PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES GASHEL THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 1998 Mr. Chairman, my name is James Gashel. I am appearing in this hearing today on behalf of the National Federation of the Blind. My address is 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21230. I want to begin by thanking you for the opportunity to testify on reauthorization of the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals With Disabilities Act because concerns regarding technology have become crucial for blind people. Before I explain that statement in greater depth, I think it would be helpful for you to have some relevant background information on the National Federation of the Blind. First and foremost, the Federation is a membership organization of blind people. All of our leaders and the vast majority of our members are blind. Therefore, we are often referred to as the "voice of the nation's blind." In the terms in which the Tech Act identifies the various interests, the National Federation of the Blind represents the organized consumer of assistance and services. "Organized" is one of the key words in our vocabulary, because the Federation consists of state affiliates representing every state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. We also have local chapters in most sizable population areas in the United States. Then in addition to this, we also have several special interest divisions which blind people join to address particular concerns and needs. Overall, our total membership is more than 50,000 strong nationally. Turning to technology, which is the subject of this hearing, as far as blind people are concerned, the issue is "access." In fact, I think there would be wide agreement that this is perhaps the most compelling and challenging issue of the times for us. In speaking of access, I am referring to the capacity to receive, use, and send information. Since we live in an age in which information and the ability to compete for jobs and opportunities have become interrelated, it should be obvious why access has become a matter of compelling concern for blind people, but there is more to the issue than that alone. The pessimist would tell you that the world of video screens and graphical presentations is exploding around us to the extent that if you can't see it, you can't use it. But, from the point of view of the optimist, the possibility of access through alternative nonvisual technologies is a reasonable and realistic expectation. This is why the National Federation of the Blind takes the optimistic view, although the fears of the pessimist have plenty of support.Mr. Chairman, I realize that access in using information technology is not necessarily the focus of the present law. However, the need for statutory provisions on access (and particularly on nonvisual access) could not be more compelling. I say this because of the growing extent to which the effective use of information technology is a controlling factor in our ability to communicate. Speaking to this situation as a blind person, I can tell you that the prospect of being locked out technologically from professional, commercial, and social interaction is a frightening and very real possibility. I confronted the fact that this could happen quite recently when I checked into a hotel, got to my room, and found that I was completely unable to operate the television set. The reason was that just moving from channel to channel was not possible without being able to see and read the on-screen menu. So, at least on that occasion, I couldn't even listen to C- Span. In the latter part of the 1960's when I was preparing to go to work, a great many of my blind friends and colleagues were encouraged to pursue employment opportunities in computer technology. This occurred to such an extent that computer programming was actually becoming a modern-day stereotyped occupational placement for the blind. But now, in an environment in which nonvisual access may be impossible or difficult at best to achieve, the same people who have worked successfully on a par with their sighted peers for many years have become technological casualties. Also, the prospects for young blind people to pursue careers in systems development and programming are surprisingly more limited, even though many employers complain about a need for trained personnel in this area. I point this out to illustrate how access has become the crucial issue of the age. Just sit down at any computer or walk up to a public information kiosk, close your eyes, and try to use it. Then, think about the fact that devices such as these are. rapidly becoming the centerpiece of information exchange. Since the situation as I have described it is unquestionably becoming a fact of everyday life, the barriers to full participation of blind people in the society of the future must be faced today. In the view of the National Federation of the Blind, that challenge--the challenge of leading our society toward universal access in information technology--ought to be part of the reauthorized legislation. With this as a foundation, Mr. Chairman, I would now like to describe two important contributions which consumer-led initiatives can make toward achieving the goal of universal access, including nonvisual access. The first of these is consumer-led evaluation of technology, and the second is consumer- led development of technology. When I use the term "consumer," I am referring in our case to leadership provided by blind people who are in positions of accountability to blind people. This is something which is fundamental to the National Federation of the Blind, because blind people are the members and leaders of our organization at all levels.Evaluation of technology in a setting which is entirely controlled by blind consumers is something which we value as a top priority for our movement. This is why we established the International Braille and Technology Center for the Blind and have continued to support the Center through its growth since it opened in November, 1990. The present