and as Euclid
Herie's travels over the past four days particularly attest.
Despite efforts at creating effective mobility aids, it can be
said that technology has not yet made a contribution to this
issue, nor does it need to. The requirement is education--in this
case mobility training. The state of the art is a low-tech device
--the modern, lightweight cane, together with modern mobility
training. An effective means of reading and writing literacy for
blind persons is Braille. But Braille needs to be learned, so
again education is the critical requirement.
  The second requirement is the fostering of positive attitudes,
specifically the attitude that a disability, such as blindness,
is a characteristic--a characteristic which does not impart
limitations on what a person can accomplish. The positive
attitudes needed are both social and personal. Society needs to
understand what its citizens, blind or sighted, can accomplish
and contribute. And an individual needs to appreciate her own
capabilities and reject the negative stereotypes that the deeply
ingrained prejudices of society may attempt to impose.
  I won't belabor this issue. One could examine it engagingly at
great length. It is an issue in which we have made great
progress, in large part because of the devoted efforts of people
in this room, such as Dr. Jernigan, Dr. Herie, and all of the
organizations represented at this conference.
  As just one small example, if you remember, at the last
U.S./Canada Technology Conference almost three years ago, we
watched a video of a then current TV show in which the basic
premise was how hilarious it was that the show's blind star was
apparently unable to walk across the room without knocking over
numerous lamps, vases, and other breakable objects. That was
considered funny, at least by the show's producers. That was the
entire premise of the show. The show was quickly canceled, in
large part, apparently, because of the strong reaction of people
in this room. Today such a show would be unthinkable, at least on
mainstream TV. But that was not the case three years ago. There's
certainly a lot left to do, but progress is being made.
  And finally there is technology, which also has a part to play.
Technology can also provide a means for independence,
particularly in the area of access to information and knowledge.
Blindness is a sensory disability and therefore involves access
to information. Human intelligence has a great deal of
redundancy, and there are many routes to access information.
Technology can provide a bridge to supply visual information
through our other senses. An obvious example is a reading
machine, which provides the information from printed documents
through either spoken words or Braille displays.
  So, using Moore's Law as our road map, let's consider where we
are headed in the area of technology for the disabled. Reading
machines for the blind have certainly benefited from Moore's Law.
I examined this issue recently with regard to reading machines. I
have incidentally started a new company, Kurzweil Educational
Systems, Inc. which is devoted to creating the next generation of
reading technology. I've gathered up some of the best people that
I've worked with in this field over the past twenty-three years,
and we have created a new type of reading machine for the blind,
for persons with low vision, and for persons with learning
disabilities and dyslexia.
  I recently did a comparison of the first reading machine, the
Kurzweil Reading Machine, which I introduced in 1976, to OMNI
1000, which is my new reading machine. Without tracking through
all the details, the 1996 product provides about 256 times the
performance of the 1976 product, at about one forty-second of the
price, which is a price-performance improvement of 10,752.
Interestingly, that's just about what you'd expect from Moore's
Law in twenty years.
  Now reading machines constitute an area of technology with
which I have some familiarity, so let's consider the future of
reading machines. Moore's Law will continue to improve all
aspects of reading machine price and performance in the years
ahead. Recently two-dimensional scanning chips have emerged which
can scan a full page of text with 300-spot-per-inch resolution
without any moving parts. These two-dimensional scanning arrays,
which have over 5 million pixels, are prototypes and are,
therefore, expensive. But within a few years these chips will
permit the development of pocket-sized scanners the size of a
small camera that can snap a full page instantly.
  Thus, within a few years a full print-to-speech reading machine
will fit in your pocket. You'll hold it over the page to be
scanned and snap a picture of the page. All of the electronics
and computation will be inside this small camera-sized device.
You'll then listen to the text being read from a small speaker or
earphone. You will also be able to snap a picture and read a
poster on a wall or a street sign or a soup can or someone's ID
badge or an appliance LCD display and many other examples of
real-world text.
  This reading machine will cost less than a thousand dollars and
will ultimately come down to hundreds of dollars. Algorithmic
improvements will also provide capabilities to describe non-
textual material such as graphs and diagrams and page layouts.
These devices will also provide on-line access to knowledge bases
and libraries through wireless connection to the World Wide Web.
By the end of the first decade of the next century, the
intelligence of these devices will be sufficient to provide
reasonable descriptions of pictures and real-world scenes. These
devices will also be capable of translating from one language to
another.
  The scanning sensors of the future reading machine will
ultimately become very small and could be built into a pair of
eyeglasses. The advantage of doing this is that it would allow
the user to control the direction of scanning through motion of
the head in the same way that a sighted person does. Once these
devices can provide reasonably intelligent descriptions of real-
world scenes, they will evolve into navigation aids.
  I will point out that access to the world of print has been a
more important issue than navigation. Braille, of course, is a
vitally important technology in that it provides access to the
world of literacy for both reading and writing. It does, however,
have the limitation that only a small percentage of books and
topical literature is available in this alternative medium.
Recorded material has the same limitation. Thus reading machines
have provided the opportunity to overcome a principal handicap
associated with the disability of blindness: access to ordinary
print.
  Until a navigation device can provide a level of intelligence
sufficient to be truly helpful, the most useful navigational
technology will, as I pointed out earlier, continue to be the
modern lightweight cane. Electronic navigation devices have
already been developed, but they have not yet proved useful.
Unless such a device incorporates a level of intelligence at
least comparable to a guide dog, it is not of much value.
  Systems have been demonstrated which use satellite positioning
systems to determine a person's location. Arkenstone, for
example, has demonstrated systems of this type. These systems,
using an on-line map of the community, will be able to inform a
blind traveler of the location of nearby buildings, mail boxes,
phone booths, and other permanent fixtures. It will sound like
the buildings are talking to you, saying something like "I'm the
library, and I'm over here." I think such a system will be useful
for people, sighted or visually impaired. I'd like to have
buildings talk to me as I walk by.
  General purpose artificial vision is now being developed for
robots and is in an early stage, although progress is being
rapidly made. Today robotic factory inspectors can outperform
human inspectors in many visually demanding tasks. Vision has
lagged behind other developments in artificial intelligence
because of the enormous flows of data required to process visual
information intelligently. With the advent of massively parallel
computing and the continuing progress made through Moore's Law,
this difficulty is gradually being overcome.
  Such a combination reading machine-navigation aid will be an
assistant that will describe what is going on in the visible
world. The blind user could ask the device (verbally or using
appropriate manual commands) to elaborate on a description, or he
could ask it questions. These artificial visual sensors need not
only look forward; they may as well look in all directions. And
they will ultimately have better visual acuity than human eyes.
Everyone--visually impaired or not--may want to use them.
  Persons with other disabilities will benefit from the
continuing advance of computer technology as well. Another
company I founded, Kurzweil Applied Intelligence, Inc., has
developed speaker-independent, large-vocabulary speech-
recognition, and one of our primary goals is to develop a speech-
to-text sensory aid for the deaf, which I believe will be
introduced within the next several years. We expect to introduce
a device next year which will be able to understand fully
continuous speech with a large vocabulary. Its primary limitation
will be that you will need to restrict your topic of conversation
to a particular domain, such as medicine or law. It will take
several more years before our large-vocabulary, continuous
speech-recognition technology is capable of understanding human
speech without a domain restriction. I do believe, however, that
a speech-to-text sensory aid for the deaf will become a popular
device by early in the next decade.
  A principal physical handicap is paraplegia, the loss of
control over the legs. The most common prosthetic aid for this
disability is the wheelchair, which has changed only in subtle
ways over the past two decades. It continues to suffer from its
principal drawback, which is the inability to negotiate doorways
and stairs. Although federal law now requires most public
buildings to accommodate wheelchair access, the reality is that
access to persons in wheelchairs is still severely restricted. By
the end of this decade we will see the first generation of
effective exoskeletal robotic devices, called powered orthotic
devices, which will restore the ability of paraplegic (and in
some cases quadriplegic) persons to walk and climb stairs.
  Overcoming the handicaps associated with disabilities is an
ideal application of artificial-intelligence technology. In the
development of intelligent computers, the threshold that we are
on now is not the creation of cybernetic geniuses. That will come
later. Instead we are today providing computers with narrowly
focused intelligent skills, such as the ability to make decisions
in such areas as finance and medicine, and in recognizing
patterns such as printed letters, human speech, blood cells, and
land terrain maps. Most computers today are still idiot savants,
capable of processing enormous amounts of information at very
high speed and with great accuracy, but with relatively little
intelligence. When one considers the enormous impact that these
idiot savants have had on society, the addition of even sharply
focused intelligence will be a formidable combination.
  It will be particularly beneficial for the disabled population.
A disabled person is typically missing a specific skill or
capability but is otherwise a normally intelligent and capable
human being. There is a fortuitous matching of the narrowly
focused intelligence of today's intelligent machines with the
narrowly focused deficit of most disabled persons. Our primary
strategy in developing intelligent computer-based technology for
sensory and physical aids is for the focused intelligence of the
machine to work in close concert with the much more flexible
intelligence of the disabled person himself.
  There are an estimated twenty million disabled persons in North
America. Many are not able to learn or work up to their capacity
because of technology that is not yet available or technology
that is available but not yet affordable or pervasive and because
of negative public attitudes toward disabled persons. As the
reality changes, the perceptions will also change, particularly
as formerly handicapped persons learn and work successfully
alongside their non disabled peers. By the end of the first
decade of the next century, I believe that we will come to herald
the effective end of handicaps.
  Finally, let's consider the long-term impact of Moore's Law. I
made a rough estimate of the computational ability of the human
brain, which comes to about twenty million billion calculations
per second, give or take a couple of orders of magnitude. When
does Moore's Law predict that your standard personal computer
will be capable of that capacity--twenty million billion
calculations per second? Without taking you through the details
of this prediction, it turns out to be around the year 2020.
  Now matching the raw computing speed and memory capacity of the
human brain, even if implemented in massively parallel neural
nets, will not automatically result in human-level intelligence.
The architecture and organization of these resources--that is,
the software--will be at least as important as the capacity
itself.
  There is, however, a source of knowledge that we can tap to
accelerate greatly our understanding of how to design
intelligence in a machine, and that is the human brain itself. By
probing the brain's circuits, we can essentially copy, that is to
say, reverse engineer, a proven design, one that took its
original designer several billion years to develop. And it's not
even copyrighted.
  Just as the Human Genome Project, in which the entire human
genetic code will very soon be fully scanned, recorded and
analyzed, to enable our understanding of the human biogenetic
system, a similar effort to scan and record the neural
organization of the human brain can help provide the templates of
intelligence. Now I won't track you through these details either,
but I do believe that this will be accomplished as well by around
the year 2020. And when that does happen, I think we will finally
realize just how revolutionary Moore's Law really is.
  So I'll leave with a final thought to underscore the
revolutionary nature of Moore's Law. Another revolutionary, Mao
Tse Tung, said that power comes from the barrel of a gun. That
statement was true when he said it. But he said it in the last
possible decade that one could make that statement because
through physical coercion you could control natural resources. If
you could control natural resources and compel people to labor,
you could control wealth. And while not providing the happiest or
most productive workers, it worked well enough.
  The second industrial revolution, however, the one that is now
in progress, is based on machines that extend, multiply, and
leverage, not our physical, but our mental abilities. A
remarkable aspect of this new technology is that it uses almost
no natural resources. Silicon chips use infinitesimal amounts of
sand and other readily available materials. They use
insignificant amounts of electricity. It's a fortunate truth of
human nature that, whereas labor can be forced, creativity and
innovation cannot be.
  But there's something else Mao said that is true today,
although not in the sense he meant it, that is, the reality of
permanent revolution. The exponential progress being created
through Moore's Law and the move towards an economy based on
knowledge and intellectual property is a permanent revolution.
It's not just that densities of memory double and that computing
speeds double; Moore's Law constantly changes everything--the
means of education, the needs of the market, the methods of
development, the channels of distribution.
  It is a continual paradigm shift, and to understand how to
create a product or an educational program or a program of social
change, one needs to understand how our ideas will fit into, not
just the world of today, but the world one year from now and two
years from now, which will be very different. History is full of
missed paradigm shifts. When the telephone was first invented,
the chief engineer of the British post office said, "This is no
big deal; we have plenty of messenger boys." But the mayor of
Philadelphia had considerably more insight into the importance of
this new development. He saw the paradigm shift. "This is of
great significance," he said, "Someday every city will have one."

  __If you or a friend would like to remember the National
Federation of the Blind in your will, you can do so by employing
the following _language:

  __"I give, devise, and bequeath unto the National Federation of
the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230, a
District of Columbia nonprofit corporation, the sum of
$__________(or "______ percent of my net estate" or "The
following stocks and bonds: ________") to be used for its worthy
purposes on behalf of blind _persons."

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Richard Ring with Charles Cook (left) and Duane
Gerstenberger (right) behind him]

            __THE ROLE OF THE INTERNATIONAL _BRAILLE

             __AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER FOR THE _BLIND

                   __by Richard Ring, Director

              International Braille and Technology

                      Center for the _Blind

  It is an honor and a privilege for me to share some thoughts
with you today regarding the role of the International Braille
and Technology Center for the Blind. As its new director, I have
to consider this question in one form or another every day. We
are the world's largest demonstration and evaluation center, and
because of this we come into contact with more consumers than
perhaps anybody else in the field. I believe that we have a
responsibility to highlight both the barriers to access and the
possibilities that may cause those barriers to fall.
  We must also do all that we can to find solutions that fit the
needs of individual consumers, whether those solutions consist of
the newest technology available or that which is tried and
familiar. Since we are able to work with all of the technology on
the market, we must also point out the areas where technology
needs improvement. This is what consumers look to us for; this is
what vendors and manufacturers look to us for; this is what
governmental and private agencies look to us for; and this is
what the general public is coming to look to us for. I might add
that this is also one of the most challenging aspects of our
work.
  The International Braille and Technology Center for the Blind
opened six years ago this very week, on November 16, 1990. Our
goal at that time was to house under one roof every screen-review
program, every speech synthesizer, every note taker, every
Braille embosser, every refreshable Braille display, and every
Braille-translation software package being produced anywhere in
the world. We also wanted to house an example of every reading
machine as well.
  Why, one might ask, did the National Federation of the Blind
create, and why does it continue to maintain, the International
Braille and Technology Center for the Blind? Why have we spent so
much time and money putting this facility together? Is it simply
an elaborate showcase, designed to amaze the constant stream of
groups and individuals who come here to see what we have and
study our programs? If that were the only goal, one would have to
say that we had achieved a resounding success.
  One cannot help being impressed when visiting the International
Braille and Technology Center for the Blind. My first such visit
occurred in August, 1992. At that time the facility was housed in
the central courtyard building here at the National Center. I was
the editor of a cassette-based magazine for blind computer users,
and I was excited about the opportunity to see nearly every piece
of technology that blind people use to access computers, take
notes, and emboss Braille. Where else could one find such a vast
array of hardware and software gathered together in one place?
True, the IBTC wasn't nearly as spacious then as it is today, but
it was still an unforgettable experience.
  In visiting the Center, I had two goals in mind. First, I
wanted to interview its director, David Andrews; and second, I
wanted to record live demonstrations of some of the devices.
Though I was able to interview Mr. Andrews and with his
assistance gain valuable exposure to many pieces of technology,
it was the tried and true device that failed. The computers
worked flawlessly, but my tape recorder battery pack didn't hold
its charge. Could it have been operator error?
  So none of the demonstrations were recorded. But I came away
with something memorable. It was not simply because I was dazzled
by a wonderful roomful of electronic marvels. Nineteen ninety-two
saw the introduction of the first screen-access program for use
with Microsoft Windows. SLIMWARE Window Bridge from Syntha-Voice
Computers was released that summer, and during my visit to the
IBTC I was able to see it for the first time. Though the program
was quite primitive compared to its current version and to the
many other Windows screen readers we have today, it was thrilling
just to know that perhaps we who are blind weren't going to be
left behind by the emergence of the graphical user interface.
  It was the International Braille and Technology Center for the
Blind that gave me the chance to understand the barriers while
seeing the possibilities. What, then, is the role of the IBTC? In
part it is to make it possible for the technology here to be made
available to blind people throughout the world, no matter what
their expertise or their needs.
  Employers, rehabilitation specialists, those interested in
high-speed Braille production, and those interested in learning
for other reasons can come to the International Braille and
Technology Center for the Blind and receive hands-on experience
with hardware and software they have hitherto only read about.
They can use cutting edge technology, something that has never
before been possible, something that has been only a distant
dream.
  Yet we are not here merely to watch while visitors enjoy their
first experiences with computers or Braille embossers. Our role
is to help those who come acquire the ability to find the right
solution for them.
  Consider the man, president of his own company, who recently
lost his sight because of the rapid onset of diabetes. His self-
confidence seemed nearly gone. He simply could not see a future
in which he could continue to play a productive part. But he
wasn't ready to give up. He still wanted to go on running his
business as he always had. He visited the IBTC this spring
looking for answers. Before he lost his sight, he had been using
two programs in order to get his work done--Lotus 123 and
Wordstar. We were able to show him that with the assistance of a
DOS screen reader he could resume many of the duties he had
thought were permanently beyond his reach.
  There is no doubt that technology alone cannot overcome the
problems faced by those losing their sight. The basic skills of
blindness, such as cane travel and a thorough knowledge of
Braille, are essential. However, this man needed a taste of
success. Fortunately, a solution was available--one we could help
him find, and we did.
  During the last week of September an individual who told me she
was employed by the Department of Justice visited the technology
center. She came armed with numerous questions regarding Windows
95, refreshable Braille displays, and note takers. She also
wanted to look at computer-based reading machines. She explained
that her employer was switching within the next six months to
Windows 95. We looked at several software packages, Braille
displays, and embossers, as well as note takers and PC-based
reading systems.
  After choosing several items she decided would work well for
her, she called her office to determine exactly what kind of
system she would need. Perhaps this should have been her first
call, but it was a telling one. After talking with her systems
administrator, she realized that she was going to have to make a
rather quick decision about what equipment she should buy. The
Federal Government's fiscal year was almost at an end. If the
money didn't get spent in the next several days, it would be
gone. So she stayed several hours longer and asked more and
better questions. It may be that, because she was faced with a
decision she had to make immediately, she was better able to
focus on her needs and whether the solutions we could offer would
work.
  I discovered during my lengthy interview with her that she was
actually an employee of the FBI. I assured her that I was doing
my best to live a clean life and that she would surely discover
this for herself if she checked my records. In keeping with the
spirit of my remarks, she said, "I already have!"
  Sometimes the role of the International Braille and Technology
Center for the Blind is not such a pleasant one. Even with state-
of-the-art technology for the blind, solutions are not always
easily attained. That, incidentally, is one of the principal
reasons for holding this conference. All but two of the screen-
review programs designed to provide access to the Windows 3.X and
Windows 95 operating systems are equipped with some form of copy
protection. If an employee's job requires that he or she be able
to work interchangeably at any number of computers, such copy-
protection systems can pose a significant problem.
  An individual recently visited us whose job description
required that he be responsible for trouble-shooting any computer
on the premises when necessary. This meant that he was required
to use screen-reader software on an ever-changing group of
computers. Since he would be the only one using the screen-reader
software, he was sure that his employer would be unwilling to pay
for a site license--a license, incidentally, that cost thousands
of dollars. Unfortunately he turned out to be right.
  Copy protection is almost a thing of the past in mainstream
software, but in the world of screen readers and other devices
for the blind the practice is alive and well. In fact, it is
growing. There was a time when only one or two of the DOS screen
readers had copy protection. Now only one or two of the Windows
screen readers don't. What if you experience the loss of a hard
disk? Though the producers of screen readers for the blind do
provide solutions to problems like this, they are a nuisance--and
except for copy protection, they would be unnecessary.
  We recently purchased from Artic Technologies their new note
takers. These are Braillepad, Ergobraille, and Sqwert. The
products seem to be well designed, and though they don't have all
of the features contained in some of the note takers manufactured
by the competition (such as built-in calculators and the ability
to run external programs), their lower price tag makes them a
viable option. But consider: note takers are often purchased by
individuals who do not own a computer. How then could an
individual without a computer read the manuals shipped with these
products? The only documentation for these machines was provided
in print and on diskette. Without some kind of immediately
accessible manual, one wouldn't even be able to turn one of these
devices on! I would suggest Braille, cassette, or both.
  When people come to the International Braille and Technology
Center for the Blind, we show them any product they want to see.
However, it only stands to reason that, when we are asked which
products work best with specific software, we will emphasize the
products we believe will best meet the needs of the person asking
the question. Products for which documentation is written clearly
and available in multiple formats will receive a better
recommendation than those that offer documentation only on
diskette.
  Software developers that take the time to provide reliable
technical support will find that their products are being
recommended over those that do not, even if those products are
otherwise well engineered and robust. The Graphical User
Interface has made computer use by blind persons challenging
enough that any advantages that one software package has over
another will be discussed. Yes, sometimes the role of the
International Braille and Technology Center for the Blind is to
advise caution when considering a major purchase.
  All of us in this room are involved in one way or another with
the challenges that new technology brings. Whether you are a
software developer, an educator, or merely a sophisticated user,
you are directly affected by new ideas and concepts, whether
yours or somebody else's. We here at the IBTC for the Blind are
in the business of providing either the means by which new
technology can be made accessible or information regarding
solutions that already exist. Accordingly, when problems become
easier to solve, when software becomes more stable, when manuals
become more comprehensible, all of us benefit. We want to provide
solutions that make doing a job easier, not ones that barely make
it possible to accomplish the task.
  In closing let me say that all of us have too much at stake to
do anything but cooperate with each other. We need better, more
meaningful, and more frequent dialogue among the people in this
room. We need to insure that, when problems occur, they are
addressed. Developers need to listen, not just to the agencies of
government who will be making many of the purchases, but also to
end users as well. Governmental and private agencies need to
listen, not only to the sales representatives from the various
developers, but to the end users. We at the International Braille
and Technology Center for the Blind are constantly listening to
consumers. Many of them simply do not believe that there is a
future for blind people when it comes to computers.
  I think otherwise. Though I believe that the future is not
necessarily bright, I think it is altogether possible that it can
be--that we can not only hold our own but advance, both in
relative and total terms. But we won't do it unless we approach
the task with goodwill. And we won't do it unless we understand
what our long-term self-interest really is.
  As a final thought, let me say something to those of you who
produce technology. Your technology will be displayed at the
International Braille and Technology Center for the Blind. Blind
consumers will come to see and work with it. And representatives
of the governmental and private agencies who make purchases will
also come. Both consumers and agency employees will be here
without the influence exerted by a salesperson. This is
threatening only if you do not produce a quality product and if
you do not support your products effectively. Otherwise, it is a
wonderful opportunity.
  This is the role of the International Braille and Technology
Center for the Blind (and also one of the roles of the National
Federation of the Blind) as we approach the twenty-first century.
We want to provide an environment and an opportunity for the best
solutions that can be found to the problems faced by the blind in
an age of ever-increasing technology. It will take hard work and
good will by all of us, but it can be done. Ultimately the blind
consumer will determine what products will survive in the
marketplace, but those products must first be invented and made
available. Otherwise, there will be no choices to make. We stand
at the nexus, and we will exert every effort to be fair, to be
diligent, and to be absolutely fearless and impartial in calling
the shots as we see them. This is what I think I must do; this is
what I think the International Braille and Technology Center for
the Blind must do; and this is what I think the National
Federation of the Blind must do.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Judith M. Dixon]

