dec05b.indd


Kathryn Yelinek, Linda Neyer, David Magolis, and Darla Bressler 

Reaching out 
The
Pennsylvania
State
System
of
Higher
Education
librarians
take
stock

of
accommodative
services



Librarians get passionate about their re­sponsibility to provide equal access to 
information for all their patrons. Just look 
at the recent spirited discussion on EASI’s 
Library Accessibility electronic discussion list 
(maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/axslib­
l.html) concerning accessibility problems 
at the 2005 ALA Annual Conference. Or 
the full registration for all sessions of the 
“Designing Web sites for academic libraries” 
Webcast offered by ACRL in July, September, 
and October 2005, focusing on usability and 
accessibility in Web design. But before this, 
in March 2005, 19 librarians and library assis­
tants from 11 Pennsylvania state universities 
gathered in Harrisburg to discuss just this 
topic. Our goal: to brainstorm how best to 
serve our patrons with disabilities in the both 
the physical library and on the Web. 

Getting organized 
The Pennsylvania State System of Higher 
Education (PASSHE), composed of 14 uni­
versities located throughout the common­
wealth, serves more than 106,000 students. 
Each year, PASSHE librarians convene for 
an annual conference to share information 
and network. This year, representatives 
from 11 of the 14 university libraries (one 
additional library participated through writ­
ten comments only) met in a roundtable 
fashion to discuss accommodative services. 
Attendees ranged from library directors to 
access services librarians to system admin­
istrators. Since the universities often act 
autonomously, this roundtable discussion 

served as an opportunity for the librar­
ians to meet, many for the first time, and 
to take note of how each university fared 
towards meeting the needs of patrons with 
disabilities. 

The roundtable discussion came about 
through the efforts of librarians from 
Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania who 
were new to their positions. Approached at 
the reference desk by patrons seeking to 
use some assistive technology equipment, 
we experienced some difficulty using the 
equipment and wanted to improve our own 
delivery of services to patrons with disabili­
ties. We set out to contact our university’s 
own office of accommodative services as 
well as to survey our sister PASSHE libraries. 
We thought we could draw upon the collec­
tive experience and wisdom of the group. A 
written survey was sent to PASSHE librarians, 
in which we asked about available assistive 
technology, staff awareness and training, 
Web page accessibility, types of disabilities 
encountered, and library relationships with 
campus offices of accommodative services. 
The responses to these surveys served as 
the basis for the roundtable discussion on 

Kathryn Yelinek is government documents coordinator, 
e-mail: kyelinek@bloomu.edu; Linda Neyer is reference 
librarian/science/health sciences subject specialist, e-
mail: lneyer@bloomu.edu; David Magolis is reference 
librarian/social sciences subject specialist/Webmaster, 
e-mail: dmagolis@bloomu.edu; and Darla Bressler is 
reference librarian/education subject specialist, e-mail: 
dbressle@bloomu.edu at Andruss Library, Bloomsburg 
University 
© 2005 Kathryn Yelinek, Linda Neyer, David Magolis, Darla Bressler 

December 2005  793 C&RL News 

mailto:dbressle@bloomu.edu
mailto:dmagolis@bloomu.edu
mailto:lneyer@bloomu.edu
mailto:kyelinek@bloomu.edu


accommodative services held at the annual 
meeting. 

How do you define a disability? 
One of the first themes to emerge from the 
discussion revolved around those whom 
we intended to serve. One library director 
took issue with the wording of our survey, 
in which we consistently asked about the 
students who came into the library. He 
mentioned that it was important to talk 
about serving patrons with disabilities, not 
just students with disabilities, because we 
all have community members who use the 
library as well. He also reflected on the 
question, “How do you define a disability?” 
While it may be easier to identify a person 
with a vision or mobility disability, more and 
more often the library is being called upon 
to assist those with mental, emotional, or 
learning disabilities. Such accommodations 
then veer away from providing purely physi­
cal arrangements—computer workstations or 
accessible entrances—to providing areas for 
quiet study, tutoring, or extended test­tak­
ing. Librarians therefore need to know the 
regulations for access to the building and 
other physical accessibility issues, as well 
as being aware of campuswide policies for 
test­taking accommodations and for proctor­
ing exams. 