facility occupies 20,000 square feet and includes two hundred separate work stations. The equipment and software which is installed and operational includes Braille embossers; computers with synthesized speech; Braille and speech- output note takers; stand-alone reading machines; computer-based text-to-speech reading systems; computers with access to the Internet; and a variety of other single-purpose devices to meet particular needs. Our operating protocol in maintaining the Center is to buy at least one of every Braille and speech-output device or system which is sold for the specialized purpose of nonvisual access. The challenging word is "buy"--not "accept" or "receive"--but "buy." And the commitment we have made is to continue to buy the devices and relevant software which are being introduced to the market as access technology for blind people each and every year. Our investment in technology to date is about $2 million and climbing. We find the money to support this effort because we want to be completely independent from manufacturers or marketing interests. This is essential if the advice we give or reports we publish are to be regarded as credible. Also, the evaluation work which occurs day-in and day-out at the Center is entirely in the hands of blind people. This is true of our members who volunteer their time and talents to this effort and the staff who devote their full time and attention to support the effort. As a result, anyone who may want to know about the device or software best suited to meet a particular individualized need can contact the Center to obtain the information or visit the Center for a personal inspection and on-site comparison of features. Inquiries by telephone, mail, and the Internet are handled in a growing volume every day. Personal inspection tours by visitors from everywhere in the U.S. and many foreign countries occur in a steady stream as well. If I had to pick just one important contribution that has been made by this facility, I would point to the comprehensive presentation of access devices and software in a non-marketing context, where consumers--not inventors--are the experts. While such activities are possibly envisioned under the present authority of the Tech Act, I would say that greater emphasis should be placed on support for model consumer-led evaluation programs such as this. But consumer-led evaluation, without moving to the next step of consumer-led development, may not be sufficient. At least this is our experience. So, the National Federation of the Blind has decided to lead by example in the creation of technology as well as in its evaluation.Several examples of this come to mind, but our service known as Newsliner and another application of the same technology known as Jobliner are perhaps the most prominent current initiatives now underway. I will describe this technology briefly and be happy to show it to you during the exposition being held this afternoon. Once again, the leadership provided by blind consumers has made this technology possible. Remember what I said about "access." That's what Newsliner and Jobliner are all about. Newsliner means access to newspapers. We created that service to place blind people on an equal footing with others in access to the print media, and we are now working hard to get communities of every size throughout the nation connected to the service. This, in fact, is happening because Newsline uses the standard touch-tone telephone as the means of distribution. So, we are hard at work in the effort to establish local dial-in sites in every state and as many local dialing areas as possible. At present there are 38 (and soon to be 42) Newsliner centers. Areas currently served include New York; Los Angeles; Chicago and most of Illinois; the District of Columbia; Maryland and Northern Virginia; Columbus, Ohio; the major cities in Iowa; Dallas, Houston (and other parts of Texas); Salt Lake City, Utah; Chattanooga, Tennessee; Boise, Idaho; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and many more. States in which the service will soon be added include Connecticut, Wisconsin and West Virginia. The papers carried on Newsliner include USA TODAY, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Toronto Globe and Mail, and several other papers which are distributed in local areas only. The technology which makes Newsliner possible involves receiving news text from cooperating media partners over the Internet, converting the text for presentation in a synthetic speech format, and distribution of the converted text files to the appropriate local access points. When the process is working as it should-which it does most of the time-everything occurs automatically. Therefore, when I sit down to read the morning paper in Baltimore, I am able to choose from most of the papers listed, and the editions just reaching the newsstands for that day are immediately available to me at the touch of a button. Moreover, I can read the sports page, the editorials, the national news, or whatever I choose, when I choose. In fact, as Newsliner has developed and grown, we have probably outdone ourselves in demonstrating the great potential of nonvisual and universal access. How many of you have your local paper plus five or six national papers all at your finger tips each day at 6:00 a.m? Besides, the editions that I receive never end up in the rose bushes or the mud! Before I talk briefly about Jobliner, I should mention that Newsliner has benefited from support provided through the Tech Act. This has been true in Maryland where the state Technology Assistance Program helped us with funds to develop a method for a local-content channel to supplement the newspapers. This support and the encouragement we have received in working with personnel from the Maryland Technology Assistance Program provide a model relationship for the advancement of nonvisual access. To their credit, the program officials in Maryland have been outstanding in their outreach on behalf of our consumer-led access initiatives. Partnerships such as this speak to the potential of the Tech Act