1

Accessibility in Academic Libraries for Users with Disabilities

Katherine Whetzel
Introduction Traditionally libraries have been viewed as places of easily attainable information and librarians perceived as readily helpful gatekeepers. But have libraries truly been places of easily attainable information and librarians as a whole to have unbiased attitudes towards patrons? In the 21st Century, we know the answer is no; but just how badly have these institutions lacked? And do they continue to do so? I plan to examine current literature on the accessibility of library resources in relation to users with disabilities. As cited by Riley (2008), United States census data from 2002 indicates that 19.3 percent of the population (almost 50 million people) had a disability. The data further reveals that 9.3 million people reported a sensory disability involving sight or hearing; 21.2 million reported a condition limiting basic physical activities; and 12. 4 million reported a physical, mental, or emotional condition. These people were previously overlooked prior to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. What is typically thought about when the word disability is mentioned is a wheelchair. Physical limitations are a prominent association with disabilities, but that is not the only one and viewing disabilities as being singularly physical actually only serves to be a limited perspective. There are also visual, cognitive, auditory disabilities which all come in different degrees of severity. One of the American Library Associations (2010) key principles to which they are committed is connected to this very topic. Their website describes this key principle as the equitable access to information and library services. The website continues on to say, [t]he Association advocated funding and policies that support libraries as great democratic institutions, serving people of every age, income level, location, ethnicity, or physical ability, and providing the full range of information resources needed to live, learn, govern, and work. The American Library Association is committed to providing services to all users equally. The issue of accessibility for patrons with disabilities affects all the different types of libraries- academic, public, school, and special. The matter is more apparent in academic, public and school libraries due simply to the number of users. It is still necessary for special libraries to assess their accessibility, but their obstacle is mainly in dealing with employment of people with disabilities. This paper covers the issue of accessibility in regards to the academic library specifically. A complication of this issue is the very fact that this population of patrons with impairments has needs which are specific to the individual. For instance one person may have difficulty with hearing as well as a physical impairment. Another may have total hearing loss paired with yet another physical disability. Also important to note is that disabilities are a fluid gradation not to be put in neatly defined boxes. Web Accessibility

2 A common assumption that is made about accessibility in the 21st Century is that since physical accommodations and some adaptive technology has been implemented, the issue is in the past. However, with academic students using the internet as an integral everyday resource comes the obvious dilemma of including library resources such as databases and websites into the discussion of equitable accessible to a person with disabilities. And while there might be resistance out there for having to make web accessibility changes, just as there was in regards to the Americans with Disabilities Act, Kinder (2001) explains how the potential threat of litigation if they do not make their pages more accessible to everyonesends an unequivocal message to all Web designers that modifications can and must be made and if they are not action will be taken. The discussion of how to address patrons with disabilities needs has begun to venture into a discourse of online sources such as the electronic catalog, databases and library websites. Riley (2008) expresses it in the following manner, [t]he library profession has always been the long-time champion to make library materials readily and easily available to all, but the electronic information age has brought new attention to the service of persons with disabilities in the library because, historically, they were not as visible. Accessibility to Library Websites & Databases Currently, Power and LeBeau (2009) are expressing concerns about equitable accessibility in electronic library resources. Many libraries striving to provide accessible resources to people with visual [and other] disabilities stop at the door of the omnipresent database. Given the extent of database use today, [this] article questions whether we shortchange our visually impaired [and other] users if we do not examine the accessibility of these electronic resources and encourage database vendors to improve their products. (Power & LeBeau 2009) Power and LeBeau (2009) performed an intriguing study on academic library websites. They looked at them to see how many offered access to text-only versions of the databases and emphasized this access for visually impaired users. Two specific areas of the web sites were reviewed to find this information: the database access page (which typically provides an alphabetical title listing of all a librarys databases) and the disability services page (which typically details the efforts a library takes to make its materials and building accessible). The findings include the following. Only 5 of 33 libraries made any mention [of accessibility on their website] and the information provided was typically inadequate (Power 2009) The disabilities services web page was evaluated simply on how easy it was to find and if provided suitable information for the library in general. Seventeen were rated as good; sixteen were rated as mediocre or poor. The largest database vendors were selected for the study simply because of the logical assumption that they should have better implemented accessibility; and the academic libraries had to subscribe to at least one. Power and LeBeau also make an important point about database vendors. [N]ot all vendors are compliant with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998. Vendor web sites were consulted for information about the level of compliance. They