                       _LOW-TECH _DEVICES:

                   __DO WE HAVE WHAT WE _NEED?

                  __by Judith M. Dixon, _Ph.D.

                  _Consumer _Relations _Officer

     __National Library Service for the Blind and Physically
                          _Handicapped

                     _Library _of _Congress

  With all the attention being given to high-tech solutions these
days, it is important that we not neglect the low-tech items that
affect so many facets of our everyday lives. As wonderful and
valuable as all the new technology is, there are many important
tasks that can best be done quickly and simply by using a low-
tech device. I refer to such items as label makers, Braille
slates, and Braille watches.
  While we have enjoyed recent advances in new high-tech items,
it seems that some of the basic low-tech devices have not
benefited from any development at all. How many new or improved
low-tech devices have we seen in the past decade? Could modern
manufacturing methods and materials be used to develop better
low-tech devices?
  I have considered several definitions of "low-tech." Are low-
tech devices simply mechanical items? Or should we include in our
consideration all devices without a microprocessor, i.e., devices
that can't think for themselves? I have opted for the more
inclusive definition for this discussion--any device without a
microprocessor. Even though nearly all consumer electronics and
even many toys these days are microprocessor-controlled, there is
still a large universe of gadgets left for our reflection.
  In an examination of the 1971 American Foundation for the Blind
catalog of devices to assist blind people in performing everyday
tasks, one finds a wide array of aids and appliances that are
amazingly similar to what we find in comparable catalogs today.
This catalog of twenty-five years ago included Braille and large-
print watches, clocks, and timers; Braille-writing devices;
handwriting aids; measuring devices; kitchen gadgets;
thermometers; and much more. The most obvious difference between
a catalog of low-tech devices of twenty-five years ago and one
today is the current preponderance of talking items, ranging from
functional talking watches, clocks, calculators, and thermometers
to items intended to be humorous like talking salt and pepper
shakers. The introduction of the low-cost speech chip for
consumer products has no doubt benefited many people, especially
the elderly blind person for whom a talking watch or clock is
often more efficient than a tactile one.
  If the output of a device can be made to talk, then we now have
a wide variety of inexpensive and useful examples of new
products. But what if the nature of the product or its use does
not lend itself to speech output? Have we fared as well in these
areas?


                        _Braille _Writing

  In the United States we have seen some minor improvements in
Braille slate design in the last twenty years: for example, the
development of the cassette-label slate from Howe Press and the
modification of the interpoint slate from the American Printing
House for the Blind.
  But there are many areas for improvement in Braille-slate
design. Many of the Braille slates made in other countries
incorporate a variety of intriguing features such as magnets to
hold the paper in place, top-hinged designs to facilitate
interpoint writing, folding designs, quiet-writing designs, very
small and very large Braille characters, Braille line numbers,
and holes that allow storage in a loose-leaf notebook. There is
also a wide variety of shapes and sizes, from a tiny four-cell
hingeless slate for making marginal notes to full-page models.
There are bookkeeping slates and even antique varieties designed
for writing print. However, it is usually not just a matter of
importing these items for use in this country because, while they
might include some clever ideas, their possible usefulness is
frequently limited in other ways. They are often poorly made;
lack features we are used to, such as notched Braille cells; are
designed for nonstandard paper sizes; or are no longer available.
  At the recent Closing the Gap Conference Quantum Technologies
from Australia held a session entitled "Braille Dinosaurs." The
company showed some pre-prototype Braille-slate designs they are
considering making. Quantum is concerned that there is not enough
interest in Braille-slate technology to warrant the up-front
investment in mold-making. The meeting was well attended and
included several dozen teachers of blind children. These teachers
spoke eloquently of helping their blind students learn to use the
Braille slate. So manufacturers can look forward to a continuing
market for Braille-slate equipment.
  And what about styluses? There are many sizes and shapes of
hands but a limited array of styluses available in the U.S. Maybe
styluses should be like shoes--one size doesn't fit all.
  What about the Braille writer? We have had no significant
improvements since 1951. Is a small, lightweight mechanical
Braille writer that would accommodate an eight-and-a-half-by-
eleven-inch sheet of paper even a remote possibility?


                  _Handwriting _and _Templates

  I am a great fan of Tim Cranmer's pencil for the blind. Many
times a computer is not available, and jotting a quick hand-
written note would be a handy thing to do. I personally know many
blind people whose handwriting is clear and legible, but for many
others of us this skill is elusive. Some handwriting tasks such
as check-writing can be accomplished very nicely with templates,
but an area needing further development is the ability to write
on things, either for quick labeling, where the print can be read
tactilely, or for allowing others to read the text, such as
writing a postcard while on vacation.


                            _Labeling

  I believe we desperately need a number of things in this area.
Many people feel that the old metal Dymo label maker was superior
to anything available today. Although one can make labels with a
slate, it is tedious and time-consuming. Many blind people are
reluctant to use appliances with flat, pressure-sensitive panels,
but if labelled properly, many of these are easy to use. However,
this kind of labeling can be some of the most difficult. How
about a device enabling the user to apply a Braille character to
a flat surface as though using a glue gun. The material would
have to be durable enough to survive many readings without
rubbing off but removable when necessary. With such a device we
could easily label flat control panels; very small controls; and
maybe even CD's, cassettes, and the like.


                __Measuring and Drawing _Devices

  The measuring and drawing devices available today are pretty
much what we have had for years. No real improvements have been
made on the Sewell Raised-Line Drawing Kit, which was fairly
imprecise to begin with. I think that current rulers, yardsticks,
and tape measures are functional enough, but when precision is
required, can we be as precise as the task warrants? Many people
have devised their own measuring tools. We have had a lot of
discussion in the last few years about meter-reading devices,
LCD-reading devices, and so forth; but as far as I know, none of
these has made it to commercial fruition. Things could be worse;
we could still have the circular slide rule made from thirty-
three-and-a-third rpm records that many of us used in high
school.


                         _Kitchen _Items

  While a number of the kitchen items found in the catalogs may
strike many as unnecessary, even ridiculous, here again there is
little new. Personally, I would like a measuring device that
could dispense specified amounts of batter and the like by volume
or weight. This would be a very useful device for quickly and
reliably making candy, filling muffin tins, making drop cookies,
and the like. And what about a device to assist with reliably and
attractively frosting a cake without touching it to see how
you're doing?


                 __Watches, Clocks, and _Timers

  While today's watches and clocks are functional enough, doing
what watches are intended to do best--keep time and effectively
communicate it--the only real breakthroughs have been the
emergence of talking items. Braille watches have remained
virtually unchanged for quite some time. Compared to the high-
tech watches available today to the general public--watches that
tell the time in twenty-five sites around the world and are
equipped with calendars, telephone directories, and even little
keyboards for recording short notes--our watches are limited
indeed. What do we need? A wrist-watch-sized organizer? A
fashionable Braille watch for blind women?


                          _Travel _Aids

  Here we may already have the best low-tech solutions we will
ever find. Improvements in materials are possible, but we have
all seen numerous high-tech approaches to solving travel
problems, none of which have come close to replacing the low-tech
long white cane or guide dog.


                           _Conclusion

  This, of course, has been a very brief overview of low-tech
items, but I believe that we need developments in these areas
just as much as in computer access and other microprocessor-
controlled devices.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Curtis Chong]

                       _UNIVERSAL _ACCESS:

                   __THE GOAL AND THE _REALITY

                       _by _Curtis _Chong

  For the past few years advocates for people with disabilities
have begun promoting an idea they call Universal Access. They
have said that, if universal access is built in during the early
design stages of any piece of technology, the cost of
implementing it will be less than the cost of retrofitting the
technology. The goal of universal access is to ensure that
regardless of sensory, physical, or cognitive disability,
everyone will be able to use and benefit from the Information
Superhighway and the technology required to travel along it.
  This is indeed a laudable goal. The idea here is that if proper
attention is given to the design of hardware (the physical
devices themselves), software (the computer instructions which
tell the hardware what to do), information content, and
information presentation, technology will be accessible to
everyone, regardless of any physical, cognitive, or sensory
disability.
  How does this concept of universal access apply to the blind?
Will it improve our chances for equal access to the technology
which, more and more, is becoming an integral part of our daily
lives? Can technology really be designed to ensure equal access
for everyone in a way that ensures that the needs of one group do
not supplant those of another? Is there today any piece of
technology that is really universally accessible?
  Generally speaking, just about everybody agrees with the notion
that technology should be accessible to everyone. It's like
saying that everyone should follow the Ten Commandments or that
no one in this country should be the victim of a crime. In other
words, you would be hard pressed to find a person who would
quarrel with the goal of accessibility for all. It is only when
we begin to consider the specific steps to achieve the goal that
we run into problems.
  Consider the question of access to electronic textbooks. Since
February of this year, I have been serving on the Texas Task
Force on Electronic Textbook Accessibility. It was organized by
the Texas Education Agency to determine ways in which information
contained in electronic textbooks could be made available to
blind and visually impaired students. The task force looked at
some electronic textbooks used in schools today. There was a
program for very young children which taught the alphabet by
singing the alphabet song and highlighting each letter on the
screen. Another program reinforced a reading lesson by speaking
or spelling words that a student could highlight with a mouse. We
talked about some more elaborate electronic textbooks designed to
teach science--for example, an animated chemistry experiment
which allowed the student to combine dangerous chemicals in a
test tube and watch the resultant explosion. All of these
programs required sight--not only for their operation but also
for learning about what has taken place. In fact, the program
designers probably never envisioned that they would be used by a
student who couldn't see the screen.
  As you might imagine, the task force had some difficulty
figuring out how these and other electronic textbook applications
could be made accessible to the blind. We talked about providing
descriptive video (audio descriptions of pictures) on alternate
audio tracks, providing static text in hard-copy Braille, using
refreshable Braille displays, eliminating the need for the mouse
by providing keyboard input for all functions, and making it
possible to stop the video action so that it could be described
by someone who could see the screen. Our efforts to come up with
strategies specifically tailored for blind students were hampered
somewhat by the natural desire to consider accessibility issues
for all disability groups. For example, in some of our initial
discussions blindness-specific recommendations were often
interspersed with admonitions to ensure that closed captioning
was available for the deaf.
  I should point out that I personally have nothing against
closed captions for the deaf. It is just that the task force was
charged with recommending strategies for the blind--not for all
people with disabilities. Closed captioning may be right and
proper for someone who is deaf or hard of hearing, but for the
blind it is only usable if seeing the screen is not a problem. To
put it another way: the natural desire of some members of the
task force to ensure access to electronic textbooks for all
people with disabilities interfered with our charge to focus
specifically on issues pertinent to the blind.
  I myself have given considerable thought to the question of
electronic textbook accessibility. Although it pains me to have
to say this, I do not believe that blind children can really
benefit from electronic textbooks in their current form. Although
it is possible for static electronic text to be Brailled or read
using assistive technology for the blind, we cannot benefit from
the purely visual methods of presentation used by today's more
sophisticated electronic textbooks. Until the developers of these
textbooks design their products specifically with the blind in
mind, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for blind children
really to learn what the textbooks are supposed to teach.
Moreover, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for blind
students to participate in instructional programs in which
electronic textbooks are a major component.
  How does all of this relate to universal access? For one thing,
I believe blind people will not benefit from considerations of
universal access unless the specific characteristic of blindness
is taken into account. Talking about universal access in purely
general terms may help people understand the goal to be achieved
but will not result in meaningful strategies that will benefit
the blind. The experience of the Texas Task Force on Electronic
Textbook Accessibility clearly illustrates this.
  As I said, everybody agrees that technology should be
accessible to everyone. However, the current state of technology
is such that we will inevitably leave out the access requirements
of one person or another. There will always be someone who can't
use the keyboard, someone who can't see or read the video
display, someone who can't speak into a microphone, someone who
can't hear what is being spoken, someone who can't read a Braille
display. Unfortunately, the human-machine interface is still
relatively crude. Even under the best of circumstances with the
best of intentions, technology cannot be made accessible to
everyone today. However, technology can and must be made
accessible to many more people.
  We must ensure that as a group, the blind are not forgotten in
the quest to make technology accessible to all. We must develop
the strategies and propose the solutions which will allow as many
blind people as possible to use as much technology as possible.
What we propose must be specific; achievable; and, above all,
targeted at the specific characteristic of blindness. This is the
only way I can see for us to help achieve the long-term goal of
universal access in a meaningful way for the blind.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Tim Cranmer]

                 __A TOUCHING VIEW OF THE _WORLD

                    __by Tim Cranmer, _Ph.D.

  In the next few minutes I hope to bring to you a touching view
of the world from the perspective of one blind person--not a
total view, of course, just a glimpse where it comes close to the
subject of our conference. With this purpose in mind and a hope
of finding the right words, I went to my desk to write.
  I was sitting before my computer with both hands on the
keyboard waiting for the muse to point the way, when a clear
three-dimensional image of a golf ball I had held in my hands
more than sixty years ago plopped into the center of my mental
tactile field with the vividness of a real golf ball dropping
into the cup at a real golf course. I could hold in the hands of
my mind this sixty-year-old memory of the first golf ball I ever
saw. I was about ten years old and had been totally blind for a
year. It's surprising how vivid a tactile memory can be after so
many years.
  I rotated this old memory in my mind's hands and felt again its
roundness and the dimpled texture of its slightly resilient
surface. Always a curious child, I had reached for my pocket
knife and quickly cut a shallow equator around the ball to
facilitate peeling away its tough outer cover, revealing an
interior tangle of a thin rubber strand, endlessly wound layer
after layer to form the springy mass of the ball. It took a long
time to unwind this filament of rubber and uncover a marble-size
sack of viscous liquid that filled the very center of the
assembly. I wonder: Do they still make golf balls that way?
  Recall is often fleeting. The golf ball was soon replaced with
another ball--one with the weight of a feather and a surface as
smooth as paper, but with the plastic feel of celluloid. Surely
they no longer make ping-pong balls and other toys of flammable
celluloid. I don't know exactly when I first saw a ping-pong
ball, but it must have been before I became totally blind,
because the tactile image in my mind was white!
  Jumping from one image to another, as one does in undirected
thought, I remembered:
  A clear blue sky with a brilliant sun;
  A blue sky with drifting clouds that momentarily obscured the
sun;
  A night sky with a moon that followed me a little behind and to
my left as I walked along the sidewalk on the street where I
lived. Passing telephone poles, I could make the moon disappear,
then reappear in the exact same position over my left shoulder.
  This state of quiet reflection continued longer and with much
more detail than I will recount here. It ended with an
understanding of this first message that I bring to you: These
memories that I have described were formed from things I have
seen and things I have touched. There is no qualitative
difference between them.
  The tactile sense is a worthy peer of sight for perceiving the
real world and for building an understanding of material objects,
concepts, and relationships. It is a parallel channel of
perception that should be developed for the blind in the same way
that improving visual acuity has long been the focus of research
for the larger population of sighted people.
  Scientists through the ages have been preoccupied with making
visible those things and phenomena that cannot be seen by the
unaided eye. The telescope was invented and endlessly improved
for several centuries, enabling man to see ever fainter points of
light from stars ever-farther from Earth. And to detect the
presence of dark matter, we study the distorted orbits of the
visible stars and infer the mass of their invisible companions.
At the other extreme we invented the microscope to view ever-
smaller particles and again infer the presence of other, still
invisible, particles by photographing trails of their passage
through liquids, plasmas, or other electromagnetic fields. We
harnessed x-rays to peer inside the human body and other opaque
objects of interest. We sense electric waves and print their
shapes on paper to see functions of the brain, heart, and other
biological structures. The list of tools and techniques invented
to permit visual observation could be greatly extended, and
volumes of information about each have been written. And yet the
effort to improve our ability to see continues.
  I invite you to substitute the word "feel" for the word "see"
and its conjugations in the preceding paragraph. You will then
know where I am coming from and where I am going in this paper.
  Much of what I know about the real world I have learned through
touch. Knowledge acquired by touch is, by definition, palpable,
solid, and durable. I have heard it said that the retina is a
direct window to the brain. In a very real sense, the sense of
touch is also a window to the brain. Both sight and touch are
hard-wired--that is, physically connected to the brain. Reading
by sight and by touch are essentially the same. Seeing an object
is direct observation. And feeling an object is also direct
observation.
  The power of visual observation is so well understood and
widely accepted that it seems useless to argue this point further
here. Suffice it to say that the history of science and education
is recorded in advances made in tools and techniques for
extending the power of vision. The magnifying glass, telescope,
microscope, magnetic resonance imaging, x-rays,
electrocardiographs are but a few examples of the ways scientists
have worked to make things visible that cannot be seen by the
naked eye.
  So I arrive at the major proposition of this paper: We should
embark upon a sustained effort to develop the tools and
techniques that enhance the tactual communication path to the
brain to the same degree we have achieved to enhance human
vision. We should pursue development of the tactile transducer
that enables observation of things too hot, too cold, too large,
too small, too distant to permit direct physical contact. To put
it more plainly, we must develop the tactile equivalent of the
eyepiece, of the telescope, microscope, and the other tools of
observation to which I have just referred.
  To free us from endless monitoring of optical instruments, the
eyepiece has long since been replaced by photographic film, chart
recorders, and other means of capturing and storing images over a
period of time. We can do the same. Let us apply currently
available technologies to produce tactile representations that
will let us feel the untouchable. That is, we should begin by
developing the transducer that creates tactile images over
several minutes or hours. Only after achieving time-delayed
tactile images should we expect to make a display that operates
in real time.
  There is another persuasive reason for beginning our quest with
a time-delayed tactile transducer. We already know how to make
one. In fact, we know of several technologies that may serve this
purpose. Most of these are currently in use in rapid-prototype
manufacturing and in phase-change printing methods. These
technologies can be adapted to produce solid, three-dimensional
models using computer algorithms.
  An example: Photolithography, a process for solidifying a
liquid polymer using a computer-controlled laser, has been used
by Dr. William Skawinski and his colleagues at the New Jersey
Institute of Technology to produce three-dimensional, solid
models of several molecules. Dr. Skawinski has provided me with
three molecule models for showing at this conference. I will
mention only one at this time. Cyclohexyl chloride, C6H11C1l, as
the formula indicates, contains six carbon atoms, eleven hydrogen
atoms, and one chlorine atom. But the practicing organic chemist
needs to know more than the quantitative analysis of the
compound. He needs to know the physical arrangement of the atoms
in order to understand the chemical properties and how to
manipulate the molecule. To describe the precise arrangement of
atoms on a molecule of cyclohexyl chloride may require hundreds
of words. And even then the mental picture of the molecule could
be inferior to a haptic examination and study of the solid model.
I will leave the molecule at the podium for your later
examination.
  Skawinski et al. produced these models of organic molecules
with a photolithographic machine controlled by an algorithm
derived from chemical databases. It may be equally plausible to
produce solid models from other databases, like 3-D, CD-ROM clip
art, biological specimens, topographical maps, etc.
  Any practical method of producing tactile models must include
provision for magnifying and reducing images so that the results
will be scaled to the requirements of tactile interpretation.
Thus a model of a molecule must be magnified by many orders of
magnitude, and a tactile view of a portion of the cosmos must be
reduced by many orders of magnitude. We see this process of
scaling for tactile perception to be a subject of investigation
by the International Braille Research Center.
  I would like to conclude by suggesting a minimal approach to
produce tactographs. A tactograph, as you might guess, is a
three-dimensional photograph--not a true photograph, but
something like one, except that it extends into the third
dimension. Start with a human face as our subject. Using
currently available rapid prototyping techniques, deposit on
paper or other substrate successive layers of material
representing cross-sectional slices of the image, until a cameo
is formed. The X and Y dimensions of the solid image should be
accurately scaled to the original model. However, the Z axis of
the cameo is foreshortened to avoid exceeding tolerable depth.
This limit might be on the order of two or three hundred one
thousandths of an inch, but can best be determined
experimentally. In any case, it seems likely that it will require
a non-linear adjustment from the real value. The final result
should be an accurate image of a face in relief with high
resolution and with details customized for tactile
interpretation.
  Once the basic technique for creating relief images has been
perfected, we can move on to the challenge of illustrating
textbooks, manuals, and magazines. It's time to begin this
research! Thank you.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Joseph Sullivan]

