ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries news College & Research Libraries A low-tech approach W orking with p erso n s with m obility and speech disabilities in an academ ic library by Denise A. Forro T oday, w e rely m o re heavily th a n ever b e ­ fore o n te c h n o lo g y to h a n d le v a rio u s li­ brary challenges, and rightly so. Technology h allow ed us to p rocess m aterials a n d serve our patrons w ith a series of keystrokes. H ow ever, th e re are so m e situ atio n s th at c a n b e readily h a n d le d by n o n-tech o r low -tech solutions. Several years ago, the information desk staff at M ichigan State U n iv e rsity L ibraries e x ­ pressed concern about answering th e questions of a p e rso n w ith m obility a n d s p e e c h im pair­ m ents. T he p atron w as u n able to articulate his q u e stio n s a n d w as u n a b le to w rite his q u e s ­ tions d u e to the lim ited use of his hands. D esk staff w ere concerned that the interactions w ere frustrating, tim e-consuming, a n d ultim ately in­ effective in se rv in g th e n e e d s o f th e p a tro n . Clearly, som ething n e e d e d to b e d o n e to im­ p ro v e this situation. W hile it w as a g re e d that te c h n o lo g y m ight offer so m e so rt o f re so lu ­ tion, a non-tech a p p ro ac h w as sought. To investigate alternative solutions, w e turned to a university staff m em ber w h o ex h ib ited the sam e physical attributes as the library patron. This p erson w as a mem ber of a special com m ittee on c a m p u s , th e A cco m m o d atin g T e c h n o lo g y C om m ittee. Although he u sed a co m p u te r in his office w ith voice output, he did n o t have access to th a t c o m p u te r w h e n tra v e lin g to v a rio u s units across cam pus. A low-tech solution In th e m eetings, the staff m e m b e r w o u ld in­ as te ra c t q u ite effectively w ith th e o th e r m em ­ b e rs o f th e c o m m itte e th ro u g h th e u s e o f a w o rd b oard, also k n o w n as a com m unication board. After studying th e u se of this device, it becam e a p p are n t that this tool m ight b e useful in the in te ra c tio n s w ith o u r v a rio u s p a tro n s w h o h a d sim ilar p h ysical a n d v erbal im pair­ ments. Literature searches a n d a search o f Internet resources w e re p erform ed to discover if other libraries w ere u sing this type o f low -tech d e ­ vice. W hile the searches did n o t p ro d u c e u se­ ful results, it w as d isc o v e re d th ro u g h o u r li­ brary catalog that w e o w ned a source that could b e u s e d to d e v e lo p a w o rd b o a r d .1 T his title outlined the m eth o d s for determ ining the use of the b oard a n d w hat w ords sh ould be repre­ sented. It also gave m any excellent exam ples of w o rd b oards that h a d b e e n d eveloped. W ord processing softw are w as u se d in o u r initial efforts to d ev elo p a w o rd board, b ut w e quickly discovered that such software w as not designed for creating the kind of layout n e eded fo r the b o a rd . T h e orig in a l tex t o f th e w o rd b o a rd w as forw arded to the library’s graphics person. An outline of the p urpose o f the board a nd a list of words, phrases, and num bers w ere given to our graphics designer and, after m uch About the author Denise A. Forro is coordinator o f assistive te chnology services a t M ichigan State University Libraries, e-mail: forro@mail.lib.msu.edu 708 / C&RL News ■ November 2002 mailto:forro@mail.lib.msu.edu C&RL News ■ November 2002 / 709 discussion, a board was developed using PageMaker software. PageMaker made it easy to manipulate the information and place it in the appropriate areas. G e ttin g approval When the mock-up copy of the word board was completed, the information desk staff re­ viewed it and made comments and suggestions. Following this process, the word board mock- up was taken to other units to be presented at meetings and reactions were solicited. Finally, appropriate changes were made and additions were added to the original product. As a final step in the solicitation of re­ sponses, the staff person from the Accommo­ dating Technology Committee reviewed the board. He carefully scrutinized the product and tested it thoroughly. After a very intense conversation using the library word board, he enthusiastically approved the board and ap­ plauded the efforts of the library. In developing the board, many things were taken into consideration. In order to make the word board use­ ful to someone lacking manual dexterity, the size of the words needed to be large and the white space sufficient for accurate use. Therefore the size of the board itself was an impor­ tant consideration. It was determined that a ledger­ sized tri-fold would be easy to reproduce in-house. The Figure size was also considered to be manageable for both staff and patrons. The words used on the word board were selected because of their relevance to the li­ brary and the needs of patrons in the library (Figure 1). In addition, the most common Main Library locations were also represented as a list (Figure 2). As with most communication boards, an alphabet and