3 were found to vary in both compliance with the researchers and having information posted on their websites. Accessibility and Compliance with the Law In the early part of the 20th Century, society at large, people were continuing to be widely discriminated against because of their disabilities. Therefore in 1973 the Rehabilitation Act was made into law. This law brought about a whole new set of regulations and a new perspective for libraries. Librarians gained a new awareness of just how much the accessibility of libraries resources were lacking. And in 1990 when the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, libraries eagerly sought to make changes. However it seems as if compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act simply constituted the bottom line when providing patrons with disabilities accessibility. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act brought about an increase in enrollment in academic settings. This caused a discussion which examined users with disabilities needs after the legislation was passed. David Wilhelmus (1996) cited in his article, that in 1978, the Journal of Academic Librarianship, 2.6 percent of full-time college or university freshmen were disabled, as compared with 7.8 percent in 1985. In the library world, the first largely recognized problem after the Rehabilitation Act was how many buildings were architecturally deficient in considering the needs of people with physical impairments. And since libraries are federally funded institutions, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 required them to make architectural changes in order to be in compliance with it. The act did not emphasize non-physical accessibility to information, and thus some other necessary changes did not occur in the library until much later. Wilhelmus (1996) describes his experience at Indiana Universitys School of Law in Indianapolis from 1977 to 1980 (note that this experience occurs in the years after the Rehabilitation Act) below. While a graduate law student at Indiana University's School of Law in Indianapolis from 1977 to 1980, it was essential that the author utilize the specialized adaptive devices located in the adaptive technology resource room of the university library. The adaptive equipment included closed-circuit television devices that enlarged the size of print, large-type typewriters, cassette machines utilizing compressed speech capabilities, braillers, and soundproof booths that allowed university-paid readers to assist the disabled student. The policies of the law library would not permit a disabled student to borrow any materials for the purpose of carrying them within one city block of the law library to the university library's adaptive technology resource room. In effect, the law library's policy of not lending materials from its collection to students had the effect of barring disabled students from access to the law library's collection. Clearly there was a communication problem within the library system of Indiana University even after the Rehabilitation Act. Change does not come overnight obviously,

4 so the issues that the author above experienced are neither one hundred percent surprising nor a final judgment on the Rehabilitation Act. Yet one would have hoped for a bit of understanding and flexibility from the library staff in an effort to serve their patrons better despite library policy. Now, with a little more space and time since the start of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Linda Lou Wiler (2000) investigated further into compliance with the act by taking a look at universities in the Southeastern United States. She says that [p]erceptions of what being in compliance meant were mixed. Libraries have always held with the ideological view of information being available to all, but questions are being asked of the reality of equitable accessibility. Wilers conclusions on Americans with Disabilities Act compliance are that there is still a need for future action and the understanding of the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act needs improvement as well. The main lacking areas are: attitudinal barriers, staff training, funding and policy making. In addition, Wiler encourages previously undertaken modifications to be reevaluated. As the character of libraries changes from books to virtual resources a new assessment of needs may be in order. Catherine Carter (2004) also points out how [p]roviding equal access to library services is a continuous process that must be evaluated periodically as new technologies become available and impact how we access and utilize information resources. While Carter puts emphasis on some of the same areas as Wiler, there are some differences. Carter sees bibliographic instruction, web pages and staff training as the three top ways to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Instructional workshops are where students are taught how to use the library effectively and instrumental in the academic setting. And instructional sessions that are designed without thought of this particular population, Carter argues, are a major obstacle in library accessibility. Web pages are the second avenue Carter explores; she cites the World Wide Web Consortium as the basis for Section 508. Section 508 falls under the Rehabilitation Act, is related to the ADA and all of this legislation only indirectly refers to web resources as needing to be accessible in the sense that all library sources should be equally accessible. The third way for academic libraries to meet the needs of students with impairments is with staff training. Carter (2004) cites Currys study as showing that people with disabilities consider interactions with library staff as critical to their experience. Therefore, according to Miller-Gatenby and Chittendon (as cited in Carter 2004), the staff needs to become cognizant of any " preconceptions and misconceptions about persons with certain disabilities and [library staff] may be unaware that some disabilities are invisible and not readily apparent to others." Going back to what David Wilhelmus experienced in the late 1970s, that was situation where a strict adherence to procedures won out over a library user with a need. Today, observations show that libraries are now physically accessible and/or assistance is provided when they are not. And in the example below, even a focus group conducted a study on how to improve accessibility past ADA compliance.