                    __THE FUTURE OF _BRAILLE

                    __by Joseph E. _Sullivan


               __President, Duxbury Systems, _Inc.

  Let me start by confessing that my very presence here today is
proof that I am not always very good at predictions. For when I
was first introduced to Braille almost thirty years ago, I could
not help thinking that surely such an old technology-- invented
in the early nineteenth century, after all!--would soon be
supplanted by advances that would give blind people direct access
to print. I figured that, in about fifteen years or so, Braille
would take its place in museums, alongside the telegraph and
other outmoded means of communication.
  At least I can say that I learned better, and before the
fifteen years were up. Today we still regularly hear that Braille
is disappearing for one reason or another--sometimes from people
who are advocating some supposed replacement, and sometimes from
people who genuinely fear that a cherished resource may be
declining into scarcity. I no longer agree. Rather it seems to me
that Braille is not only holding its own but poised for a strong
resurgence, not so much despite our modern technology, but partly
because of that technology in conjunction with its own inherent
characteristics.
  Before considering any influence of other technologies, it is
well worth reflecting on Braille itself as a technology. In
particular we should ask ourselves why it came into widespread
use--despite many rivals from Louis Braille's own time--and
remains so solidly popular among its users to this day.
  First and foremost, users of Braille are unanimous on one
point: Braille is reading and writing; all else is something
else. If that message needs to be elaborated for those who use
print but who think that audio alone is an adequate way for blind
persons to access text, think again. Considering all the
wonderful ways you may use audio in your own life, do you
consider dispensing with the printed word or, for that matter,
your pencil and notepad? It is the same with Braille.
  That leads us to Braille's most basic and arguably most
important property: its simplicity. Braille is easily and rapidly
read by the fingers. That is, the dots allow the information to
flow at a speed well matched to the tactile sense--much more so
than would be the case if print letters, which after all were
designed for visual scanning, were raised. Braille is also easily
and rapidly created by simple means, the slate and stylus, which
do for Braille what paper and pencil do for print.
  The dot system that Louis Braille devised thus has the elegance
of simplicity. There are also other claims to elegance in the
ways that the dot patterns are arranged and assigned meaning,
which require closer study to appreciate. Specifically, we find
that the sixty-three possible combinations of one or more dots
have not been ordered arbitrarily or in purely numeric sequence
as in a binary computer code. Rather they have been arranged and
assigned in groups so that principal information, such as the
alphabetic characters, are in upper-cell Braille while ancillary
and connecting information, such as punctuation marks and
indicators, are carried in cells having only lower or right-hand
dots. As a result, Braille provides not only speed in the flow of
information but also a discernible pattern and rhythm, which is
both aesthetic and useful as an aid to understanding.
  Louis Braille thus clearly achieved an elegant, eminently
practical, and deeply human design. For that reason, far more
than for any other technology of the past or foreseeable future,
Braille has stood the test of time. We could almost say that
Braille endures primarily because it is not deeply dependent on
sophisticated technology.


                   _Technology _as _Challenge

  Nevertheless, it remains true that advances in technology,
especially at the seemingly breakneck pace of the present age,
pose many challenges for Braille and indeed any kind of access to
information by blind people. These challenges are due to the
sheer volume and speed of information flow on the one hand and
the type of information on the other. I doubt that there is any
need to elaborate on the increased volume of information, which
has overwhelmed the traditional manual transcription process,
just as it has overwhelmed just about everything else.
  An even more difficult challenge is attributable to the type of
information that must now be accommodated. No longer is it the
norm for print information to come in the form of the simple text
for which our standard Braille codes were devised. Rather that
text is now more likely to be liberally interspersed with complex
technical notation, such as mathematics or fragments of computer
programs, which must be transcribed in a special way. Finally, we
are also more likely now to encounter diagrams, pictures, icons,
and similar visual elements in the material that must be
transcribed, which require even more difficult specialized
attention.
  In the meantime the blind worker in an office or student in a
university has the same need as his sighted colleague to
assimilate and respond rapidly to the overall flow of
information.


          __Technology as Ally--Three Key _Technologies

  But certain technologies, including some of the very same ones
that have contributed to the problem for Braille, have also
provided at least part of a solution. Three technologies in
particular may be regarded as natural allies of Braille: computer
software and hardware, communications methods such as the
Internet, and Braille embossing and display devices.

Computer Software and Hardware

  Because computer software is the focus of my own work for
Braille, I naturally tend to consider it first, and I like to
think that computerized transcription software in particular has
made a positive difference. With a computer program doing the
routine but high-volume transcription work, scarce human
resources are freed to concentrate on the more complex material.
The result is a great increase in the overall availability of
Braille.
  Software to enable access to computers, usually through speech,
has also been advancing steadily. Essentially the same software
can be made to drive a Braille display device. Even apparently
graphical systems, such as Windows, are becoming more accessible
as these techniques are tied into the underlying system
structures. Last, scanners and OCR [optical character
recognition] software have contributed significantly to the
quantity of text available for automatic translation to Braille.

Communications

  Improvements in communications, now most notably the Internet,
also contribute to the quantity of available text. But perhaps
even more important, a part of the Internet, the World Wide Web,
is setting a standard for the representation of documents in a
way that is highly beneficial for the conversion to quality
Braille. That is because Web documents are coded in a form,
called HTML, which is a particular kind of Standard Generalized
Markup Language (SGML). This means that proper HTML documents are
not merely finished text and images but rather contain definitive
information about which parts of the text are headings,
subheadings, footnotes, author references, and so on--information
that can be put to good use by computer programs that transcribe
to Braille. This is a very important advance because, in cases
where only finished documents are available for transcription, it
generally takes human judgment to discern the document's
structure reliably--for example, to decide whether an isolated
line is a heading or perhaps a quoted line of poetry. As the HTML
standard itself is improved and as it is even more widely
observed (areas where we must acknowledge there is still much to
be done), the potential for Braille is truly unbounded.

Braille Embossers and Displays

  Turning to the output mechanisms for Braille, we must first
acknowledge the great strides that have been made towards
production in the traditional medium, namely paper. Today Braille
embossers regularly put out paper Braille at quite high speeds,
embossing on both sides of the paper, with capabilities for 8-dot
Braille and in some cases graphic images as options. There are
also machines capable of embossing plates, preparatory to press
Braille production.
  Even more varied are the methods that have been developed for
producing Braille to be used on signs to be affixed to buildings,
vending machines, and so on. Today it is routine to create a sign
that contains not only Braille but also large-print text and
graphic images, all of them raised, using computer software that
shows the complete working image on screen while it is being
created.
  Methods for creating raised graphics on paper also deserve
mention here. For example, there are now computer programs that
allow blind users to compose and edit tactile images and even
combinations of special papers and pens that permit blind persons
to create tactile images by direct drawing. While we may expect
Braille itself to remain in use for the text, there are clearly a
great many potential uses for augmenting the text with tactile
graphics.
  But while devices for preparation of paper and other fixed
forms of Braille are certainly important and will remain so, I
believe that there is an even more significant future for
electronically-driven devices that can show arbitrary Braille
text, and perhaps one day even tactile images, that may vary from
one moment to the next. Such devices already exist, of course,
and have for some time. However, the goal of a Braille display
that allows rapid and reliable switching, and that is also
inexpensive, has so far proved elusive. Nevertheless, if we have
the resolve to keep working on the problem, we can certainly
anticipate that one day there will be portable, affordable, full-
page Braille displays that can be attached to portable computers
for instant access to Web and other documents in Braille anytime,
anyplace.


                 __Two Consequences for _Braille

  So we have explored three technologies: computer hardware and
software, communications methods such as the Internet, and
Braille embossing and display devices. We have noted a very
desirable consequence of these technologies, namely that Braille
is already more quickly and easily produced from a wider
selection of sources than ever before, and we have projected that
the trend can only be expected to improve. In short, Braille is
more available and will become more so. With availability it is
only reasonable to expect that there will also be increased
interest in learning to use Braille.
  Besides availability there is a second and less obvious
consequence that these developments will have on Braille--a push
towards unification of the Braille codes. To understand what
unification means and the reasons for it, it is useful to look
back to an earlier period--typically several decades ago--when
most of the codes were designed in their present form. I am not
talking about the original, very solid basic design of Louis
Braille himself, which still forms the core of all Braille.
Rather I am speaking of modifications and additions that have
been made since his time to meet various real and perceived
needs.
  At the time we are speaking about, computers had not arrived on
the scene, and all Braille was transcribed by human labor.
Moreover, the material itself was likely to be fairly easily
divided into categories--ordinary literature vs. mathematics and
science, for example. Finally and perhaps most significantly, the
reader was assumed to be working or studying in an environment
isolated from the world of print and, therefore, to have little
or no interest in the print representation as such. What
mattered, therefore, was that the meaning rather than the form of
the material was to be conveyed in the Braille.
  Those conditions and assumptions, and the perfectly natural
decisions that flowed from them, have greatly influenced our
present Braille codes. The most obvious effect is that, even for
a given natural language, there are usually several codes,
according to subject matter. For example, in American English
Braille we use one code for literary material; a different code
for material containing mathematics; and a third code for
computer notation, such as the text of computer programs. Note
that this requires subject matter to be determined, which can be
tricky even for human transcribers.
  A second effect is that preciseness is sometimes sacrificed to
convenience. In literary Braille, for example, the actual
punctuation marks in dates, whether they be hyphens, slashes, or
periods in print, are supposed to be written as hyphens. Likewise
in mathematics Braille, any spacing around the "plus" sign is to
be ignored. Note that these rules typically require the
transcriber to judge whether a particular series of numbers and
punctuation marks is a date or something else that may have a
similar appearance. Note also that meaning can be lost in cases
where the precise form of notation does have significance, and in
any case the reader is prevented from knowing the precise form,
significant or not.
  As we have seen, conditions at the present time have changed,
so corresponding changes in the Braille codes are inevitable.
Those changes are in the direction of unification, which
interestingly enough is something of a return to Louis Braille's
original straightforward design, which was based on a direct
representation of symbols regardless of meaning. For as the
history books tell us, Louis Braille actually set aside a
complex, sound-based system (Charles Barbier's "Sonography") in
favor of the simpler spelling-based system that comes down to us
today. His example remains instructive for our time.
  Unification implies preciseness as well as universality.
Preciseness means that Braille is parallel and equal to print in
representing all that is significant about symbols. This is not
to be confused with print ornamentation--such as most uses of
fonts. This characteristic has two beneficial effects: first, the
Braille reader is better informed about details that matter, and
second, computer programs are better able to carry out accurate
transcription because less judgment about meaning is involved.
  Universality is the ability of a Braille code to represent wide
subject areas without resort to separate codes and associated
judgments. This makes computer transcription easier, for one
thing. But there is also a considerably more important benefit of
universality: a user of Braille need not undertake substantial
new learning, that is, the acquisition of a whole new code, when
venturing into new subject areas. Rather one can simply build
upon prior knowledge, learning just the new symbols and their
meanings as one goes along. For all these reasons Braille
unification projects for several languages, including English,
have been underway in recent years.


               __A Single Bright and Busy _Future

  We have projected a future for Braille that is encouraging on
many fronts, both for the system itself and in benefits for its
users. I could sum up by saying that the future is bright, but I
think that a better word might be "busy." For those of us
involved with Braille must remain busy with the work of carrying
forward the technologies that will help to bring Braille into the
coming millennium, busy also with the task of unifying the
Braille codes so that they will work better for meeting present
and future users' needs, and of course busy with teaching,
promoting, and just plain making Braille. At the same time no
doubt the users of Braille will be equally busy, not so much with
Braille as a subject in itself, but in a more important way: with
Braille as a means for simply living one's life in an information
age.