numbers were also in­ cluded in the final product (Figure 3). With the assistance of the libraries’ pres­ ervation staff, the pages were placed on a heavy card stock and laminated; hinges were made to join the three leaves together. A map of the campus was attached to one out­ side leaf, while a mock white board for writ­ ing messages was affixed to the other blank surface (Figure 4). To communicate with pa­ trons who exhibit mobility and speech disabilities, the staff person lays the board out on a surface and invites the patron to signal by hand mo­ tions the words or letters that depict what he or she wants to communicate. If the patron is unable to gesture to the ap­ propriate words or letters, the staff person points to the vari­ ous symbols until the patron indicates that the selection is appropriate. Staff are then able to respond and direct the patron as necessary. This proves to be an effective com­ munication tool and resource for staff. Multiple copies of the 4. word board have been created ; j 710 / C&RL New s ■ Novem ber 2002 and distributed. Although not heavily used, ments, it is apparent that a low-tech approach has definite benefits. ­ N ote 1. United Cerebral Palsy Associations ­ New York State. Rochester-LeRoy Area Study Group. A phonic C om m unication F or Those With ­ C erebral Palsy. New York: United Cerebral Palsy ­ Associations o f New York State, 1967. ■ when the board is employed both the patron and the staff involved agree that it facilitates communication efforts and contributes to suc cessful interactions. While technology has been a boon to per sons with disabilities, after working with this project and determining its effectiveness in serv ing patrons with mobility and speech impair o f Letters to the editor E d ito r’s note: W e receiv ed sev era l letters in resp o n se to “Rethinking library developm ent: the eth ica l im plications o f libraryf u n d raisin g , "by P hillipJ. Jon es, w hich ran in the “Th e W ay I See It” colu m n in Septem ber. W e follow in g a r e ex- cerpts f rom som e o f these responses. Mr. Jo n es expresses a concern that col­ lection growth may be dictated by the do­ nor, not the librarian. This concern can eas­ ily be overcome by developing guidelines in advance and then sharing those guidelines with prospective donors. I have found that donors interested in donating their collec­ tions, or portions thereof, understand the need to focus collections. According to the Donor Bill o f Rights, donors have the right to be informed of the organization’s mission, of the way the organization intends to use donated resources, and of its capacity to use donations effectively for their intended pur­ poses. I would encourage Mr. Jones and other librarians to review this document as well as the “Code o f Ethical Principles and Stan­ dards of Professional Practice.” These can be found on the Web site of the Association o f Fundraising Professionals (AFP). Every fundraiser who is a member of AFP adheres to these standards.— C arolin e J . P unches, San Jo s e State University, cpunches@ sjsu.edu As a library development officer, I object to Mr. Jo n es’s characterization o f library de­ velopm ent as the corruptor o f librarians' ethics. Every library development officer Fve met has worked very hard to build strong collegial relationships with library faculty, and an article like this one, published with­ out any counterpoint, can do real damage to those relationships. Also, development pro­ fessionals work even harder to create rela­ tionships with prospective and current do­ nors that will allow us, when the right time comes, to match the donors’ needs (e.g., for recognition, to “give something back’’) to the library resource needs o f our students and faculty.— T in a S u rm an , U niversity o f M iam i, tsurman@miami.edu Are librarians and fundraisers incompat­ ible bedfellows? No doubt the quest for money can undermine a library. It can equally mis­ lead a school, a church, a hospital, the United Way, the Red Cross, families, and individuals. Libraries are no more and no less susceptible to the seduction o f money. Choosing to ig­ nore fundraising may provide libraries with an escape from temptation, but noble budget shortfalls will hobble their attempts to imple­ ment their missions. The choices are not really that stark. I be­ lieve that discourse about mission and ethics provides a secure, high ground. Just like a li­ brarian, a fundraiser must know what her organization’s mission is. Librarians have the advantage over fundraisers of internalizing their discourse in the process o f studying librarianship. Fundraisers need to receive ex­ plicit communication about the nature of their particular library’s mission … Development professionals know that mission drives fund­ raising and that ethics are its bedrock. With­ out these two things institutional advance­ ment is by definition unprofessional and in reality unsuccessful. By valuing both, librar­ ians and fundraisers share essential habits of thought.— D a k W alker, University o f C hicago, d walker 1 @midway.uchicagρ.edu mailto:cpunches@sjsu.edu mailto:tsurman@miami.edu