and should be replicated throughout the country. This brings me to the most recent version of the Newsliner-type technology, which is Jobliner. Again, the concept is universal (and particularly nonvisual) access, and the content of the service is not news text but job orders. The data base which is used is input from the public job service, known on the Internet as America's Job Bank. With Jobliner, America's Job Bank can talk to anyone on a standard touch-tone telephone. We solved the problem of searching a national data base of 70,000 jobs by means of a personal profile which each caller sets up independently in using the service. Then, at literally the touch of a button, the system selects and presents only those job announcements which match the job-seeking caller's profile. Its truly a wonderful system, and I hope you will come and see or listen to it this afternoon. As for implementation, this service would not be possible without cooperation from the U.S. Department of Labor. I realize that this cooperation should be expected, but I want you to be aware of it all the same. And speaking of cooperation, the Congress, too, has played a part in this development by setting aside $3 million from the amount appropriated for labor market information for the current fiscal year. As a result, we can now anticipate that this service will become available statewide in as many as forty states within the next several months. Once again, I should say that Maryland has been the first to install it. This shows that a commitment to nonvisual access is becoming a source of pride in that state, and the Technology Assistance Program is working with us to make it that way. Mr. Chairman, you have asked me to comment on factors which impede the use of universal access principles in the design of new technology. This would be a good question for a company of the size and influence of Microsoft, but here is what I would say. It all comes down to commitment and priority. Take for example the creation of a public service such as America's Job Bank on the Internet. According to one person who was candid enough to say it this way, disability (not to mention blindness) did not even make their radar screen. That was the case until Secretary Reich appeared before an audience at Gallaudet University in October, 1996, and committed his Department to a one-stop service delivery system that is fully accessible to all with state-of-the-art technology. Jobliner is at least one result of that commitment. Could the presentation of information in electronic forms be generally accessible to persons who cannot see? With the experience we have had in creating products such as Newsliner and Jobliner, my answer would be not just "yes," but emphatically "yes." In my opinion this will not be done, however, until the prominent leaders in technology today make the commitment such as Secretary Reich did. Then, having made the commitment, they must back it up with the resources needed so that universal access becomes a corporate priority. The challenge of getting to that point is substantial but not beyond our reach. The challenge is substantial because developments in technology are largely being driven by the goal of beating the competition to the market. Therefore, since most consumers can see and respond to visual cues, visual display technology has top priority in product design. Alternative access for nonvisual use may be considered at some point, but usually (if ever) as an afterthought. This will continue to be the case until the leaders in technology development are compelled to include nonvisual access features in the design of new products from the beginning. I use the term "compelled" advisedly, because designing alternative access features competes with the need to sell and invent more products. That's what technology companies are all about. If it would ever be possible to concentrate the total resources which blind people can bring to the table in buying information technology, the combined purchasing power would be insignificant to a company of the size of Microsoft or other major leaders. However, the combined strength of governmental entities is not insignificant in this market. Also, it is reasonable to expect governmental entities to insist upon having nonvisual and other universal design features included in the information technology which they buy. This is reasonable because of the use of public funds. Therefore, laws, such as the proposed revisions to section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act must be passed, although the loopholes should be closed and the language should be stronger. States, too, should commit themselves to procurement of information technology which must include nonvisual and other universal access features in the design. Acceptance of funds under the Tech Act should also mean that the state will join the effort to put such procurement requirements in place. Returning to my statement about the observable trend in information technology, the consequences of failing to plan for universal design are really quite frightening. Just consider the challenge still being met in our society to overcome barriers to persons with disabilities that were caused in the design of the physical environment. Dealing with situations such as this is always far more expensive and often less effective than anticipating the problem and solving it before the fact. In the case of our evolving technology, Mr. Chairman, the chance to plan for universal use still exists, and there is hope. That hope will die, however, unless there is a genuine national commitment to access which is backed by government and joined by the industry and consumers. Creating the leadership needed to support and fulfill this commitment must be a goal which the technology assistance program both expresses and embraces. In fact, I would say that the expression and enforcement of a commitment to access ought to be the central purpose of the amendments presented and passed this year. On behalf of the National Federation of the Blind, I thank you. ---------- End of Document