  __TEACHING SCIENCE TO THE VISUALLY IMPAIRED: THE VISIONS _LAB

        __by David Schleppenbach, Director, VISIONS _Lab

          __Purdue University Department of _Chemistry

  The areas of science and mathematics have traditionally been
inaccessible to students with visual impairments. Complex and
high-tech fields such as chemistry, physics, engineering,
biology, and mathematics are rife with visually presented
concepts and information. Historically this complex visual
information has not been made available for widespread use in a
format easily accessible for blind and visually impaired
students.
  This lack of information, in turn, leads to decreased interest
in scientific fields by the blind, and thus few visually impaired
scientists exist both to provide standards for imparting
scientific knowledge to the blind and to serve as mentors and
role models for those visually impaired students wishing to
pursue careers in the sciences. The Purdue University VISIONS
Lab, which stands for Visually Impaired Students Initiative on
Science, is a research laboratory dedicated to providing access
to the numerous science courses at Purdue.
  Since its inception in the summer of 1995, this university-
funded lab has served both as a production facility for providing
visually impaired students with educational materials and as a
research lab for developing new adaptive technologies. The
VISIONS Lab was part of a university-wide response to the
problems that visually impaired students face when attending a
major university and included the efforts of individuals from the
Office of the President to the individual Teaching Assistants
themselves and everyone in between.
  As of Spring 1996 the VISIONS Lab has worked with two blind
pre-medicine majors and one low-vision graduate student in
chemistry. The VISIONS Lab has been involved with course work
from many different departments, including but not limited to
Mathematics, Chemistry, Physics, Engineering, Computer Science,
Psychology, Biology, Agronomy, and Spanish. As can be seen, the
VISIONS Lab has rapidly expanded beyond its initial design to
become a gestalt facility, encompassing and supporting the daily
needs of the students as well as predicting and planning for
future needs.
  The approach of the VISIONS Lab to solving specific academic
problems encountered by visually impaired students can be divided
into two halves: educational needs and technological needs. Often
the technology is most easily provided; however, it is of
paramount importance that the educational requirements of
learning not be lost in the forest of high-tech, glamorous
equipment. To this end the VISIONS Lab administrators participate
in planning the student's course needs each semester with the
help of case conferences with the student, his or her
instructors, and several university student-service organizations
such as the Dean of Students Office.
  After the needs have been assessed, the scientists involved in
the daily operation of the lab take charge and develop the
necessary technology to solve the educational problems. The
VISIONS Lab currently employs several graduate and undergraduate
students, under the administration of the director, who develop
and produce the educational materials needed by the students on a
daily basis.
  In order to understand the power and usefulness of this
approach, the two halves of the VISIONS Lab problem-solving
strategy will be examined for two courses from two disciplines--
organic chemistry and calculus. These classes serve as excellent
examples of the technological and educational advances developed
by the VISIONS Lab and available as educational standards on the
World Wide Web. In every case the adaptive technologies used for
a particular class depend primarily on the abilities and
strengths of the students. For example, a student skilled in
Braille will receive most of the course information in tactile
format, whereas a student used to learning by ear will receive
taped lectures, computer-synthesized screen readers, and other
vocal learning methods.
  The VISIONS Lab was originally conceived as a means to solve a
nagging problem in mathematics specifically dealing with a
particular calculus course. Calculus is a special challenge for
the blind because it is very difficult (and sometimes not
possible) to interpret all of the mathematical information
orally. What was needed at Purdue was a way for the blind
students and faculty to interact quickly and easily and
communicate complex mathematical ideas. Since the two blind
students at Purdue were different types of learners, one auditory
and the other tactile-oriented, a general strategy to serve both
was desperately needed.
  The solution to this problem, which was produced by the VISIONS
Lab during its initial development stages, was to develop a
software program that would translate mathematical and scientific
equations into a format appropriate to blind students. The
initial approach was to convert the equations into the standard
Nemeth Braille code for mathematics; later, modifications were
made to allow speech output of the equations (this is still in
development). The program is available on the VISIONS Lab
homepage at
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/facilities/sightlab.index.html
and is freeware, together with a manual explaining its use. Also
available is a tutorial manual to the Nemeth code that follows
most example equations in the Nemeth Braille Code for Science and
Mathematics, 1972 rev., and translates it into Braille, using the
program.
  The program was created as a giant macro for WordPerfect for
Windows version 6.0 or 6.1 and produces all output in proper
Nemeth Braille code. This allows the various secretaries at
Purdue who type materials for the calculus courses to submit the
tests in electronic format to the VISIONS Lab. The secretaries
must follow a few simple typing conventions when creating the
documents, but these conventions in no way prevent the final
document from being used by both sighted and blind students. Also
the typing conventions are clearly detailed with examples in the
manual and are usable by someone with no knowledge of Braille.
Upon receipt of the electronic copy of the document, the VISIONS
Lab converts the equations into Braille using the macro. The
literary portion of the document is then translated using a
commercially available Braille translator, the Duxbury(tm)
Braille Translator for Windows. Many other translators would be
suitable as well, however, such as MegaDots(tm) from Raised Dot
Computing. The final Braille document is embossed on a Braille
printer such as the VersaPoint Braille embosser.
  This entire process, from receipt of the electronic document to
the printing of the Braille copy, takes on average about five
minutes per page. Of course, documents that are not in electronic
format or that include special items may take longer. This
process is certainly easier than translating the entire document
by hand, which may take days or weeks.
  After the development of the Braille translation software, the
next natural step was to allow for speech output of equations as
well. This project, currently under development, will allow
students to translate the equations themselves and have the
information read to them via a standard software package
(TextAssist(tm) for the SoundBlaster(tm) family of sound cards).
  Concomitant with this project is another in sound imaging. This
project attempts to image vocally two- or three-dimensional
objects (such as matrices in math or molecules in chemistry) in
three dimensions around the listener's head. This is currently
being done with the SoundBlaster(tm) card and the Qsound(tm)
software technology, as well as a pair of Altec Lansing(tm)
SurroundSound(tm) speakers.
  Of course, some aspects of calculus require more advanced
treatment. For example, much of advanced calculus deals with the
interpretation of two- and three-dimensional graphs and the way
aspects of them relate to mathematical equations. This
information simply cannot be communicated orally, yet it is vital
that the student understand graphical relationships since many
key ideas in science and math are too complex to be interpreted
symbolically. Indeed, the use of models and visualization to
simplify complex ideas is a critical skill for future scientists;
blind students, like any other students, must be able to
assimilate vast amounts of data at a glance by the use of graphs
and diagrams.
  In order to deal with this problem, the use of a Tactile Image
Enhancer(tm) from Repro-Troniks(tm) was used. Various standard
computer graphing packages such as MathCad, Maple, and
Mathematica were modified to produce graphs with Braille labels
created by the Duxbury Braille Font for Windows(tm). After these
images were printed in ink, they were transferred via Xerox to
Tactile Image Enhancement paper and converted into a raised
Tactile Image via the Tactile Image Enhancer. When appropriate,
these graphs and diagrams were embedded in the Braille text of
the document by cutting and pasting.
  For images that are not reproducible by the computer or
available in electronic format, scanners were used with a
graphics program like CorelDraw(tm) to produce ink output for
subsequent image enhancement. This general technique, like the
equation translation, has two advantages: the ability to accept
electronic forms of diagrams for enhancement and the overall
speed of the process. For diagrams received in electronic format,
the entire process from modifying to pasting into the Braille
document can take less than fifteen minutes.
  The second subject dealt with by the VISIONS Lab, and perhaps
the most challenging, is organic chemistry. This field involves
several problems that are especially difficult for blind
students. First, organic chemistry involves a tremendous volume
of material, which is barely tolerable to many sighted students
and can be too much for some blind students to keep up with. This
is mainly because of the lengthy process of listening to taped or
read materials. Second, most of the material in organic chemistry
is two- or three-dimensional in nature, and it is critical to
have an understanding of spatial relationships of molecules to be
a functional organic chemist. Finally, the laboratory part of the
class must be modified to allow blind students to use the
laboratory equipment, perform experiments, and take data.
  For the organic chemistry lecture the main problem was in
translating the material into Braille or tactile images for the
blind students. The main process once again involved the
translation macro, which can also translate all chemical
reactions not involving complicated two- or three-dimensional
molecules. For those molecules which are not expressible in
linear format, tactile images were once again embedded in the
appropriate part of the text.
  For producing Braille tactile diagrams of chemical structures,
several standard chemical drawing programs were used, including
HyperChem, ChemDraw Pro, Chem 3D, and Chem Windows. These
modifications have been standardized and are available on the
World Wide Web. Also, some modifications and/or additions to the
existing Nemeth code had to be developed to allow for complex
chemical reactions and structures since this was not a part of
the existing code. Whenever possible, the spirit of the Nemeth
code was kept in mind when developing new conventions. Thus, many
of the conventions are very small adjustments to existing rules
and symbols to allow for inclusion of information from the world
of chemistry. These new Braille conventions are also available
via the VISIONS Lab homepage on the World Wide Web.
  One problem with converting chemical diagrams is that often the
diagrams are too complex or too crowded for successful tactile
interpretation. Because it is difficult to decide what
information (if any) can be excluded from a complex chemical
diagram without loss of meaning, careful consideration was given
to educational adaptations. With the help of chemistry faculty
and teaching assistants, the diagrams are simplified on a case-
by-case basis, with the main goal of remaining as true as
possible to the original diagram. In general, many diagrams can
have their original meaning preserved by simply enlarging the
details to allow proper tactile resolution of things such as
location of atoms, movement of electrons, etc.
  A final problem for the blind chemistry students was in the
evaluation of their learning. Often, when taking tests or
quizzes, the organic chemistry student must demonstrate knowledge
by drawing detailed diagrams of reaction mechanisms or chemical
structures. Three different approaches were used to combat this
problem. First, a Velcro box was constructed with Velcro pieces
that attach to the surface and stick. The pieces are differently
shaped and their identity labeled in Braille. (The geometry of
the piece indicates its identity as well.) For example, carbon
atoms are squares labeled with a "C," and in chemical reactions
carbon bonds with four other atoms (indicated by the four sides
of the square). Electrons are represented by small circles. This
allows the student to work with a tutor, teaching assistant, or
proctor and demonstrate a reaction to someone who does not know
Braille but does know chemistry.
  A second approach was the use of raised-line drawing kits, such
as the Swail dot inverter or the Sewell raised-line drawing kit,
both available from the American Printing House for the Blind.
Here both the student and proctor can draw stick diagrams (which
are commonplace means of expressing reactions in organic
chemistry) and interact in real time just like a sighted student
with an ink pen.
  A final approach was the creation of software, still in
development, that will take Braille-typed-on carbonless copy
paper (which makes an ink image of the Braille dots), scan this
Braille into electronic format with a scanner, and re-convert
this scanned Braille into text. This would allow blind students
to hand in assignments in Braille to a professor who knows
nothing about Braille, to grade later and return. The eventual
goal for this would be to have a computer act as the intermediary
between professor and student; that is, the computer would
translate from print to Braille or vice versa and serve as the
interpreter for the blind student and the professor.
  The chemistry laboratory also presented several formidable
challenges. The first concern of many members of the chemistry
faculty was the safety of both the blind student and the
assistants in the laboratory. Thus any adaptations made must
account for safety and prevent any possible dangerous situations
from arising. To this end it was decided that a sighted
laboratory assistant and technological adaptations would be best
for all involved. This situation has proven beneficial for the
blind student as well as the other students and teachers because
the blind student has the opportunity to explore the laboratory
fully with immediate feedback from the assistant and can learn
interactively along with the other students.
  Some modifications were made to the actual laboratory
equipment, allowing Brailling of knobs and buttons, and all of
the laboratory materials were available in Braille. Most of the
readings and measurements were taken with the help of the lab
assistant, who acted as the blind students' eyes and arms for
some of the work, such as taking a reading from a dial, mixing
chemicals, heating solutions, etc. Some work is currently being
done in the VISIONS Lab to connect several laboratory instruments
such as spectrophotometers to voice-output systems.
  However, the more promising area of research in the VISIONS Lab
has been in virtual instrumentation. With the use of both in-
house and commercial programs such as LabView, the VISIONS Lab is
currently exploring the creation of virtual experiments on the
computer that would have voice-input and voice-output control
interfaces. Purdue currently uses virtual instrumentation for a
number of its laboratory courses, so the task is to modify the
existing software.
  As can be seen, the VISIONS Lab is both adapting existing
technology and creating new technology to solve specific problems
presented by having blind students in science. We have made these
advances available on the World Wide Web in the hopes that others
working on similar problems will join with us in an attempt to
solve some very challenging problems. It is our sincere hope that
the advances developed in the VISIONS Lab will serve as impetus
for blind students to begin to explore the realms of science that
have been difficult to learn for so long. Purdue's long-range
plan for the VISIONS lab is one of optimism and hope that many
blind students both at Purdue and around the world will take
advantage of some of the standards developed here. Together with
adaptive technologists around the globe, the VISIONS Lab hopes to
make the future of science education for the visually impaired
brighter indeed.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Larry Israel]

      __WHY DOESN'T TECHNOLOGY FOR BLIND PEOPLE COST _LESS,

                 __AND WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT _IT?

                       _by _Larry _Israel

              _President, _Telesensory _Corporation

  Thank you, President Maurer, Dr. Jernigan, and the National
Federation of the Blind for the invitation to be here.
  The theme for this conference is "Technology for the Blind as
we Approach the Twenty-First Century." Many sub-themes could fit
under that broad heading. As I prepared my remarks for this
conference, it was not easy to choose an appropriate theme from
among many I could see.
  The challenge for all of us who are developers and suppliers of
products and services is how we can best advance the interests
and needs of our blind clients. But it's essential that be done
in an affordable way--affordable for the blind consumer, when
that is possible and appropriate, or at least affordable for an
appropriate agency or organization whose charter includes
dispensing government funds for rehabilitation, education, public
access, or similar purposes.
  Why is stuff for blind people so gosh-darned expensive and
often not really affordable? I'd like to answer that question and
then tell you what I think might be done about it, although
unfortunately with no absolute assurance of success.
  Let's start with some examples. Why does a stand-alone reading
machine, such as Telesensory's new Domino product, or Xerox's
Reading Edge, or Arkenstone's Open Book product, cost $5,000 or
more? How can people charge $500 to $1,000 for software for blind
people when lots of equally complicated software sells for less
than $100, and entire suites of software, with many applications
in them, can be had for a street price of $200 to $300, or
sometimes even less than $100, if you're trading in a competitive
suite?
  The problem is that there aren't really a lot of blind people.
Put another way, there aren't enough blind people to permit
economies of scale to come into play, to permit mass-market
production, and to permit product development costs shared over a
very large population.
  In our field the development and tooling costs for new
technologies and products must always be amortized over a
relatively small number of units. Let me give you some examples.
Consider a TV set or VCR for mass markets: development is spread
over many millions of units. There is hardly a consumer
electronic appliance around for which the product development
costs cannot be spread over hundreds of thousands of units. And
once the development is complete, the tooling necessary to allow
each individual product to be built at the lowest possible cost
can also be amortized over a large number of production units.
  By comparison, one of the most popular electronic devices in
our field, Telesensory's Aladdin video magnifier for people with
low vision, involved about a million dollars in product
development cost and nearly another million dollars in what we
call "hard tooling," to permit the individual products to be made
at the lowest possible cost. We wanted to set a new, lower price
point in the market with a high quality product, and we did so.
The basic Aladdin is priced nearly 20 percent under the Voyager,
which it replaced, and nearly 30 percent lower than the
Telesensory Vantage CCTV reading machine, which it also replaced.
It's the lowest price full-featured quality unit on the market,
worldwide; and, to give our customers greater comfort, we also
added a five-year warranty, which is unheard of in most any
industry.
  But even so we had to take a considerable risk because, if our
startup costs could not be spread over a fairly large number of
units, this would have been a losing proposition for Telesensory.
Fortunately our market planning was correct, and our unit volume
--the number of units we sold--jumped 53 percent in the first
year after Aladdin was introduced.
  In the area of products for people who are totally blind,
especially Braille-related products, it's even tougher. To sell
as many as 500 to 600 units a year of a particular product using
Braille output is a challenge to most manufacturers in this
field, and that's a very small number of products over which
development costs and hard tooling can be spread. As a result,
Braille products seem very expensive, and they are!
  We can imagine what it would be like if 100,000 Braille
displays were being produced every year, such as the refreshable
Braille line displays of the type made by Telesensory, Alva,
Blazie, and a host of European companies. We could expect costs
to drop significantly, probably by at least 50 percent, and
perhaps even more.
  That's likely to remain just a dream, unless someone comes up
with a significant advance in Braille-cell technology. And even
that is unlikely, because the potential volume is not enough to
justify the kind of investment which might produce a low-cost
Braille cell. That's what's called a vicious circle, and it's
been with us for as long as people have tried to apply technology
to meet the needs of blind people more effectively.
  So there's a problem I've described: there aren't a lot of
blind people, so there isn't a large potential user base over
which to amortize the costs of product development and tooling.
The result? We don't get substantially lower-cost products, as
we'd like to have.
  I've always hated describing problems without at least trying
to offer some sort of solution, or at least a path to be
followed. So I'll do that here as well and describe an approach
to product development and to the application of technology to
meeting the needs of blind people better, which I think has some
reasonable potential for getting around the dilemma I've just
described--at least in some cases.
  Let me approach this topic by describing two product
developments with which most of you will be familiar. Many years
ago Telesensory designed and produced what I believe was the
world's first talking calculator. It was called "Speech Plus,"
and many of them are still in use today. It was relatively bulky,
had limited battery life, had limited functions, and sold for
what seemed like the enormous price of $395. That's probably
equivalent to nearly a thousand dollars today.
  Telesensory sold around 15,000 of the Speech Plus calculators
over a period of a few years. Then what happened? You know the
story: our Japanese friends came out with talking calculators for
the mass market, initially priced under $100, and I understand
you can get some today for prices as low as $29. Perhaps they
were not as well-optimized for the needs of blind people as was
the Speech Plus calculator, but who was going to complain, with
that enormous price difference?
  What's going on here? Was Telesensory ripping off its blind
consumers? Of course not! Telesensory's direct internal costs
were well in excess of a hundred dollars. The profit level made
on the product was reasonable, not excessive. But Telesensory did
not have the wherewithal or perhaps did not have the means to
attempt to develop a talking calculator which could be sold
profitably for less than a hundred dollars in large volumes to
mass markets. As soon as the Japanese entered the market,
Telesensory dropped out. Well that was a success story for
Telesensory for a while, but eventually it had to be abandoned.
  Let's look at another example. Ray Kurzweil, whose name is
familiar to all of you, invented reading machines for blind
people. Initially they cost $50,000 or more, well beyond the
reach of virtually all blind people, and even unaffordable to
public agencies for individual client use.
  Many years later Xerox acquired Ray Kurzweil's company. Still,
almost no reading machines were sold, despite massive subsidies
by the Xerox Foundation to place machines in various libraries.
It was still beyond the reach of the ordinary blind consumer or
even of most rehabilitation agencies.
  What changed this picture? First, ask yourselves the question:
why did Xerox buy Ray Kurzweil's company? Do you think it was
because they wanted to enter the field of products for blind
people? Think again. Their motivation, from a business
perspective, was clearly to obtain access to optical character
reading technology for general office use. The product for blind
people was an incidental by-product, which they continued to
produce, but in which they have invested very modest development
resources since then. There's not been much new in that field for
quite some number of years, except for a Telesensory product
which I'm going to talk about before I'm through. In fact,
Xerox's adaptive devices division was, according to industry
information, on the market to be sold for quite a period of time,
although I don't know whether that's the case at present. Xerox
wasn't a bad corporation because of this--it just didn't make
business sense for such a large corporation to invest money in
such a low-volume industry.
  Even so, reading machine prices have dropped from $50,000 in
Kurzweil's early days to $5,000 or so for stand-alone systems
today and $1,000 for the software alone to be used with your own
PC and scanner.
  Now we begin to see the answer. We begin to see what it is that
can make technological wonders available to blind people--and not
at a high price, but at reasonable prices which can be afforded
by ordinary consumers, or at least by the rehabilitation agencies
whose mission is to help blind consumers obtain jobs and lead
fuller and more independent lives. The key is the connection
between mass-market technology and the unique needs of blind
people.
  Video magnifiers, so common today, would not have been possible
were it not for the growth of the market which uses video cameras
for inexpensive high-volume applications, such as security and
surveillance in parking lots, office buildings, and residences,
as well as countless other applications. There are not enough
low-vision people to justify the development and production of
low-cost cameras, but by using cameras developed for mass-market
applications, a whole new industry was born in the early 70's.
  Similarly, Ray Kurzweil's invention could never have been made
affordable, as it is today, were it not for the development of
personal computers and scanners for mass markets unrelated to the
needs of blind people.
  "Well, that's great!", you might say. "So we're just supposed
to sit around and wait for the technological crumbs to fall off
the consumer mass-market table." That would be a dismaying
scenario, if that were the only way we could hope for truly
significant advances in our field, since we would all be doomed
to follow, not lead. In addition, we'd be subject to the problems
still being experienced with, for example, Windows 95 access,
where the mass-market product, Windows 95, just won't work for
blind people without significant adaptation, which remains costly
and sometimes inefficient or kludgey.
  There is, I think, another approach which developers of
products for blind people can take. That involves tying in other
needs--needs which aren't directly the needs of blind people--in
order to support the kind of product development which will
nonetheless benefit significant numbers of blind people. For
example, if Telesensory had been able to develop speech
technology in such a way that talking calculators became a
desirable appliance for everyone, not just blind consumers, the
cost of talking calculators might have been reduced at an earlier
stage. Unfortunately that didn't happen.
  Let me give a more pointed example using some of Telesensory's
newer products as an example. Last month, at the Closing the Gap
convention in Minneapolis, we conducted private showings of a new
device we call Domino. It's the world's first battery-powered,
truly portable reading machine for blind people, weighing only
fourteen to fifteen pounds and the size of a briefcase. It's
lighter, smaller, faster, and easier to use than Xerox's Reading
Edge, which had previously been the closest the world had seen to
a portable reading machine for blind people and, at twenty-seven
pounds or so, not truly portable.
  We're putting Domino on the market at less than $5,000, which
is a fair price and less than anything which is even remotely
comparable to it. But even at that price, it won't be a very
profitable product for us, and we need profits to pay for
development and tooling costs, so that we can keep on doing good
things.
  Are we crazy? No, we're not crazy. We're just betting again, as
we did with Aladdin, that we've got some ideas which will have
applicability in such a way that we can substantially increase
the market base for this product. We want to sell Domino--or
parts of it, or other products based on some of its unique and
patent-pending technology--to people who aren't blind for other
applications. If we're successful in doing that--and, remember I
said it's a bit of a gamble--then we think we can lower the cost
of Domino in the future so that blind people can benefit
immensely.
  This is an example of what I mean by trying to create crossover
applications between what we do that benefits blind people and
finding other applications for the same products and technology
for people who aren't blind.
  Another example of the same concept at work is our recently-
introduced Marco (as in "Marco Polo"). This is an audible-signage
navigation system for blind people. Here there are two parts to
the story. First, it's of equal benefit to people who have low
vision. With the much broader audience and market that provides,
we've been able to make a commitment to considerably reduced
pricing for the Marco products, which will benefit blind people
as well. The second major part of this story is that the part of
a Marco system which a blind or low vision person would want to
buy--the receiver--costs less than $100. We've designed the
system so that the greater part of the cost is in the
transmitter, or audible sign, and that's the part that someone
else (a building owner or transit-system operator) will need to
buy and install. This also operates to hold down the ultimate
system cost for the blind user.
  Finally, there's one other observation I'd like to make. As
many of you know, Telesensory decided, with considerable regret,
that the time had come to stop producing the Optacon, the world's
first electronic reading appliance for blind people. There are
many Optacon-lovers who have lobbied for continuation of the
Optacon or some sort of new development to provide the same
functions. Deane Blazie and others are working to see if that can
possibly be done.
  I think this effort, while commendable for what it tries to
accomplish for blind people, is misguided in the path it takes.
The Optacon will never be used by truly large numbers of people.
If one believes, as I do, that resources are finite and limited
and that development funds spent in one place are therefore
unavailable to achieve more in some other place, and that
sometimes-difficult choices need to be made, then the consequence
is clear: money spent on low-volume technology to try to replace
the Optacon is money which cannot be spent on other technological
advances which have far greater potential to help blind people.
If small amounts of government funding are used as seed money,
perhaps the cost is moderate. But it still leaves the problem of
commercialization, which will continue to be a costly process in
the very small volumes which are likely to be involved.
  In conclusion, let me summarize the situation as I see it,
regarding the cost of products for blind people--and much of this
probably applies to other disabilities as well. There aren't many
blind people. Therefore, there's not much expectation of being
able to produce technological advances for them in the high
volumes which are characteristic of consumer appliances. As a
result, both development costs and tooling costs must be
amortized over relatively small unit volumes, which makes the
resulting device costs seem to be fairly high.
  But despite that picture, there are areas in which the
possibility exists of adapting mass-market technology for use by
blind people, or of developing devices for blind people which
have other uses so that the costs I mentioned can be spread over
much higher unit volumes. And Telesensory certainly hopes to lead
the way in doing just that: better and better applications of
technology to meet the needs of blind and visually impaired
people, while driving costs as low as we possibly can.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Tony Schenk]