5 In 1999, at Central Missouri State University, a newly constructed campus library opened. At that time, the staff was aware that there might still be accessibility barriers and so they formed a committee, including students with disabilities, which in part, they evaluated the library by going on a walkthrough. This new construction is ADA compliant however, Riley (2002) points out how [a]rchitects, builders, interior designers, and librarians may have failed to anticipate barriers to service. And she refers to Hutchinsons statement (as cited in Riley 2002) that the instatement of the Americans with Disabilities Act is important, yet it certainly does not ensure that disabled patrons will be able to use the library. Some of the major problems identified by the students were the automatic doors with that opened for only a short time, lack of specific furnishings in most rooms, lack of suitable signage, and informational handouts which need to be offered in alternative formats. The walkthrough showed that many problems were easy to change. CONCLUSION When standards were set with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and again in 1990 with the Americans with Disabilities Act, little thought or creativity had to be undertaken on the part of librarians to raise library resources to that level, much less beyond that. Hopefully what Rachel Wadham (2003) expresses in her article that [t]echnology has only increased our ability to provide services to those with disabilities will not just remain a statement of wishful thinking for the future. An obvious benefit of equitable accessibility is an increase in information and therefore a potential increase in knowledge. Further potential benefits include increases in self image, quality of life and societal contributions if some greater level of information control is placed in this populations hands. And when the electronic librarian, reference librarian, web designers and database vendors begin designing with the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act in mind and not just the law these benefits can come into effect. With the advent of the information age came a new set of problems and possibilities. The most prominent facet of accessibility being examined today is concerned with the web. At first glance this is an exciting way to provide library sources to users with impairments due to the fact that any physical limitations have little effect on an internet user. But articles by Power and LeBeau, Riley, and more have shown that physical library spaces, library websites and databases are still in much need of modification before users with disabilities can access these mediums with ease.

6 Works Cited American Library Association (2010). Key Action Areas. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/membership/whataladoes/keyaction/index.cfm Carter, Catherine J. (2004). Providing Services for Students with Disabilities in an Academic Library. Education Libraries, 27(2), 13-18. Kinder, Sean (2001). Web Page Accessibility for Users with Disabilities. Kentucky Libraries, 65(4), 21-22. Power, Rebecca and LeBeau, Chris (2009). How Well Do Academic Library Web Sites Address the Needs of Database Users with Visual Disabilities? The Reference Librarian, 50(1), 55-72. Riley, Cheryl and Wales, Barbara (2002). Reality Check: Barriers to Accessibility in an ADA-Compliant Library. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 9 (1), 41-48. Riley, Cheryl (2008). The Electronic Resources (ER) Librarian and Patrons with Disabilities. Collection Management, 32 (1), 83-98. Wadham, Rachel. Accessible Technology. Library Mosaics. 14(1), 18. Wiler, Linda Lou and Lomax, Eleanor (2000). The Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance and Academic Libraries in the Southeastern United States. Journal of Southern Academic and Special Librarianship, 2(1/2). Wilhelmus, David W. (1996). Perspectives on the Americans with Disabilities Act. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 22(5), 366-370.