[Access] Accessibility - Process Problems

Sun Apr 6 01:35:55 CDT 2008

Someone pointed out that next Saturday's meeting of the Coordinating  
Council will be largely devoted to budget discussions, and would not  
be optimal for a discussion of this subject. I can agree with that.

What I have in mind is starting a discussion having to do with  
identifying and telling stories about times when our communications  
have been less than completely accessible, how those situations were  
problematic, what was done, how could it be done better, and whether  
there is any "overall" policy or set of "ready-if-needed" procedures  
that can be put into place to make things easier in the future.

A good place to start might be telling stories on ourselves, the  
Accessibility Committee, where we've knocked against this a couple of  
times.

There's this most recent instance, in which I came to the committee  
with a report written at the very last minute, which had not been  
shared with anyone on the committee except the person who met with me  
(as a subcommittee) to put a report together. The intent of the report  
was to describe to Martha, the webmaster, what the content and  
organization of the "accessibility pages" of the website would be. In  
addition to this information, in my enthusiasm I went on to brainstorm  
about other aspects of electronic communications at UUCE which had not  
been previously discussed by the Accessibility Committee and about  
which no consensus of opinion had been formed. The result was a great  
deal of confusion, and an inability to move toward consensus on any of  
the new material -- because no one had had it in time to think about  
it in advance of the meeting. Two members of the committee are blind  
and hadn't received the information in Brailled copy; no one else  
received the information until it was handed out at the meeting. I  
thought I was just passing along information, a report, but, in  
preparing the initial draft, I had not been sensitive to distinguish  
parts of the report which had already been discussed and accepted by  
the Committee from another part of the report, which was only some  
initial thoughts of my own, which had not been evaluated or previously  
agreed upon. If I were doing it all over again, I think I would have  
split the report in two. One part described what we had agreed upon so  
far; a second "report" in effect was an additional proposal and should  
have been a separate item of business.

Jeanne-Marie, I have a vague recollection of another instance in which  
you and I discussed a situation in which Brailled copy of a report or  
something was lacking. Perhaps it was a Board meeting? Or lack of  
Brailled order of service readings? Do you remember it?

Another part of either story, or other stories, would be, what was  
done because of the problem? Was the item tabled until the next  
meeting? Was the paper read out loud so it could be discussed without  
further delay? Was the accessibility  issue discussed? Etc., etc. And  
what should be the way things are done because of this kind of  
problem? Is there a simple, single answer?

I'm glad to be taking this off a front burner, by the way. The way in  
which people on committees were asked to think about our "reserving"  
seats for others at services, and its implications in terms of  
hospitability, by Nisco and Marilyn, for example, was quite creative.  
Maybe we could create a little psychodrama skit of a meeting at which  
Mary is taking part but can't take part because a key background paper  
did not go out in the Board packet in Braille... Hmmm?

Enough for tonight.

David

On Apr 5, 2008, at 10:40 AM, jeannemarie moore wrote:
> How would you go about this, I mean what do you have in mind?
>
> I will have JUST moved, so I'm not sure I can make it...
>
> and, by the way, David the research guru, would you be so kind as to
> research the words to:
> "the road goes ever onward" or "ever on" from the movie The Trilogy  
> and send
> them... quick enough, Mary could braille them...
> She is already (kindly) brailling the responsive reading for the  
> three of us
> for tomorrow...
>
> This is an issue worth discussing and we may need to use instances as
> examples, they don't have to be "wrongs."
>
> j-m.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: access-bounces at uueugene.org [mailto:access- 
> bounces at uueugene.org] On
> Behalf Of David Gilmartin
> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 1:13 AM
> To: Access and Discussion Issues
> Subject: [Access] Accessibility - Process Problems
>
> I think Jeanne-Marie has accurately targeted some of the places  
> where UUCE's
> process fails to provide accessibility, such as in my effort to have  
> an item
> on the agenda even though the background information had not been  
> shared in
> ways that made it accessible to everyone with adequate time for
> consideration before the meeting. Or the subject of her recent email  
> --
> about it appearing that words of some items for Sunday's big  
> celebration
> will not be accessibly available to all.
>
> And I think that some progress might be made if the issues and  
> difficulties
> could be discussed separate from any specific instances.
>
> Is anyone interested in helping to put this concern into some form for
> discussion at the upcoming meeting of the Coordinating Council,  
> April 12th?
>
> David G.
> _______________________________________________
> Access mailing list
> Access at uueugene.org
> http://www.uueugene.org
> http://www.uueugene.org/mailman/listinfo/access
>
> _______________________________________________
> Access mailing list
> Access at uueugene.org
> http://www.uueugene.org
> http://www.uueugene.org/mailman/listinfo/access