                   _BETTER, _SMALLER, _CHEAPER

                        _by _Tony _Schenk

           __President, Enabling Technologies _Company

  On an auspicious occasion such as this gathering, it is not
necessarily easy to identify a topic of conversation which will
be an object of fascination to everyone present. But, when you
come right down to it, my chosen topic, "better, smaller,
cheaper" is just another way of addressing technology's future,
which is something we in this field never tire of talking about,
or we probably wouldn't be in this field in the first place. I
think it would be safe to summarize the future of virtually any
successful technology with those three irresistibly catchy words:
"better, smaller, cheaper."
  I suspect I could earn the gratitude of this audience if I
stopped right there and sat down. But life stubbornly refuses to
be so simple. There are always underlying issues to be considered
and choices to be made. It is about some of these choices that we
have made, and still have to make, that I want to talk for a few
moments. It is easy to focus on critical choices when there is a
glaring crisis afoot, such as the closing of the Federal
government seemingly every day or two last Winter. But even at
the best of times we all have to make choices. Even lottery
winners have to choose whether to take the cash in a lump sum or
have it paid annually, whether to invest the whole sum of cash or
keep some out to buy a faster, cheaper, Braille printer.
  And all of you have future shaping choices to make both as
individual consumers of technology and as leaders. Don't
misunderstand me; I'm not going to try to sell you a Juliet,
though I'll be glad to talk to you about that during the break.
The choices of which I would speak will affect your future and
mine whether you happen to be in the market for my particular
product or not. I can say this with a good deal of confidence,
not because Enabling Technologies has a fortune-teller tucked
away somewhere in the attic, but because of history; or to put it
another way, because of hindsight, which as we all know, is
always twenty-twenty.
  It always shocks me to realize it, but my company has been in
existence for twenty-five years already. Although I wasn't around
for the first ten years or so of the ride, I've heard lots of
stories, as you might well imagine; and I've seen some
fascinating reports and inspected some ancient pieces of
equipment, to see if we could figure out how to fix them. Believe
me when I tell you that, compared to these antique boxes loaded
with discrete transistors instead of microprocessors, and paper
tape instead of full-width Braille paper, anything you are using
today is better, smaller, and cheaper, including a slate and
stylus. Of course, the slate and stylus couldn't be made to
Braille electronic data, which is why these big clumsy machines
got developed in garages and old warehouse buildings in the first
place. These first- and second-generation wonders with names like
BD-3 and LED-1 were huge dinosaurs with mechanisms so complex
that they could only be tuned and maintained by craftsmen with
the hands of Mr. Goodwrench, the ears of Stevie Wonder, and
perhaps the vocabulary of a longshoreman. Nobody with any other
choice at his or her disposal would have worked to maintain these
machines or tried to use them in any productive way. Flawed
though it was, that was cutting-edge technology in the 1970's.
And because someone needed it, someone else found a way to
maintain it and later figured out how to build something better.
  It's a familiar story isn't it? I can't speak for any of the
other manufacturers represented here, but I would bet a Florida
golf course against a California earthquake that every company
president here could tell a similar story. And I'll take my
winnings from that wager and let them ride on another safe bet:
that all our products are somewhat better and most are less
expensive than they were ten years or even three years ago.
  I'm going to stop betting while I'm ahead and go back to my
company's experience. Although we have made some long strides in
our Braille printer technology over the past few years, the truly
dramatic breakthroughs and massive design improvements leading to
huge cost reductions don't come quite as often as they used to.
Perhaps I could illustrate this point with the briefest possible
summary of our evolutionary curve on interpoint Braillers, that
is, printers which place Braille on both sides of a sheet. Our
TED-600 was released in 1985 to sell for $37,500. It prints at
600 lines per minute or about 400 characters per second. In 1990
we released the Braille BookMaker: speed about 80 cps, price
about $8,000. In 1992, it was the Juliet, average speed about 40
cps; price, about $4,000. Now we have a slightly faster, slightly
less expensive model of the Juliet which we call the ET, but it
certainly isn't as dramatic a price reduction as going from
$8,000 down to $4,000.
  Now, if I seem to be standing here saying that our best work is
in the past, don't you believe it for one minute. I'm only saying
what many hardware makers have said before me. From here on the
cost reductions are going to become much more challenging, and
sooner or later some tough choices will have to be made.
  So, you see, we did get back to the subject of choices after
all. So what kind of choices are we talking about here? When you
want to cut the cost of a product such as the hardware we
manufacture, you have three major areas you can look at. First,
there's the cost of the materials themselves, the metal
enclosures, the carriage assemblies, the styluses and their
mountings. If you can buy enough of these items or make enough of
them at one time, you can realize some substantial reductions,
which we have done several times. But if you insist on selling
durable hardware, as we do, there are certain minimum
requirements for strength and hardness of parts which cannot be
compromised. That will limit your ability to cut the cost of the
actual components beyond a certain point.
  The second major cost of a product such as ours is labor. If
you insist on holding onto good workers for development,
assembly, support, and administration, then you just have to face
slowly but steadily rising labor costs as a fact of life. You can
offset these somewhat by improving assembly techniques to reduce
the hours per unit, but truly dramatic cuts in this area are
rare, once you get past the first generation of a technology.
  Now we come to the third major cost area: for the moment I'll
call it marketing, though it is actually somewhat broader than
the strict definition of marketing. The activity I'm talking
about is the whole process of bringing the technology before the
providers and possible consumers in a setting where they can
decide fairly on its usefulness and its competitiveness. As you
have often heard, most hardware manufacturers consider our market
to be so small that they find it not worth the trouble. But for
all that, it is a complex marketplace, and the cost of conducting
it is relatively high.
  Much of the marketplace actually takes place in the exhibit
halls of hotels hosting annual conventions and conferences on a
national, regional, or local scale. Some agencies receive visits
from marketing representatives who demonstrate or conduct
workshops on their products before groups of potential providers
and consumers. Some agencies and organizations maintain
technology centers where products may be worked with at length,
often without the intrusion of a marketing representative.
  When the time comes for the actual purchasing transaction, a
local dealer is frequently involved. Sometimes, but not always,
this dealer contributes productivity to the interaction in the
form of a helpful demonstration, a question-and-answer session,
or perhaps hands-on support. And, speaking of support, the
responsible manufacturer and/or distributor must make some
allocation of resources for supportive interaction with the
operator of the newly-arrived device in order to insure that it
ultimately becomes a productive tool. Each of these activities
costs something, and since the costs are not paid in the
marketplace, they must of necessity be added to the price of the
product.
  As I comment on each of these marketing activities, I do not
want to be interpreted as a harsh critic of this process. Without
question much of the interactive marketing process we have all
evolved in this field is extremely productive. The only question
is whether there might be some duplication of effort and perhaps
some activity which is not productive enough to be cost-
effective. Ultimately, of course, the choices are yours.
  Let's start with an easy one. Taken as a whole, the schedule of
conferences and conventions provides a crucial opportunity for
many consumers to take a reasonably long look at new technology.
I imagine I would be ridden out of here on a rail if I said
anything else. And yet, speaking strictly for my own staff, the
scheduling decisions made by some can have unnecessarily
extravagant consequences. If a conference whose exhibits justify
my sending only a single representative schedules one or more
twelve-hour days, I have to send at least two staff members, or
at least I choose to do so on humanitarian grounds. This doubles
my costs for such a conference, and though it may sound like a
small matter, it happens several times a year and actually plays
a part in our pricing structure.
  A similar result is produced if a conference exhibit schedule
calls for more days than it takes to serve our guests or if few
of the conference attendees examine the exhibits. I sometimes
think we now suffer, if that is the correct word, from an over-
abundance of exhibit invitations so that some interested parties
have many chances for inspecting what's new, while some others,
perhaps because they live in remote areas, may have no
opportunity at all.
  Beyond the issue of duplication, some exhibits, especially
those held in or near our nation's capital, seem to be
excessively expensive, in the cost both of actual space and of
small amenities such as chairs and waste-baskets. You wouldn't
believe what we have sometimes paid at the President's Committee
just to plug our forty-foot extension cord into the nearest wall
socket. I'm not sure what can be done about that kind of problem
except to ask for your understanding if we don't show up to
exhibit in some of these truly extravagant exhibit halls.
  Incidentally, in no way do I mean to imply that exhibit
activity or any of the other functions discussed here must lead
to sales in order to be judged productive. All we are talking
about is a reasonable flow of potential consumers to justify the
time and other resources expended. If a reasonable number of
sales don't result from that, then we're in the wrong business or
at least we have the wrong products.
  On the subject of technology centers, I believe most companies
in this field offer discounts, as we do, to help the agencies in
question with the tremendous cost of owning and maintaining a
full set of demonstration equipment. Such centers provide
invaluable service to consumers, particularly when they can spend
enough time working in the center to complete at least one actual
project using a fully functional system. If there is waste or
extravagance in the handling of this equipment, it would be when
agencies take a machine out of the actual technology center and
place it permanently in someone's office to boost that person's
productivity on the job. When this occurs, the discounted
equipment simply represents an empty marketing cost, which has to
be passed on to future buyers.
  I said earlier that the participation of a local dealer is
sometimes, but not always, productive. I hope I'm not shocking
anyone by pointing out that a dealer or a regional distributor
frequently receives anywhere from 15 to 25 percent of the
purchase price, and in rare cases the rate can run as high as 40
percent. This is money which has to be figured into the price of
a product, over and above the cost of goods, maintenance through
the warranty period, shipping, and collections. And what do you
get for your 15 to 25 percent? Well, very often you get extremely
knowledgeable installation, training, and even ongoing support
for the user. In those instances you are receiving excellent
value for your money.
  In other instances a dealer has no trained personnel to help
with installation or training and thus contributes nothing but
cost to the transaction. Such dealers are often placed in the
loop by state or even local governments in the form of a
requirement that all publicly funded computer-related purchases
be made through a single designated source. When this occurs, it
is unlikely that the dealer who obtains such an exclusive state
or local contract will feel obligated to do more than dial our
support number should any questions arise during installation.
And while we are glad to provide such support to each and every
customer, we don't feel you should have to pay twice for that
support, when you only need to get it from one reliable source.
  I will not burden you with further examples on the subject of
getting what you pay for because I believe most of you have more
than a little skill in this area yourselves. Let me just say
that, when I look around our plant in Stuart, Florida, trying to
find ways to increase our efficiency in the factory, the service
and support center, the engineering labs, or the accounting
department, the key word is always productivity. If I can find a
way to build more units without increasing staff or relaxing
exacting quality standards, I have increased productivity and
lowered costs. If we collectively decide we can conduct an
effective marketplace without paying for some of the activity we
have been paying for, we will be effectively doing the same
thing.
  I think we can all agree that the kind of technology some of us
in this room manufacture costs more than comparable technology
designed for larger markets. Even so, the natural forces of this
small but bustling and reliant market have helped bring prices
dramatically down in this field over the past twenty years. As I
said earlier, from here on the ground may get a bit tougher to
win in the area of cost-reduction. And we will all need to remain
vigilant in the marketplace to insure that we not only pay for
what we get, but get what we pay for.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: David Andrews]

                   __TECHNOLOGY FOR THE _BLIND

                     __WHAT IS LEFT TO _DO?

                       __by David Andrews

                 Director, Communication Center
             Minnesota State Services for the _Blind

  I am going to talk about two areas today: access to
applications under the Graphical User Interface and access to
consumer electronics. I believe these are the two biggest areas
of concern facing us in the access technology field today. I also
believe that much of the brains and the metaphorical brawn in the
blindness field are present, or at least represented, in this
room today. If we combine our strengths, resources, and efforts
and work together, I believe we can solve the problems we face in
these areas.
  For most of the past ten years we have been preoccupied with
access to the so-called Graphical User Interface (GUI). In a
relatively short time we have seen the development of software
which allows blind persons to use the Apple Macintosh; Microsoft
Windows 3.0, 3.1, and 3.11; Windows 95; and Windows NT. There has
also been software for IBM's OS/2 and X-Windows running under
Unix. Some of these operating systems have only one commercial
product, and others aren't yet commercially viable or available
products. Nevertheless, there have been much development and an
amazing amount of progress in a relatively short time.
  The Microsoft Windows area has seen the most activity. There
are at least twelve products either on the market or announced.
In the Windows 95 area there are just as many products, although
more of them are announcements, not shipping products. Things are
a little sparser in the Windows NT arena. Only one product has
shipped as of this writing, and there are several other
announcements of intended products. Access to Windows NT is of
increasing concern to blind computer users as more and more
corporations switch to it.
  I mentioned that we have seen great progress in this area. As
an example, Microsoft Windows was originally introduced in the
mid 1980's. We saw no access to it for blind users, however,
until 1992. Conversely, Windows 95 was introduced in August of
1995--who could forget--and we saw the first access packages
introduced less then six months later.
  While we have seen significant progress, access to Windows is
not without its problems. As I mentioned earlier, the number of
choices is uneven. While Windows receives good coverage, there is
only one product each for the Macintosh, OS/2, and Windows NT.
There is not yet a commercially available product for X-Windows
although there has been some work in this area. To a large extent
this is controlled by the commercial success of the underlying
operating system. Since DOS and Windows dominate the market, they
will necessarily receive more attention from the access
developers. Nevertheless, for those who work in a Mac, a Windows
NT, or an X-Windows shop, this issue is going to seem pretty
important. I am not sure what the ultimate answer is since
marketplace forces will always drive development work.
  Let us concentrate on Microsoft Windows, because that is the
area that affects most people. As I see it, access can be divided
into two parts: using the operating system and its tools, and
using applications such as word processors, spreadsheets, and web
browsers. I think that the first part, while not perfect, is
pretty well solved. Most of the access packages on the market
today do a pretty good job of letting us use the basic operating
system and its built-in tools. This has come about in part
through the hard work and ingenuity of the software developers
working on screen-access products and in part through the
assistance of the Windows Accessibility Group at Microsoft.
  The current crop of screen-review programs gives us access to
the operating system and the applications run on top of it using
facilities in the operating system. They hook into the operating
system to know what is going on. Because of the aforementioned
ingenuity and effort, this works pretty well for Windows itself.
However, it doesn't work at all well for some applications. Many
programs, such as databases and spreadsheets, may use their own
methods for representing objects such as text, graphics, and
controls on the screen. If they do not use the facilities built
into the operating system, then the operating system doesn't know
what they are doing. Consequently the screen-review program can't
know what that application is doing. Thus interaction with
specific applications is the big unsolved problem in Windows
access today. We have partial access, but it is often
unpredictable and inconsistent.
  Microsoft has developed a mechanism to help with this
situation. It is called "Active Accessibility." While it was
being developed, it was also called OLE Accessibility, Helper
DLL, AbleHelp, and ActiveX Accessibility, among others. You might
be more familiar with one of those terms.
  Simply put, this is a method for an application to pass out to
the operating system information about what it is doing. If, for
example, Microsoft Excel draws a pie chart on your computer
screen, it can pass out information about the different sections
of the pie: their labels, coordinates, size, color, etc. This
information can then be used to provide an alternative
representation of the pie chart.
  Active Accessibility is not necessarily the only way we can
gain access to applications and the data they contain; but, while
a few people don't think it will work or is unlikely to be
implemented, most technical people assure me that it will. In
fact, Microsoft announced Active Accessibility at the Closing the
Gap conference last month, and it has already been implemented in
Microsoft Internet Explorer version 3.0. I am sure that Chuck
Oppermann will update us on it.
  What is left to do? A number of things. First, screen-review
program developers need to support Active Accessibility in their
products. While this has been difficult to do before now, when
Active Accessibility was in a beta-test form only, it is near
completion, and the time has come to adopt it. Second, there are
two things Microsoft can do. It must adopt Active Accessibility
in its own products. For it to work, an application developer
does have to write some code in his or her application
implementing Active Accessibility. While this is not an excessive
amount of work, apparently it is somewhat more than a trivial
task. Nonetheless, Microsoft needs to lead the way in
implementing Active Accessibility. Also they must add tools and
documentation to their programming languages, such as Microsoft
C++ and Visual Basic, making it simple and painless for
programmers to implement Active Accessibility in their
applications. Since Microsoft is so dominant in the software
field, if they do these two things aggressively, they will pave
the way for others to adopt Active Accessibility.
  The second part of the equation involves all of us.. I believe
that adoption of Active Accessibility will ultimately be a
political matter, not a technical one. Active Accessibility will
not succeed unless all of us go out and lobby software
developers, including divisions of Microsoft, to implement it in
their programs. As you well know, we are a small minority, of no
commercial interest to most software companies. Thus we will have
to be creative and persistent in our efforts to get Active
Accessibility adopted and supported. Ultimately we may find it
necessary to get legislation adopted that would make it
mandatory, the way the deaf community did with closed-caption
decoders, although I doubt this approach will be necessary.
Nonetheless, I call on all the organizations and companies
gathered here today to support the Active Accessibility effort. I
believe it offers the best chance for us to gain access to
applications that are now closed to us.
  I now wish to turn to access to consumer electronics devices
such as VCR's; stereo receivers and boom boxes; CD players;
televisions; and even microwave ovens, stoves, clothes washers,
and dryers. In my opinion access to these devices poses a much
bigger problem to blind people than access to computers. This is
because computers are software-based open systems. It is possible
to add software or hardware and intercept data to find out what
is going on inside. On the other hand, most consumer electronics
devices are closed systems. They are generally self-contained and
operate alone or with similar or related devices from the same
manufacturer.
  I did some research by going out to my local electronics
superstore and checking out a wide variety of products in the
categories just mentioned. In general I found that I was able to
operate the basic functions of most devices. Most products have
physical controls that I could use. The one major exception to
this was microwave ovens. All of these had large, flat panels
with different buttons or pressure points located underneath the
clear plastic covering. While some makers offer Braille
templates, not all do, and it could be difficult to create them
oneself because of the restricted space.
  Many devices today have controls or display and menu systems
based on digital electronics. As an example, I bought a video
cassette recorder about three years ago. I can watch videos, but
more complicated tasks, such as programming a timed recording,
are impossible. The system uses a series of on-screen menus which
are completely inaccessible to me. These on-screen menus are
becoming much more common and often make access difficult or
impossible. Further, many devices now display information which,
while not necessary for operating the device, would be nice to
have. For example, there are radios that will tell you what
artist, album, and song you are currently listening to or display
other information the radio station chooses. Services are also
now available that provide on-screen TV listings. With cable
systems having dozens of channels and hundreds more coming in the
future, access to this kind of information will be increasingly
necessary for users.
  In the June, 1996, _Braille _Monitor Curtis Chong, President of
the NFB in Computer Science, wrote a piece called "guidelines for
making commercial technology accessible to blind persons." If you
have not read this excellent article, I urge you to do so. While
I agree with everything that Curtis says, I think that one of his
principles isn't achievable in the real world. Chong says, "One
method for accomplishing this goal would be to provide speech
output, either built into the appliance or available as a low-
cost accessory. Given the increasing sophistication of digital
technology, this may well become a necessity for the appliances
of tomorrow." The goal to which he refers is what he calls
"usability built-in." This means that whatever we need to operate
the device should be a part of that device. Chong further says
that we shouldn't need a $1000 accessibility aid to operate a
device costing a few hundred dollars or less.
  While I agree with these statements, I also do not believe that
manufacturers are going to build speech into the thousands of
consumer electronic devices on the market. I even think it is
fairly unlikely that they will offer low-cost speech add-ons for
their products. For this reason I believe we must develop a low-
cost universal means of access.
  As you will recall, I titled these remarks: "Technology for the
Blind: What Is Left to Do?" This is where you and I come in. I
think that as a field we must work together and devote resources
to developing a universal means of access to consumer electronic
devices. Greg VanDerheiden and his colleagues at the Trace
Research and Development Center at the University of Wisconsin
have done work in developing an infrared link. This would involve
installing an infrared port in each consumer device and having a
receiver/controller, which would pick up the infrared output and
change it to speech, large print, or Braille output. This
receiver could be an add-on to an existing device such as a
Braille 'n Speak or a separate device.
  An infrared port, produced in mass quantities, could be
relatively inexpensive--probably a dollar or two, or less, per
device. It could also be used by other groups of disabled people
and general market peripherals, such as universal remote
controls, which would make its adoption more likely. Finally, I
think that, while an infrared port isn't the best solution in an
ideal world, it is a pragmatic solution that we can bring about.
  So what do we need to do? As a field all of us involved with
blindness and blind people need to work together to define our
access needs for consumer electronics and propose a system that
we can then lobby for. It may well be that my infrared proposal
isn't the best one; however, we need to come to consensus on this
matter and get going.
  This situation is only going to get worse. Once we have a
proposal we all can live with, we can work together to get it
adopted. It may well be that we will want to do what the deaf
community did with closed captioning. Now, by law, most
television sets must have an internal closed-caption decoder
built in. If we develop a universal infrared port system or a
universal speech output port, we can then work to get it built
into all devices.
  I would like to commend Dr. Jernigan and the National
Federation of the Blind for having the wherewithal and desire to
bring all of us together. In this room we have represented the
majority of the leadership in our field, including consumer
groups, agencies, and developers of technology. Let us not waste
this opportunity to develop a plan of action that will benefit
all blind persons for years to come. I believe that our access to
the Graphical User Interface can best be served by getting on the
Microsoft Active Accessibility bandwagon. It offers the best hope
for us to increase our access to computer applications.
  Second, I do not think that we have devoted the time and
resources to the problem of access to consumer electronics that
they deserve. While they are not generally as dramatic as
computers that can provide employment to blind people, we are
finding it increasingly difficult to use all the features of many
devices. This situation will only get worse. It also may impinge
on the employment arena, as office devices like fax machines,
photo copiers, and even telephones become more difficult or
impossible to use.
  Let us work together and concentrate our resources on
guaranteeing blind persons access to computer software and
electronic devices for years to come!

