Jack.O'keeffe@p0.f26.n129.z1.fidonet.org (Jack O'keeffe) (06/17/91)
Index Number: 16076
[This is from the Silent Talk Conference]
Hi Annie, Hope you are okay. We haven't heard much from you lately.
Yesterday the UPS man dumped a large box on my doorstep. It contained
my copy of all the comments received by the ANSI A117 committee on the
proposed changes to the ANSI A117 Standard for Accessible and Useable
Buildings and Facilities. There were 576 coments in all, and some of
them ran to as much as 40 pages. Whew!! I'm in the process of
reviewing them in preparation for the balloting in Washington at the
end of next month.
But what really depresses me is the dearth of comment from people who
are deaf (or Deaf) or hard of hearing. Would you believe that aside
from comments that I drafted myself (these were submitted by three
different groups), there was only one comment from a hearing
impairment advocacy?
I should have spared the bandwidth on SilentTalk earlier this year
when reporting on standards activity and soliciting support. Not a
single comment came in as a result. Persons with other disabilities,
blind, paralized, etc. came on strongly with well reasoned comments.
Why is it that we seem to be satisfied with wimpish whining among
ourselves, when we could be advocating in places where it will
make a difference?
"What we have here is a failure to communicate." (Bogart)
The good news is that A.G.Bell supported the SHHH position across the
board, advocating for accessible TDDs, amplified phones, visual signals
in elevators, assistive listening systems, etc., etc. But with the
sparcity of comment, the committee may decide these accomodations are
not really necessary.
The one other comment from a hearing impairment advocacy came from
NAD. Sad to say, they did not cite the need for accessible public
TDDs, visual signals, amplified phones, assistive listening systems
and all the other needs the proposed standard fails to adequately
address. Instead, they took issue with the section on visual alarms,
the one section in the proposed standard that is helpful. NAD's
negative comment shouldn't hurt. They really didn't understand
that what they were asking for (and more) is actually called for
for in the standard.
Objections to providing much of anything came from some of the
groups representing building and facility owners, the ones who
will have to spend the money to meet the accessibility standards.
The American Hotel and Motel Association commented that "Hotels
providing smoke detectors for the hearing impaired consistently
report that the units are rarely if ever requested by guests".
This is probably true, and it's OUR FAULT!
And since the industry groups are the dominant force on the
committee, it is likely they will prevail.
Obesa cantavit!
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!129!26.0!Jack.O'keeffe
Internet: Jack.O'keeffe@p0.f26.n129.z1.fidonet.orgrudy@mtqua.att.com (Rudy Vener) (06/25/91)
Index Number: 16381 In article <16076@handicap.news> Jack.O'keeffe@p0.f26.n129.z1.fidonet.org writes: >Index Number: 16076 > [ stuff deleted ] >"What we have here is a failure to communicate." (Bogart) I thought it was Paul Newman (Cool Hand Luke). -- Rudy Vener uucp: att!mtqua!rudy internet: rudy@mtqua.att.com