Providing services . . . and support 
We noted that many PASSHE libraries 
provide a distinct room in which assistive 
technology equipment is housed. Assistive 
technology can be defined as anything 
that makes a task easier to perform,1 and 
the equipment provided by our libraries 
included such things as Zoomtext, JAWS, 
OpenBook, ReadingEdge, a talking calcula­
tor, TTY phone, and a scanner that interacts 
with this equipment. 

The question was raised about whether 
it was segregation to force the patrons who 
needed to use this equipment into a separate 
room. One library reported being required 
to integrate the equipment into the rest of 
the library, despite complaints of noise from 

machines such as a Braille printer. But, as 
one library director insisted, as long as all 
patrons are allowed in and are permitted 
to use the equipment, then having a room 
designated for this purpose is not segrega­
tion. For example, one librarian reported 
that international students often use the 
equipment as a way to improve their English. 
Brightly colored posters on the walls and 
curtains over internal windows help to draw 
additional students into these rooms. 

On one campus, the office for accom­
modative services is located in the library. 
While this arrangement brings more students 
into the library building, these visits do not 
necessarily result in the students placing 
additional demands on library staff. Many 
of the roundtable participants reported that 
the students look to their offices of accom­
modative services rather than to the library 
for equipment and help. These offices in turn 
may or may not ask the library to assist the 
students, depending on the perceived level 
of receptivity. 

One librarian emphasized this point 
through a story. While preparing for the 
discussion, he contacted the director of 
his campus office of accommodative ser­
vices and received a response of, “Wow! 
Someone is interested!” He concluded that 
if such offices perceive a lack of interest, 
they will not send students to the library. 
Several librarians reiterated the importance 
of having one person serving as a bridge to 
the offi ce of accommodative services. If the 
staff in these offices know someone in the 
library is willing to help, then they will refer 
students to the library. 

Again and again throughout the roundta­
ble discussion, the issue was raised of having 
someone in the library dedicated to helping 
those with disabilities. Software and an ac­
cessible building are good but, ultimately, 
useless if those who need them fail to come 
into the building due to ignorance of these 
accommodations, or even worse—being 
made to feel uncomfortable. 

Several libraries reported having a mem­
ber of access services in charge of the as­

C&RL News December 2005  794 



sistive technology equipment. This person 
knows what equipment the library provides 
and how to run the equipment. An evening 
access supervisor frequently takes over 
these responsibilities at night. However, 
it was pointed out that there needs to be a 
second person with this knowledge, in case 
of illness or other absences. One library has 
gone so far as to assign librarian liaisons to 
different student groups on campus, includ­
ing those with disabilities. The librarians go 
out of the library to meet with these groups, 
and they mount educational displays in the 
library relating to culturally diverse topics. 
Having librarian liaisons to student groups 
demonstrates both to the students and to 
other offices on campus that the library is 
dedicated to serving all of its patrons. 

Bobby and beyond 
In addition to issues of physical accessibility, 
the roundtable discussion also addressed 
Web accessibility in the state system librar­
ies. One librarian from Bloomsburg report­
ed that the World Wide Web Consortium 
estimates that 99 percent of all Web pages 
contain some invalid HTML code2—which 
means that 99 percent of Web pages are 
inaccessible to students who rely on as­
sistive technology due to visual, auditory, 
or physical disabilities. Many librarians at 
the discussion responded that considerable 
time had been spent evaluating, discussing, 
and determining how their library Web sites 
could become accessible. Yet, most agreed 
that their sites were not fully accessible. 