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Fred Schroeder]

          __THE REHABILITATION SERVICES _ADMINISTRATION

                        _AND _TECHNOLOGY

                __by Fredric K. Schroeder, _Ph.D.

                          _Commissioner

                 __U.S. Department of _Education

            _Rehabilitation _Services _Administration

  There is no doubt that technology, in all of its modern forms,
offers greater opportunity for employment than has ever before
been possible. The number and variety of jobs now available to
blind people is greater today than at any time in history.
Nevertheless, we must not confuse the capacity of blind people to
compete with the tools by which that capacity is demonstrated.
Technology represents a collection of tools, nothing more and
nothing less. This is not to say that it is, therefore,
unimportant. Without technology many vital opportunities for
employment and integration would be lost. Yet it is not
technology that gives blind people the capacity to compete.
  It is tempting to ascribe to technology the credit for the
advances which blind people have made; and of course many of
these advances could not have been made without new technologies.
While an inseparable relationship exists between human capacity
and the tools that enable us to express that capacity, I believe
the two must be viewed in their proper relationship. Michelangelo
was not a brilliant artist because of the tools that allowed him
to paint and sculpt, although without these tools his brilliance
could not have been expressed in the ways the world reveres. Yet
society does not ascribe to the brush and chisel the marvel of
the Sistine Chapel or the magnificence of Michelangelo's David.
Yet too often society regards the achievements of the blind as
disproportionately attributable to the tools we use.
  I believe this is due to what I regard as the major impediment
to the full integration of the blind into society. In the United
States blind people have been organized for more than half a
century through the National Federation of the Blind. As you
know, Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, President Emeritus of the Federation,
has taught us that the real problem of blindness is not the lack
of eyesight but societal misunderstanding about blindness. As we
discuss exciting new technologies, we must keep this principle in
mind and help society and blind people themselves understand that
the capacity of blind people may be expressed through technology,
but technology does not give us our capacity.
  I will begin by discussing a number of technology-related
issues within the U.S. federal government. I would like to start
by thanking Don Barrett, who works with me at the Department of
Education, for his assistance in providing the technical
information in this discussion.
  It is estimated that the communications and information sector
of the economy amounts to about $713 billion, or roughly 11
percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. Last February
President Clinton signed landmark telecommunications legislation.
The act makes clear that the forty-nine million Americans with
disabilities are entitled to share fully in the benefits of the
telecommunications services and equipment becoming such an
essential element of our educational, social, political, and
economic future.
  In adopting Section 255 of the Act, Congress expressed its
clear intent that telecommunications services and equipment be
made accessible to all people with disabilities to the extent
such access is readily achievable. The Act requires manufacturers
of telecommunications equipment to meet accessibility guidelines.
  In the Spring a federal advisory committee was formed by the
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
(ATBCB) and has been meeting regularly to develop recommendations
to serve as the basis of the regulations implementing this
Section. The thirty-five-member group will have its
recommendations finished by December, 1996. The ATBCB plans to
publish implementing regulations in August, 1997. I believe the
current state of technology--if you will, the maturity of the
technology--has made it possible for such a broad-based piece of
legislation as the Telecommunications Act to be proposed, passed,
and now signed into law.
  The Rehabilitation Act recognizes that for blind people and
others with disabilities to work competitively, federal agencies
must purchase equipment useable by people with disabilities.
Specifically, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires the
establishment of guidelines "...for electronic and information
technology accessibility designed to ensure, regardless of the
type of medium, that individuals with disabilities can produce
information and data, and have access to information and data,
comparable to the information and data, and access, respectively,
of individuals who are not individuals with disabilities."
  These guidelines and supporting bulletins were developed a
decade ago and were published as part of the Federal Information
Resource Management Regulations (FIRMR). Recently, as part of
regulatory reform, the FIRMR was eliminated and replaced by the
Information Technology Management Reform Act, which is intended
to improve upon existing acquisition processes, believing that
past practices moved too slowly, were out of sync with
technological change, and in general needed to be more aligned
with acquisition processes in the commercial world.
  A small portion of the requirements previously contained in the
FIRMR were retained and incorporated into the Federal Acquisition
Regulations (FAR). The FAR is a brief, streamlined document; and
therefore much of the guidance contained in the previous FIRMR
and its accompanying bulletins, C-8 and C-10, has been lost. The
only reference to accessibility now contained in the FAR is a
general statement that Federal agencies need to be responsive to
accessibility requirements.
  While many have expressed concern that these changes have
weakened accessibility requirements, it should be noted that in
the absence of penalties for noncompliance in the past, many
federal agencies had only minimally complied with or, in some
cases, totally ignored accessibility requirements. I believe that
the commitment of federal agencies to provide useable technology
for people with all types of disabilities is stronger today than
it has ever been.
  For example, the U.S. Department of Education now employs two
full-time assistive technology consultants. Their job is to
assist employees with disabilities in identifying their
assistive-technology needs and to make recommendations for the
purchase of specialized equipment for their use. In addition,
when the Department is considering software purchases for general
use, the Department's assistive-technology consultants are part
of the planning and selection process, ensuring that
accessibility issues have been appropriately addressed. For
example, the Department's Information Resources Group is
presently considering the purchase of a Windows-based software
suite that will meet Departmental requirements for compatibility,
flexibility, and accessibility.
  In addition to purchasing commercial software, the Department
of Education contracts for the development of a substantial
quantity of customized software. In the past accessibility issues
were often not addressed until after a piece of software had been
developed and tested and was ready to be put into general use.
Today the Department is addressing accessibility issues at the
design and development stage, thereby eliminating the lost time,
inconvenience, and often substantial added expense associated
with modifying customized software for accessibility after the
fact.
  As part of a Departmental effort to address the recruitment and
advancement of people with disabilities, in September of this
year the Department hired a Section 504 Coordinator to provide
technical assistance to Principal Offices throughout the agency.
This position was established at a senior level and is located in
the Department's Office of Management. Within one month the 504
Coordinator, Jenni Mechem, recommended the purchase of six
Braille printers for use throughout the Department. Within the
Department's Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services, plans are underway to create an alternate formats
center to facilitate the production of Braille, large-print,
cassette, and electronic materials.
  These efforts by the Department of Education are increasingly
commonplace throughout federal agencies. This may be a result of
heightened awareness about accessibility as a result of civil
rights legislation such as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
and, more recently, the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Additionally, adaptive technology has matured to the point that
in many cases it is now readily compatible with ordinary
technology, thereby making it less intimidating, less foreign,
and easier to install and operate.
  In spite of significantly streamlined regulations, many federal
agencies are aggressively pursuing accessibility in large
computer acquisitions. For example, this summer the Social
Security Administration made a very large purchase which
contained more than ten pages of specific functional performance,
accessibility-related specifications. This award was for a
national installation of approximately 50,000 workstations, which
will affect the jobs of over 600 disabled people throughout the
country.
  As you know, the development of accessibility specifications is
only the first step. What remains to be seen is the degree to
which federal agencies insist that performance testing meets
specified accessibility requirements. The General Services
Administration (GSA) is using the Social Security specifications
as a model and providing them to agencies to include in similar
procurements. One difficulty which we and other federal agencies
have experienced concerns the need for a relatively concise,
usable, and performance-based document that outlines
accessibility requirements for developers. Microsoft has produced
a number of technical documents; however, we still need a simple,
functional document that could be used government-wide by Chief
Information Officers as part of the procurement process.
  Also GSA is discussing the adoption of accessibility-related
performance testing for software and hardware similar to that
already in use by the Canadian government. We hope that such a
system will be established as a way of assisting agencies in
addressing many of the complex issues surrounding accessible
technology. I am told that GSA is developing a white paper on
this topic and that a Web page may be forthcoming to distribute
information on this issue.
  As you may be aware, the entire Rehabilitation Act, including
Section 508, is scheduled for reauthorization next year. It is
imperative that the Congress have appropriate information on
which to base any changes to the Act. I believe it is critical to
the future employment of blind people and others with
disabilities in the federal government that Section 508 be
preserved and, where appropriate, strengthened.
  In addition to federal employment, the Rehabilitation Services
Administration (RSA) is concerned with the employment of blind
people and others with disabilities in all aspects of the
American workforce. The RSA was established by Congress as the
principal federal agency authorized to carry out specified
portions of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; the
Randolph-Sheppard Act, as amended; and the Helen Keller Act.
These Acts establish comprehensive and coordinated programs of
vocational rehabilitation and independent living for individuals
with disabilities through services, training, research, and
economic opportunities in order to maximize their employment,
independence, and integration into the workplace and the
community.
  The Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program is the largest
program authorized by the Rehabilitation Act and accounts for
nearly 2.2 billion dollars of RSA's more than 2.4-billion-dollar
budget. This program provides a wide variety of services intended
to assist eligible clients in securing, maintaining, retaining,
and advancing in employment. The program is administered through
State Rehabilitation Agencies, which all states have. In fact, in
twenty-five states there are separate agencies that work
exclusively with the blind.
  An important responsibility of RSA is to support state-agency
efforts to deliver high-quality technology-related training and
services. For example, in the past year we have funded programs
at the Mississippi State Research and Training Center on
Blindness and Low Vision and the National Federation of the Blind
to provide training to state vocational rehabilitation personnel
in the use of adaptive technology for the blind.
  We believe it is critically important that rehabilitation
personnel have appropriate training and information on the very
latest technology available to assist blind people in employment
and in living independently. When blind people turn to the
rehabilitation system in need of help, the system must have the
expertise to assist them in preparing for high-quality
employment. The cornerstone of good rehabilitation practice is a
partnership between the rehabilitation professional and the
client, a partnership in which the client has access to the
information, professional experience, and expertise necessary to
make informed choices about his or her vocational goal and the
services that will enable the client to reach that goal. Integral
to this partnership is a fundamental belief in the ability of
blind people to compete on terms of equality with others.
  The tools which blind people use offer increasing opportunities
for the blind to demonstrate their talents and abilities in
competitive and efficient ways. Yet it is blind people themselves
who possess these individual talents and abilities. The capacity
of all people is expressed through the technology which we, as
human beings, have created. In the third century B.C.,
Archimedes, the Greek mathematician, engineer, and physicist,
proved the law of the lever. With this knowledge, he is reported
to have boasted to Hero, King of Syracuse, "give me a place to
stand, and I will move the entire earth." The lever constituted
the means, but it was man who had the inspiration.
  Too often technology has excluded the blind; hence our efforts
have been concentrated on making accessible those technological
devices others take for granted. The blind need technology as do
others in our society. We need usable technology that allows
blind people to demonstrate efficiently their talents and
capacities. To accomplish this, we must first complete the
process of educating society and ourselves about the true meaning
of blindness--the truth that the blind have the ability to
compete on terms of equality with others, that we are able to
contribute fully to the social and economic mainstream, that this
ability is not the product of the technology we use but is
expressed _through this technology.
  In all of its forms technology provides tools which more than
ever before give blind people today the opportunity to pursue the
same interests and ambitions as others. If we Americans are wise,
we will design our emerging technologies to serve the greatest
possible number of people. By creating an inclusive society, we
are made stronger as a nation. By recognizing the ability of all
people to contribute, we can begin to break down the artificial
barriers which have too often kept blind people and others
unemployed and isolated. Perhaps President Clinton said it best
when he stated:

  Universal design of our National Information
  Infrastructure will give us the technology we want with
  the flexibility we need. Not only will it make
  information technology work better for us all, but also
  it will make it easier for people with disabilities to
  access and use the powerful new information tools of the
  future.


                      _SUMMARY _OF _REMARKS


                         David Lepofsky

  Mr. Lepofsky began by identifying himself as a longtime
consumer in the field of technology for the blind. He also heads
an organization of visually-impaired lawyers and co-chairs a
province-wide lobby seeking new disability access legislation. He
pointed out the ironies surrounding blind people who use
technology. He is the most computer-literate attorney in his
fifty-person office, but computer stores have almost no software
he can use. In the eighties computers provided a true employment
opportunity for blind people, but today, because of the barriers
to efficient access for visually impaired users, computers are
providing roadblocks to employment. Moreover, the software
producers whose products are causing most of the problems are the
very ones whose size, creativity, and wealth make them the best
equipped to help resolve the difficulties. The final irony is
that, although many of the technological gadgets blind people use
are denigrated as meeting special needs, sighted people often
express interest in having such technology available to them as
well. He cited optical character recognition, which was first
developed for reading machines and is now chiefly used in the
general marketplace.
  Turning to the concept of equality, Lepofsky said that today
achieving equality is no longer understood to mean merely
removing existing barriers to full participation but rather
insuring that new barriers do not arise. The excuse that, "We
never realized we were causing you a problem," is no longer
acceptable; it is an offense. It is far easier to eliminate
barriers at the design stage than it is to correct the problem in
the finished product.
  The problems faced by blind computer users today are serious.
For most of us, identifying the product that will meet our
individual needs is next to impossible. Most shoppers have many
other things on their minds: adjusting to blindness, deciding on
a career, finding a job. They have no expertise in access
technology.
  Lepofsky's vision for the future is that he hopes to see the
day when one doesn't have to be a computer expert before becoming
a lawyer. He wants computer stores to be as accessible as
bookstores have become. He wants access-technology developers to
remember that the average user is virtually computer-illiterate.
He urges mainstream software developers to create keyboard
commands for every mouse command. This will please sighted users
and cut down on carpel-tunnel syndrome. He thinks that these
developers should ask themselves what the six most frequently
used commands are and provide a screen listing them with simple
commands for executing the commands. The pull-down menus would be
available for those who like looking at them, but the rest of us
would have a streamlined screen most of the time. Finally he
would like to see program designers held to the same disability-
access standards that building architects are now required to
meet.
  Education about the needs of disabled computer users may help,
but ultimately software producers must be forced by litigation
and legislation to do what is right. If governmental purchasers
will refuse to buy software that is not accessible, the economic
pressure will do wonders. Also, if the media will provide bad
press to those producers who are not being constructive, they
will quickly reform their ways.


                         Mohymen Saddeek

  Mr. Saddeek is optimistic that we are approaching the point
where specialized technology for the blind and mainstream
technology will meet. Eventually computers will be operated
primarily by voice commands and will speak to the user. The
technology is improving rapidly, and soon it will be good enough
to make computerized voices attractive to sighted users. Then the
prices will go down.
  Saddeek is now working with others to produce voice synthesis
that is vastly better than anything that has gone before. Not
only is the quality better, but it will be possible to replicate
particular human voices. Some of these products should be in
production within a year. In short, he looks forward to the
future and is eager to work with anyone interested in
collaboration.


                          Deane Blazie

  Mr. Blazie began by demonstrating several new instruments with
voice output for use in scientific laboratories. The first was a
Multimeter, which can be purchased for under $200 at Radio Shack
and cabled to a Braille 'n Speak or other such product to provide
voiced readouts. The Multimeter can measure amps, milliamps, and
microamps, as well as temperature. It also measures the gain of a
transistor, capacitants, diodes, Ohms, logic states, frequency,
volts, and millivolts. He then demonstrated a PH meter, which
measures PH and temperature and gives the date and time. The
final piece of equipment was a laboratory-quality scale that
measures weights down to hundredths of a gram. These last two
tools each cost less than $500 and can also be cabled to a
Braille 'n Speak to provide speech output.
  Blazie Engineering's web page (www.blazie.com) includes short
manuals for operating these three pieces of equipment. Sources
for purchase and model numbers of the exact devices that will
work with Blazie products are also listed.
  Blazie has also recently designed software which is a graphing
scientific calculator. The program is called Graphit, and with it
one can enter up to ten Y-is-a-function-of-X equations, connect
the Braille 'n Speak to a Braille embosser with a graphics mode,
and produce a raised-line graph of the equations on X and Y axes.
The program costs $49 and runs on all the Blazie products.


                           Kevin Perry

  Mr. Perry described a very successful program conducted by the
Assistive Devices Program under the Ministry of Health of the
Province of Ontario in which closed circuit television systems
are purchased in bulk and distributed to people who need them and
who qualify for the program.


                         Ritchie Geisel

  Mr. Geisel announced that Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic
would be demonstrating its Digital Audio Project later that
afternoon. This is a Talking-Book system combining the fields of
digitized recording, audio production, and electronic text. It
enables RFB&D to index the text and place bookmarks for easy,
quick, random navigation of the entire text. This will be of
great use, particularly in academic texts.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Dennis O'Brien]

                         Dennis O'Brien

  IBM's long-standing policy of hiring disabled employees drove
development of its ScreenReader. Blind employees needed to read
their screens, so an IBM team developed a screen-reading product,
which was then marketed widely.
  Companies with strong accessibility policies will have broad
awareness of the problems and may well develop requirements for
accessible equipment. In 1991 the president of IBM promulgated an
organization-wide policy stating that all products were to be
made accessible. Having a strong policy, while necessary, is not
sufficient to guarantee access. Mr. O'Brien is the Product
Manager for IBM's Special Needs Systems. His group works with the
various product organizations within IBM to make sure they are
aware of the requirements for accessibility and that they know
how to interpret and apply the requirements in the products they
design. This is not intended to result in universal access. For
example, a product doing hand-writing recognition, while it may
be used by some blind people, is clearly not targeted at a group
needing speech recognition.
  O'Brien's group also develops some of the accessibility
extensions that are not necessarily part of a basic system but
are required for a total solution. They see that all necessary
interfaces and hooks are in the OS/2 Operating system, enabling
any access developer to build a magnification or screen-reading
product. But they also developed an IBM product to work with OS/
2. They did so because they thought they were in the best
position to develop a product that would stay current with
changes in the operating system. This has had the effect of
discouraging other developers from competing with IBM to provide
access to OS/2. O'Brien added that he believes the success of a
desktop or Internet system on a Windows or NT base is absolutely
dependent on the establishment of and eager adoption of something
like Active Accessibility, and IBM will do whatever it can to
work with Microsoft to make that happen.
  IBM works to promote development of emerging and future
technologies that will benefit people with disabilities. It tries
to sponsor applications of those technologies. O'Brien mentioned
a couple of the many projects under development. His group is
working with several universities and commercial partners to
develop tools for assisting people with learning disabilities to
read more effectively. Some of the tools used are already
employed in reading machines. If a larger market can be
identified for parts of this technology, the price of text
recognition will come down and the understanding of the need to
have it available will rise.
  IBM is working hard on speech output and speech recognition.
OS/2 now has voice recognition built in, which means that many
more people will try it. Many will reject it as still too
primitive, but many corporations are asking for voice-only
systems. This means that many more IBM personnel are now devoting
time and energy to applications that avoid the point-and-click,
GUI solutions. In the long run this can only benefit blind users.
It will, of course, make things harder for deaf people. IBM's
policy is to build in as many alternative modalities as make
sense for the given product and to make sure that each related
modality is as accessible as possible.
  O'Brien then announced that the new version of Screenreader
would be shipped by the end of the year or shortly thereafter. It
will capitalize on some of the features of OS/2 version 4 and has
a number of enhancements for Lotus Notes. They are now working
with the Lotus team to help ensure that in the future this
program will be more useful and accessible to more screen readers
on all platforms.
  IBM is now putting almost all of its efforts into network
computing. It is using the Internet for internal communication as
well as providing information to customers on web pages. The
Special Needs Systems has just published design guidelines to all
organizations within IBM that create and maintain information on
the Internet. They specify methods by which web content can be
enabled for accessibility by the popular browsers and screen
readers. The current guidelines deal primarily with HTML content,
which is most of today's content. They are working for the same
kind of guidelines for Java-based applications. With so many
entities within IBM producing web content, there is wide
variation in quality, structure, and design. All this is now
beginning to be monitored by the IBM web police to impose some
consistency, and they have agreed to use the Special Needs
Systems' guidelines in their work.
  The move toward networks with single units costing less than
$1000 has pitfalls for those interested in access. In such units
screen readers must be imbedded in the browser rather than in the
terminal.
  O'Brien concluded by pointing out that the real force for
change in an organization like IBM is customer demand. It doesn't
matter whether the demand arises from external or internal
requirements or litigation or consumer demand; if IBM's customers
ask for something in large enough numbers, IBM will respond.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Charles Oppermann with John Cheadle (left) and
Craig Gildner (right) behind him]

                        Charles Oppermann

  Seven people are now working at Microsoft on accessibility. The
model Microsoft uses is to put a program manager or developer
into a division and tell him or her to affect the accessibility
of that product. This strategy is more successful than trying to
effect change from outside the design group.
  Microsoft, too, has a company policy on accessibility, and this
is important, but it is not sufficient, as Dennis O'Brien said.
Internet Explorer 3.0 is the first Microsoft product to be
released that delivered on Microsoft's access commitment. The
company committed to making this web browser a showcase of
accessibility, but the first versions did not really live up to
the promise. Microsoft continues to improve access in its
browser, and the impact of these advances can be seen in the ease
with which screen readers are now able to accomplish things that
used to be hard for them.
  Active Accessibility is Microsoft's effort to allow producers
of access software of all kinds to learn more about what is
happening inside the operating system and inside applications.
Access to applications has been difficult because application
programmers do not have to let the operating system know what is
happening in the program, so screen readers haven't been able to
recognize an O.K. button. But Active Accessibility is a conduit
into an application for it to expose its user interface elements.
Using this tool, a programmer can find out a great deal about a
button--what it controls, whether it's been pushed, etc.--without
caring what it looks like on the screen.
  Active Accessibility is a foundation; it is not a complete
solution. It merely allows applications to expose their
information. It is up to the developers of application software
to implement this interface and make changes to their code. The
word "active" is in the title because applications must actively
partake in the process of becoming accessible. Historically the
entire responsibility has been for the screen reader to look at
the screen, decide what was going on, and report it. But the
application knows what is going on in the construction of a
graphic and can allow that information to be passed along to the
access software. Microsoft will be releasing the Active-
Accessibility technology by the end of the year. It is an add-on
technology that is shipped by the vendors who implement Active
Accessibility. Several vendors have already signed on. Syntha-
Voice Computing was the first screen reader producer to implement
the technology. Henter-Joyce and Artic are doing so right now..
  On the other side, producers are also beginning to sign on.
Microsoft has made changes to Windows 95 to support Active
Accessibility completely in all of its system-provider services.
Office 97 will include Active Accessibility. Microsoft is trying
to use its position as a leader to encourage other producers to
participate in Active Accessibility. Increased accessibility is
becoming a way of forcing others to pay attention to this
concept. Netscape's developers had no interest in access until
Internet Explorer demonstrated greater accessibility; now
Netscape is working to improve the browser.
  In conclusion Oppermann said that HTML is not the solution to
accessibility on the Internet because people are using it to
transfer objects rather than text. HTML is a conduit for code,
not textual data. Microsoft did a lot of work to say that, no
matter what the author specified, if the user has low vision, the
text should be displayed accessibly. Today anyone who wishes can
create a web page. It is impossible to educate all those people
about accessibility. Instead you must see that authoring
environments produce accessible HTML and that the objects are
accessible.
  In 1997 the challenge facing Microsoft is to see that Active X
objects and Java objects are accessible. Microsoft will be adding
Active Accessibility to the HTML object model, which is being
submitted to the standards board for the web.They are proposing
that for each HTML object there be a corresponding Active-
Accessibility interface. Only by moving the web into the object
realm can we get true access to it.
  Years ago Bill Gates adopted the motto: a computer on every
desk and in every home. Oppermann added one concept to that
motto: a computer on every desk, in every home, and usable by
everyone.

[PHOTO/CAPTION: Jim Halliday]

            __ACCESS, LITERACY, EQUALITY, AND _CHANGE

                  __by Jim Halliday, _President

                        _HumanWare, _Inc.

  __From the Editor: Mr. Halliday sent this paper to us following
the technology conference. It incorporated some of the comments
he made during the discussion and responded to ideas presented by
several of the speakers. It seemed appropriate to include it with
these proceedings. Here it _is:

  If any group has the power and influence to revolutionize our
industry, this is the one. Some of the following comments might
seem provocative, but they are meant to stimulate thinking and
promote further discussion.
  I will concentrate on four issues: where equal access stops and
equal environment starts; how we can dramatically increase
student access to Braille materials without increasing current
spending; why banks, utilities, insurance companies, etc. do not
send out Braille statements; and what software speech means to
the cost of product support.

1. __Access or Performance--A Question of _Environment
  Whether one discusses a business or an individual, judgments
regarding performance are inevitably based on results. It's a
hard, cold fact: a business with a negative bottom line won't be
in business for long, and an employee who can't get the job done
will be looking for new employment.
  Results are a consequence of many things: attitude, knowledge,
access to information, dedication, hard work, teamwork,
communication, caring, quality, accuracy, efficiency, experience,
innovation, etc. But if one's job is to produce an accurate
report filled with detailed statistics by Friday, then when
Friday rolls around, only one thing counts. It doesn't matter how
hard one works or how caring the person is or how many other
activities distracted him or her from accomplishing the required
goal. If the job is not done, the employee has failed and will be
judged accordingly.
  In the past a blind person's performance in many jobs was based
on his or her ability to access word processors and other
applications. Access was seen as the ultimate solution to a blind
person's employment problems. Access has been so elevated in
stature that equal access has become almost a graven image
substituting for equal performance. Even today we often mistake
access to WordPerfect or Word for Windows for our real goal,
which is simply the ability to do efficient word processing.
  But the rules have changed. Many of today's programs, as
opposed to those that held access as our only alternative, allow
us to save our work in multiple formats. For example, Jerry Kuns,
one of HumanWare's four blind employees, can produce a document
in a word processor called Keysoft, which runs on his Keynote
Companion, or on his laptop or desktop. He can save the document
as a WordPerfect file and give a disk copy to our PR person, who
uses a Mac, or to me for use in Word for Windows 95 or to a
friend who's still using a DOS version of WordPerfect. None of us
knows or cares what word processor Jerry uses to produce the
document because the results are transferable and ultimately
indistinguishable. Compatibility and adaptability are no longer
the issue; efficiency is. I'm interested in Jerry's productivity
and performance, not whether he works in Windows. The fact is
there's no way he would be nearly as efficient using a Windows
screen reader with Word as he is with the Keysoft word processor.
Results are the basis for measurement or judgment.
  In his speech Mohymen Saddeek made this same point about a
scheduling program/organizer designed specifically for blind
people. He went on to note that the power of a particular
computer becomes irrelevant as soon as we look toward an
environment that is equal for a blind person. Blind people don't
need Windows to get organized, take notes, do word processing,
send e-mail, or access the Internet. Oh, they certainly need to
perform these functions, but they will be much more efficient
working in a blindness-friendly environment.
  Curtis Chong made a very important point in his speech on
Universal Access when he implied that it is not possible to
accommodate every disability with the same environment. Windows
is an environment designed specifically for sighted people. At
some point the more kinds of disabilities Microsoft attempts to
accommodate with so-called equal access, the more likely it will
be to end up with a camel instead of a horse. In our heart of
hearts we all know that the greatest portion of the Microsoft
market wants a horse and that a camel truly won't meet the needs
of any single disability group.
  I'm certainly not saying that screen readers are irrelevant.
The fact is, Jerry Kuns also uses JAWS for Windows 95 with speech
and an ALVA Braille Terminal because there are still many other
applications that have not been created with a blind person in
mind, and therefore he still needs screen access. But screen
readers provide access to constantly moving targets and are only
as good as the speed with which they keep up with the latest
changes to those targets.
  My point in this issue is that we need to examine equal
application or equal environment as well as equal access. In
addition to screen access, developers need to concentrate on
creating more applications specifically designed for people who
are blind. The key is to ensure that the results of all work can
be saved in formats that are readable by and thus
indistinguishable from mainstream applications. We must get
beyond our worship of equal access as our only answer and begin
looking at new ways of enabling equal performance.

2. __Braille Literacy Starts with Braille _Access
  Braille literacy determines a blind student's capability to
learn, achieve, and compete in a results-oriented world. But true
literacy takes place only when true access exists. Dr. Jernigan
deserves our highest praise for his efforts in single-handedly
getting publishers to waive the copyright limitations that have
historically inhibited the production of Braille books. In time
this monumental achievement should assure that Braille books,
especially text books, will be readily available. At present,
however, Braille books still take months to produce, are in very
limited supply, and are produced and stored at horrific costs.
Millions of dollars are spent each year on this slow, expensive,
archaic method of providing blind kids with text books that are
already sitting at the publishing houses on computer disks.
  When I was talking with Ritchie Geisel, President of Recording
for the Blind & Dyslexic, he mentioned that the production of
electronic books would be dramatically increased in volume and
turnaround, if publishers would use HTML code (the code used in
producing Internet Web Pages) in formatting their books. Not only
does HTML provide a breadth of visual formatting options for the
production of printed materials, but it can be easily converted
into electronic text that can be read with speech or Braille.
Such a solution sounds perfect because it accommodates both
sighted and blind readers. Additionally, publishers may
ultimately want to make their books purchasable through the
Internet and would, therefore, benefit from producing books using
HTML.
  In Chuck Oppermann's speech, however, he suggested that HTML
needed to be replaced with a more complete and more powerful
language. I was initially deflated by this information, but after
some thought I realized that this might be a perfect time for the
leaders of our industry to get involved in promoting the
universal use of a language that truly accommodates the
production of books, whether they be in print, Braille, or
electronic formats. If we could all get behind this idea, the
number of electronic books available could increase
exponentially.
  The greatest problem facing our school-aged blind kids is how
to access these electronic books in Braille. Sighted kids carry
their textbooks around with them. Blind students deserve the same
opportunity. Paper Braille textbooks are generally impractical to
carry, but electronic books are easy. Instead of spending
millions on paper Braille production of a few books for a few
kids, we could divert a growing percentage of those same funds to
the purchase of portable Braille systems, similar to the Braille-
Lite, which students could carry with them wherever they go.
  We often hear how expensive Braille displays are, but would
those prices remain so high if we put one in the hands of every
school-aged blind child? How much would it cost to accomplish
this worthy goal? Not as much as we might initially think. Think
about the savings in time, effort, and storage, not to mention
trees, if thousands more books were instantly available in
electronic form and therefore readable on portable Braille
systems. Consider the fact that blind kids would be getting a
great deal more functionality than just accessing textbooks.
  The current production of paper Braille books does nothing to
help students access daily teacher handouts, all of which are
produced on a computer and could be easily copied onto a readable
disk. A portable Braille system could contain a terminal program
to make the Internet accessible in Braille. Blind students could
use the same device to send e-mail to each other or to blind or
sighted kids all over the world. Another extremely important use
for this product would be taking lecture notes and writing papers
and reports. All of this would keep our children who are blind on
a par with those who are sighted.
  Perhaps what I'm suggesting turns the system upside down and
threatens budgets protected for decades. But, as Dr. Ray Kurzweil
quoted the visionary thinking of Philadelphia's mayor supporting
the newly invented telephone, "Someday every city will have one
of these." We must not allow our thinking to be too constricted
by protecting the past. We are keeping school-aged blind kids
from competing effectively and achieving their potential because
we are not making writing and reading automatically available to
them as it is to their sighted peers. I'm certainly not
suggesting doing away with paper Braille any more than I would
disconnect the printer from my computer. And I'm not suggesting
coming up with brand new funding for this project. But I am
suggesting the diversion of some of the existing funds into a
project that is aimed at the future rather than one that is
focused on the past. Blind children deserve a level playing
field, and a portable Braille display/notetaker will provide just
that, if we can get a ground swell of support for such products
combined with the appropriate funding and commitments from
publishers and Braille houses. I believe this is a vitally
important project that we must all support.

3. __Braille Access--Knock, If You Want the Door to _Open
  Every kind of data is now stored in computers, which means that
it can be printed, which also means that it can be printed in
Braille. I recently asked myself, "Why don't blind people receive
their bank statements in Braille, not to mention their utility
bills or insurance and investment reports? Why don't city and
county governments have public information available in Braille?
There are enough print pamphlets and brochures available on all
kinds of subjects. Why not in Braille? There is certainly a need,
and the hardware and software exist to handle most kinds of
information. Some may require more formatting than others, but
it's pretty straightforward.
  So I hired a consultant to find out about this market and to
determine how we can better serve it. You know what the study
showed? Blind people were not asking for materials in Braille.
Most banks and utilities companies were willing to look into
producing Braille statements (or having them produced), but they
had no incentive because no one was asking for it. In fact, they
didn't even know which, if any, of their customers were blind.
  Only a grassroots effort by all of us can get this sort of
access off the ground. One shining example of this is Bob Sheffel
of the Metrolina Association for the Blind in Charlotte, North
Carolina. Bob worked hard to get the support of the Public
Utilities Commission and is now producing monthly statements in
Braille for Duke Power and other utilities companies.
  This is one of those situations in which the door stays shut
until somebody knocks; somebody who needs and wants the service.
HumanWare, Enabling Technologies, and Telesensory can all provide
Braille production systems; but banks, utilities, or county
agencies will not come to us until blind people go to them. Just
ask could be our new grassroots campaign.

4. __Technical support--Getting What You Pay _For
  At HumanWare we spend between 3 percent and 4 percent of our
gross sales revenues on technical support. This support relates
almost exclusively to speech and Braille products, which are just
under half our total sales. This means that about 6 percent of
the selling price of every blindness product we sell goes to
supporting the customers who use those products.
  We rarely sell a stand-alone piece of software. In fact, it is
usually sold with a computer and a synthesizer, but for the sake
of this exercise let's say we sell it with only a synthesizer. We
offer Keynote GOLDs and DECtalks, which usually sell for about
$1,000. Let's say the screen reader sells for $500, making the
total package $1,500. Our margin on that package is probably
about 36 percent. In other words, after we pay the supplier, we
have about $540 left. The sales channel generally costs us about
22 percent, which takes away $330 of that $540, leaving HumanWare
with $210. Tech support takes 6 percent of the gross, which is
another $90, so HumanWare has a grand total of $120 to cover
marketing, administration, quality assurance, and whatever is
left for the shareholders, who are wondering why they invested in
this crazy business when they could get a 5 percent guaranteed
return on their money in a bank CD.
  Now for the real kicker. Software speech means that a
synthesizer is no longer needed. Within the next year or so most
new computers will come with some kind of multimedia card that
may be able to work with screen readers.. Let's say we still sell
that screen reading software. Remember that the tech support is
on the software, so losing the synthesizer sale will not reduce
the support cost. In fact, it might increase it because the
multimedia card may need to be activated or configured in some
way. So if the screen reader sells for $500, HumanWare has $180
left after paying the supplier. The sales channel gets its 22
percent, $110, and tech support gets its $90, leaving HumanWare
with a contribution of minus $20. This is where the shareholders
stop wondering and start screaming!
  Clearly the cost of tech support has traditionally been
subsidized by the remaining margin from the sale of the hardware.
If the hardware goes away, there are only four likely options:
* Screen readers will become mail order items because sales
  people can't afford to demonstrate them, let alone support what
  they would sell.
* Sales people who choose to sell the products will sell them
  only with installation and training, which could easily double
  or triple the cost of the product.
* Companies that offer telephone support will begin charging for
  that support and, as with the general computer industry, toll-
  free lines for tech support will be history.
* Developers will begin providing more direct customer support
  and either charge for that support or increase the price of the
  product to cover their increased overhead.
  Bottom line, don't expect huge savings with the arrival of
software speech, but do expect to pay for technical support. In
discussing this issue with our blind customers and other industry
leaders, we hear that they are much more interested in quality
support than free support. The general recognition and acceptance
of this reality will go a long way toward improving the quality
of technical support throughout the industry.

[PHOTO: Those seated along the north leg of the U-shaped
conference table are visible in this picture. Dr. Jernigan, Dr.
Herie, and the flags can be seen at the far end of the room.
CAPTION: One of the most valuable parts of these technology
conferences is the time set aside for discussion. PHOTO: Ten of
the conferees are pictured here obviously listening carefully.
The table is strewn with print and Braille documents. CAPTION:
Conferees listen attentively to the discussion. PHOTO/CAPTION :
Tim Cranmer (left), Joe Sullivan (center), and Mary Ellen
Jernigan (right) take part in the conference.]