Webster’s Dictionary defi nes accessibil­
ity as “capable of being reached, being 
within reach, easy to speak or deal.” To 
apply this definition to Web pages means 
that pages would be attainable and no 
barriers would exist to prevent use. For 
those responsible for library Web pages, 
becoming accessible means adhering to 
the provisions set forth by Section 508 of 
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 
The act requires “that individuals with dis­
abilities, who are members of the public 
seeking information or services from a 

federal agency, have access to and use of 
information and data that is comparable 
to that provided to the public who are 
not individuals with disabilities” (www. 
section508.gov). 

Several methods of making Web pages 
accessible were discussed. First, for in­
creased functionality and easier navigation, 
Web designers can provide a text­only 
page for the site. This creates extra work 
for the designers, but the additional effort 
ensures that those using screen readers 
can access the page and that the page is 
ADA­compliant. For those wishing to in­
tegrate accessibility standards with a more 
visually appealing site, one of the easiest 
methods of doing this is using the alt tag 
(<alt>) for all images. This tag will allow 
screen readers to read a description of the 
image presented on the screen, and one 
library Webmaster stated it is part of good 
programming and should be incorporated 
into a site’s HTML. 

Of course, librarians also need to be 
concerned with the accessibility of elec­
tronic resources provided through their 
Web sites, such as commercially available 
databases. While it was noted that EBSCO­
host, which provides the greatest number 
of databases to PASSHE libraries, does pro­
vide text­only versions of its databases, it 
was also noted that PASSHE’s online public 
access catalog requires some modifi cation 
for easy use by patrons with visual dis­
abilities. Librarians should include Web 
accessibility as a criterion when evaluating 
databases and commercial vendors. 

The end of the roundtable discussion 
allowed for time to give a demonstration 
of Bobby. Bobby (www.cast.org/bobby) is 
a Web site that flags areas of a Web page 
that may need to be changed for greater 
accessibility. It will highlight such things 
as missing alt tags. Of course, Bobby is 
not foolproof. As pointed out, having a 
text­only page makes the Web page ADA­
compliant, but Bobby does not report the 
presence of a text­only page. While Bobby 
serves as a great tool for making library 

December 2005  795 C&RL News 

www.cast.org/bobby
http:section508.gov


Web pages more accessible, librarians 
should not rely solely upon this software. 

Reaching out 
The roundtable discussion raised many issues 
and questions that could not be answered 
in one hour. We discussed the copyright 
implications of making audio recordings of 
a textbook for an auditory learner, as well as 
various training workshops that were avail­
able on the different campuses. Because of 
the high number of participants, time was a 
factor, and the number of discussion topics 
had to be limited. 

Despite the different resources and ser­
vices provided by the PASSHE libraries, the 
discussion reaffirmed that access to infor­
mation, regardless of format, is key for the 
library. Resources exist for proactive librarians 
seeking to serve all their patrons, including 
campus accommodative services offi ces, the 
Bobby Web site, and sister institutions. Tak­
ing that step to educate ourselves on what is 
available and to make others aware we are 

doing so lets everyone know that, yes, the 
library is interested in serving them. 

Where do we go from here? 
The Bloomsburg librarians have recently begun 
a blog as a way of communicating with their sis­
ter school librarians.3 The answers to the written 
questionnaire and a summary of the roundtable 
discussion may be found there, as well as a 
number of posts detailing some useful resources. 
We hope the blog promotes awareness of ac­
commodative services in libraries beyond the 
boundaries of PASSHE, particularly for new 
librarians. We welcome your participation. 

Notes 
1. Edwin P. Christmann and Roxanne R. 

Christmann, “Technologies for special needs,” 
Science Scope, Vol. 26, no. 6 (March 2003): 50. 

2. “My Web site is standard! And yours?” W3C 
Quality Assurance, accessed July 21, 2005: www. 
w3.org/QA/2002/04/Web­Quality. 

3. The Bloomburg librarians’ blog can be 
found at pa­sshelco­als.blogspot.com/. 

C&RL News December 2005  796 

http:pa-sshelco-als.blogspot.com