                   _DISCUSSION _AND _COMMENTS

  __From the Editor: The final three agenda segments of the
conference were devoted to discussion and comment. Here is a
summary of the points _made:

  Ray Kurzweil: Mr. Kurzweil praised Judy Dixon's enthusiasm for
low-tech solutions by quoting Albert Einstein, who said that
things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. He took
exception to her definition of low-tech as something without a
microprocessor. Her idea for a Braille gun for labeling, for
example, would require very sophisticated material science
engineering.
  In addition to Larry Israel's strategy for lowering prices in
this field by marketing its technology to a broader sector, he
pointed out that adapting main-market technology to the
particular needs of disabled users has the same effect. The PC is
a prime example. PC's are becoming smaller, smarter, more
efficient, and less expensive almost monthly. Software gives them
personality, and though the initial cost of designing software is
high, its production is very inexpensive.
  He found Tim Cranmer's ideas intriguing and thought that more
than just blind people would be interested in touching the
untouchable. This technology will require many approaches, and
user education will be important. He suggested that the
technology of the Optacon may be useful in examining pictures.
This would require higher resolution than currently possible, and
some way would have to be found to introduce the Z axis.
  David Lepofsky: Mr. Lepofsky began with a plea for more work to
develop a tougher, portable, four-track recorder. He went on to
say that the same people who don't read VCR manuals won't read
documentation for Windows and Windows 95. They, along with blind
people, would benefit from Microsoft's putting together basic
commands on one easily accessible screen and leaving the rest of
the pull-down menus to those who like them. He also said that, if
Microsoft is really committed to Active Accessibility, it could
build a component into the operating system that would force an
application to crash if it does not include Active Accessibility.
  Charles Oppermann: Mr. Oppermann rejected the idea that many
general-market users dislike the pull-down menus. He cited the
growing popularity of Windows products in the competitive market
as proof of his view. He pointed out that while icons may be eye-
candy, they represent much wider bands of information that is now
readily available to the user. Adding the code for Active
Accessibility must be done piecemeal with most pressing things
done first. Office 97 will have it in handling tool bars and
command bars. Excel cells will not yet be accessible, except in
the way the screen readers have been doing it until now. Fourteen
Microsoft products now have some Active Accessibility. The
priority list is office products first, educational products
next, and entertainment last. In building software, a programmer
uses chunks of code from previous incarnations. As things go
along, this recycling will make it easier to see that Active
Accessibility appears in new versions of programs.
  In response to David Lepofsky's reiterated suggestion that
Microsoft provide both hooks for other applications to use and
land mines to force them to do so, Oppermann said that Microsoft
would be sued immediately if it tried to do such a thing. But he
thought an outside group could design a program to check
accessibility or publish a blacklist of developers whose products
are not accessible.
  Microsoft has a program in which its logo can now be used by
producers whose applications work well with Windows and Windows
NT systems. In 1997 keyboard access will be a requirement, and
Active Accessibility will be recommended for those permitted to
use the logo. The list of recommendations indicates to
application producers the things that will soon be requirements
for those wishing to display the Microsoft logo. This puts
planners on notice for what they must do in coming years.
  William Raeder: Mr. Raeder announced that by late winter a
thirty-minute introduction to Windows 95 will be available in
Braille. He then asked the group whether there is any point for
National Braille Press to publish a tutorial on DOS. The vote
demonstrated that all but one person thought the project would be
a waste of money and effort.
  Kenneth Jernigan: Dr. Jernigan asked Mrs. Jernigan to review
how conference participants could try NEWSLINE(&+r). He then
announced that a spelling feature was now available to help
NEWSLINE(&+r) readers learn new words and names. There will also
soon be a profiling feature so that a reader can program the
service to provide articles in a prescribed order if desired.
Readers will also be able to conduct searches through all the
papers offered for stories on a particular subject.
  Emerson Foulke: A great deal of research has been done
demonstrating that the human brain has great capacity to retain
complex visual perceptions for a long time and that all kinds of
other information can be attached to these perceptions.
Unfortunately, very much less research has been done on audial
and haptic perception. Such evidence as there is suggests,
however, that, if tactile information is presented effectively--
and this is not necessarily the same way as for visual
observation--haptic perception may well be equally long-term and
useful.
  Dale McDaniel: Artic Technologies has corrected its early lack
of Braille and tape documentation, mentioned by Richard Ring in
his remarks. Ring also mentioned several functions that were
missing in Artic products, but he failed to say that they were
also 26 percent cheaper. Even when the functions were added, the
Artic products were still 19 percent less expensive. He then
commented that copy protection in this field is growing because
producers need some way to protect against piracy. If they were
producing a hundred million copies a year, they could raise their
price slightly and make up what they were losing through piracy.
Since this is not the case, is there something that people can
suggest to solve this problem without resorting to copy
protection?
  Larry Israel: Mr. Israel urged the large software producers to
find a way of bringing some kind of stability to their work so
that the access software producers can have some assurance that
their products will not be out of date in a year. With respect to
universal access, there will be times when providing access to
disabled people will mean inconveniencing that vaster audience.
When such conflicts arise, we know which way the big producers
will decide. We will never hear about it, but disabled people
will lose. Surely we should be talking about what mainstream
producers should consider when making such decisions.
  Tim Cranmer: To clarify his earlier point, Cranmer said that
tactile representations should not be merely touchable versions
of pictures. This is doomed to failure. He wants to create solid,
three-dimensional representations that reflect direct tactile
experience or an intuitive representation of tactile experience
so that blind people can gain information of the kind they would
get from direct contact. We must demonstrate the practicality of
reproducing solid, palpable imagery that is tactile, not visual
in nature.
  Jim Fruchterman: He is a member of the committee advising the
Access Board on the Telecommunications Act. They are trying to
get a ruling that the PC is a telecom device so that all the new
functions promised on the Internet will be required to be
accessible. The current standard is weak. It is that telecom
equipment must be made accessible if that is readily achievable
or, if not, compatible with specialized adaptive technology if
that is readily achievable. The committee members agree that, if
access can be achieved through software, that constitutes readily
achievable. If providing a port or infrared link allows a blind
user to have voice or Braille output using a notetaker, the port
or IR link should be required. The FCC and Access Board don't
have to take the committee's recommendations, and they can leave
them as recommendations or incorporate them into mandates.
Building in accessibility at the beginning is so easy for many
products that the committee is hopeful that it will happen.
Incorporating universal design increases the potential market for
a product, and it means that unnecessary barriers are not
created. Until now we have been jumping through hoops to meet the
demands of computers. The time has come for us to direct the
power of computers toward meeting our needs. Disabled people need
options--not things that everyone is forced to use--but the
opportunity to make the most of the computer.
  Judy Dixon: In something like automatic teller machines, the
convenience of having all of them usable by blind people is so
great that she is willing to accept the lowest common denominator
--speech. But if universal access in computers means using
speech, she is prepared to protest. One should be able to have
whatever kind of access one wants and can afford to purchase.
  Robert Wynn: Somehow the field must work together to find ways
of subsidizing access technology or otherwise bringing down the
high costs of this important equipment. Also we must find a way
to establish priorities for working on the various problems
facing the field.
  Mary Frances Laughton: She reported briefly on the work of a
Canadian Parliamentary task force. It brought down a report with
fifty-two recommendations made to the federal government about
how to fund a number of social programs. One suggestion is to ask
how people with disabilities will be affected by all activities
in the federal government. Canadians are also talking about the
Canadians with Disabilities Act. They will be talking with
Americans about how our act is working and where the problems
are. She is working to put in place some accessibility
checkpoints in government procurement. Canadians are also looking
at what should be done about the information superhighway.
  Brian Buhrow: He advocated that continuing support for software
purchases be paid for by blind users rather than having companies
try to cover the cost of support in the initial product cost.
  Larry Israel: A significant problem faced by the producers of
access technology is that users turn to them for solutions to
problems with the operating system or application even when they
have little or nothing to do with the access software.
Telesensory has not decided how to deal with this problem, and
Mr. Israel asked for suggestions.
  David Lepofsky: There is no way for most computer users to
distinguish between access software, application, operating
system, and hardware problems. And, since the access-software
producers are the only ones who will bother to deal with blind
users effectively, they are going to have to provide a range of
technical support for which users will pay if it is good support,
because the access software is worth nothing unless it can be
made to work.
  Kenneth Jernigan: It is a mistake to think that blind people
are unwilling or unable to pay for the good service they receive.
Lots of blind people--like many others--are destitute, but blind
people who buy computers and software are certainly willing to
pay for fairly priced service of this kind.
  David Andrews: Everybody will have to throw something into the
pot. The International Braille and Technology Center for the
Blind fields a lot of the technical support calls that should by
rights go to access program developers. This technology is
complex, and state agencies and governmental agencies have not
been good about paying for training and installation. They take
the lowest bid, and as a result users lose. Agencies buying
technology for blind people and blind users will all have to
begin paying for this service. The producers must begin providing
better technical support across the board; it is currently very
uneven. But there are still lots of people who want something for
nothing; that has to change.
  Kenneth Jernigan: If the support is first-rate and the vendors
do not apologize for charging but make it clear from the start
that there will be a charge, people will agree to pay for
valuable services. Andrews and Jernigan agreed that the overall
quality of the support would have to improve, or it will be worth
what people are now paying for it--nothing.
  David Pillischer: Mr. Pillischer's company puts systems
together and provides training and service. If the producers will
do a better job of controlling whom they allow to sell their
products, they will find that the number of technical calls they
receive will be greatly reduced and the quality of the questions
they are asked will increase.
  Curtis Chong:Perhaps charging for support could help solve the
copy protection problem as well. If users had to begin each tech
call by giving their registration number, it could be checked and
support provided to those with a number and refused to those
without one.
  Charles Oppermann: The problem with Curtis's idea is the
proliferation of demo products which must be installed before a
user decides whether or not to buy, thereby receiving a serial
number.
  Dale McDaniel: The problem being discussed is broader than the
blindness field. Virtually all computer support today comes with
a charge, and as long as the user is paying, the technician is
usually willing to answer any question he or she can.
  Curtis Chong: We have been talking about computers here, and
eventually these problems will be solved. True, some blind people
will lose their jobs before it happens, but we are at least
struggling to solve the problems of computer access. The problem
of access to a lengthening list of appliances and public-access
terminals of various kinds has not yet been seriously addressed.
The problem is no longer inability to program the VCR or the
microwave. It is becoming having no access to cellular phones,
hotel TV's, and the like. More and more service people are
disappearing from behind counters to be replaced by computers
with flat keypads and changing menus. In two years or less this
will be a serious problem for all of us. Dr. Jernigan asked if
infrared sensors carried by blind people would solve the problem.
Chong said that probably infrared sensors could be made to work.
Dr. Jernigan then proposed passage of legislation to require
manufacturers to provide infrared ports.
  Deane Blazie: There are too many laws already. Manufacturers
should be contacted and warned that, if a voluntary solution
cannot be found, legislation is the obvious recourse. Blazie
suggested that the Consumer Electronics Group of the Electronic
Industries Association be approached. Conferees decided to draft
such a letter to be signed by those present who wished to do so.
  Tim Cranmer: The Telecommunications Act covers most of the
phones, ATM's, and kiosks that are giving us trouble. It requires
built-in access if readily achievable or access through
compatible, consumer-owned equipment. The things still not
covered are domestic equipment--washers, microwaves, and the
like.
  John Brabyn: A project has been initiated to establish a
standard for an infrared link. The group working on this is tied
into the industry association and is working to be sure that the
link is not incompatible with talking signs and the rest of that
technology.
  David Lepofsky: This discussion is important to people in
Canada because the argument will be offered that nothing can be
done by the government to assist blind consumers since the
manufacturers are mostly from the U.S. He then pointed out that
overtures to the Consumer Electronics Group can be strengthened
by pointing out that senior citizens as well as blind people need
buttons that can be felt and are large enough to identify without
a magnifying glass.
  On the subject of automatic teller machines, he has been told
that neither of the companies manufacturing ATM's today has built
in the potential for speech output. What is the state of the art
today?
  Larry Israel: An engineer at Telesensory approached City Corp.
several years ago about this subject. City Corp. had acquired one
of the ATM manufacturers and would not talk with Telesensory.
Israel believes that it may have been because they were looking
into speech themselves and wanted to control it completely. But
he believes that the producers will not voluntarily put in the
$50 to $100 per machine to make them accessible to blind users.
  Curtis Chong: The Access Board has so far gotten nowhere in
establishing requirements, and meantime banks are posting
instructions that are so cryptic as to be unusable. The NFB in
Minneapolis went to the banks to see if they could work out a
community solution, but the banks said they used eight different
models. The NFB offered to Braille the brochures that describe
how to operate each model so that the banks could reproduce them
and hand them out. But they couldn't be bothered to hand over the
brochures. Chong concludes that the problem will be solved only
if it is attacked at every level and using every method of
persuasion.
  Dale McDaniel: NCR and perhaps some other companies have
produced a prototype that would, if adopted, benefit everyone
because it would be a single, universal ATM. The user would
insert a magnetically encoded card carrying all of his or her
requirements for language, speech, large print, etc. This
solution is not around the corner, but it would be generally
useful.
  Charles Oppermann: ATM software is written using OS/2, so there
is undoubtedly a group at IBM writing ATM code. It should be
fairly easy for speech to be added. Maybe pressure should be
brought to bear on IBM to help solve the problem.
  After a break the group reconvened and approved the language of
a letter to the Consumer Electronics Group. Here is the text:

                                                November 25, 1996


Mr. Gary Shapiro, President
Consumer Electronics Manufacturers'
Association (CEMA)
Arlington, Virginia

Dear Mr. Shapiro:
  At the third U.S./Canada Conference on Technology for the
Blind, the issue of access to consumer electronics was discussed
at length. It was made clear to the group that, with the
proliferation of digital technology, non-tactile buttons, and
dynamic displays, the consumer products industry is inadvertently
making it difficult, if not impossible, for blind and visually
impaired people to use many of the consumer electronic products
on the market today.
  We request that the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers'
Association (CEMA) begin a working dialogue with representatives
of the undersigned organizations with the aim of deciding how
best to move ahead in pursuing solutions to this significant
problem.
  Representatives of this group are eager to meet with you to
discuss these problems and possible solutions. We will contact
you in the near future to follow up on this matter.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Jernigan, President Emeritus
  National Federation of the Blind and
  Chairman, Third U.S./Canada
  Conference on Technology for the Blind
David Andrews, Director
  Communication Center
  Minnesota State Services for the Blind
Deane Blazie, President
  Blazie Engineering
John Brabyn, Program Director
  Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Foundation
John Bullen, President
  Canadian Council of the Blind
Elizabeth Carr, National Vice President
  Blinded Veterans Association
Curtis Chong, Designer/Consultant
  American Express Financial Advisors
Charles Cook, President
  Roudley Associates
Tim Cranmer, President
  International Braille Research Center
Frank Kurt Cylke, Director
  National Library Service for the Blind
  and Physically Handicapped
Suzanne A. Dalton, President
  Association of Instructional Resource Centers for the
  Visually Handicapped
Paul Edwards, President
  American Council of the Blind
Jim Fruchterman, President
  Arkenstone, Inc.
Ritchie Geisel, President
  Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic
Doug Geoffray, Co-Owner & Vice President
  Product Development and Support
  GW Micro
William Gibson, President
  National Council of State Agencies
  for the Blind
Jim Halliday, President
  Humanware, Inc.
Ted Henter, President
  Henter-Joyce, Inc.
Larry Israel, President
  Telesensory Corporation
Carlene Lebous, President
  National Council of Private Agencies
  for the Blind and Visually Impaired
Marc Maurer, President
  National Federation of the Blind
Brian McCarthy, President
  Betacom Inc.
Dale McDaniel, Vice President for Marketing
  Artic Technologies
David Pillischer, President
  Sighted Electronics, Inc.
William M. Raeder, Managing Director
  National Braille Press
Richard Ring, Director
  International Braille and Technology Center
Sharon Sacks, President
  Association for Education and Rehabilitation
  of the Blind and Visually Impaired
Mohymen Saddeek, President
  TFI Engineering and Myna Corporation
Tony Schenk, President
  Enabling Technologies Company
David Schleppenbach, Director
  VISIONS Lab at Purdue University
Elliot Schreier, President
  4X Products, Inc.
Fredric K. Schroeder, Commissioner
  Rehabilitation Services Administration
Dave Skrivanek, President
  Repro-Tronics
Susan Spungin, Vice President
  National Programs and Initiatives
  American Foundation for the Blind
Joseph Sullivan, President
  Duxbury Systems, Inc.
Tuck Tinsley, President
  American Printing House for the Blind
Robert Wynn, President
  Hadley School for the Blind

[The discussion continued:]

  Brian Charlson: Mr. Charlson began by explaining that he does
computer training at the Carroll Center. Windows products are
almost always marketed as extremely intuitive. Whether or not
they are to sighted people, they are not to those unable to see
the screen. He asked vendors to stop compounding the problems
faced by blind users in learning to use Windows and Windows 95 by
making unrealistic promises about the simplicity of the operating
system. Training is needed if blind people are to master Windows,
and good training materials must be developed to help accomplish
this goal.
    David Schleppenbach: Purdue has been working to develop
training materials for Windows and Windows 95. They hope to work
with Microsoft to create a program that can be bundled with
screen readers to help solve this problem. Richard Ring asked
about rumors over the past two years that Microsoft was
developing a cassette tutorial.
  Charles Oppermann: The plans are still there, but nothing is
currently happening about it. Microsoft does realize the
importance of filling this gap, and he is willing to work with
anyone to make progress, though it is not his area of
responsibility.
  Larry Israel: In Germany purchase of a computer Braille display
or screen reader automatically brings with it eight to ten days
of training at a cost of about $2500. In this country third-party
purchasers refuse to pay for thorough training of this kind.
Vendors cannot afford to provide anything like complete training
without passing on the cost.
  Brian Charlson: We must all work together to help develop good
materials and to advocate that third-party payers agree to
provide adequate training.
  Kenneth Jernigan: The National Federation of the Blind has been
providing week-long technology training seminars for groups of
rehabilitation personnel because many of them have not known
enough to help their clients wisely. He invited any vendors who
wished to provide substantive instruction in the operation of
their products to contact him.
  Vicki Mains: The CNIB has tactile material to help explain what
is happening on the screen in Windows, and they are working on
Windows 95 as well. It is extremely helpful to people attempting
to master an access program to understand the software it is
working with. The Vendors' efforts to teach people to use their
products can be much more successful when users begin with an
understanding of the platform. She is willing to work with others
to improve what they are doing and pass it on.
  Paul Edwards: Standards are needed in determining the quality
of training in access technology across the board. Would-be users
don't know what they need, and rehabilitation personnel know too
little to evaluate training options available. Maybe this is
something for AER or other professional organizations to work on.
  Robert Wynn: Where do the trainers go for training? We need
collaboration across the board to improve whatever education is
being done.
  Sharon Sacks: Dr. Sacks expressed concern about the quality of
the technology training given to students in personnel
preparation programs in this field. At most they receive a
semester of training, and the content of that training depends on
what technology is available at the institution in question. She
suggested that all students across the country might be brought
in groups to the International Braille and Technology Center for
the Blind for a week of intensive, hands-on training. Then we
would know that they had been introduced to everything that is
available. Funding such an effort would be the problem, but
perhaps grants could be sought. Dr. Jernigan said that the NFB
would be happy to work with her in looking further into this
idea. She went on to express concern about the technology needs
of blind children and adolescents. In a pilot study she has just
completed, in a group of forty blind students only two had access
to a computer at home. Every one of the sighted students in the
study had that access. Parents must be educated to understand
that, if their youngsters are to be competitive in school and in
the workplace, they must have the same opportunities that their
sighted peers have.
  Kevin Perry: In Ontario every person under eighteen or
receiving technology for the first time automatically gets ten
hours of training. His office is developing a series of courses
at a local training college. The sixth course concerns training.
They are working on course content right now.
  Deane Blazie: Vendors are treated very badly at the Closing the
Gap Conference. We need to have an East Coast conference at the
same time.
  Jim Fruchterman: Arkenstone has had a complete computer system
for under $2000 for the past two years, but people do not seem to
have been interested in it. He doesn't know why. Arkenstone is
about to begin a rent-to-buy program for a complete reading
system so that within fifteen months the system can be purchased.
If this does not attract interest, he will have to find out what
people really do want.
  Brian Charlson: There are other problems with Closing the Gap
from the attendee's perspective. The conference hotel is very
expensive. The ACB was offered that hotel at $56 a night, but he
paid almost three times that for Closing the Gap. People continue
to attend because it is all there is.
  Richard Ring: Many people pass through the IBTCB, and the
comments they make might well be of help and interest to the
vendors. He also would appreciate more contact with the vendors.
  Kenneth Jernigan: Four-track tapes of the entire conference
will be available for purchase at $20 a set. Those interested in
ordering a set should contact the National Federation of the
Blind.
  Euclid Herie: In closing the conference, Dr. Herie said that
the blind are often thought of as a small minority, but worldwide
there are fifty million blind people in the world, eight million
in China alone. Ultimately this is the market for producers in
this field, and most of the producers in the world were in
attendance at this conference. Dr. Herie suggested that the group
go forward, working together with the WBU and others to meet the
needs of this vast market.
