[Access] Survey (Revised)

[David Gilmartin]

Mary,

I've interleaved my responses to your comments in the message that  
follows. Hope they are helpful. Come on back with further comments if  
you want.

David G.


On Feb 19, 2008, at 10:14 PM, Mary Otten wrote:

> Hi David,Re question 28, why is   limited hearing mentioned in a
> question  having to do with light. what is the connection?

Those with low hearing rely on lip reading to supplement what they do  
hear. Adequate lighting on the faces of those speaking assists in  
reading the lips of others.

> In the
> questions about wheel-chair accessibility, you have some specific
> guidelines regarding heights, position of grab bars etc. In the low
> vision ones regarding light, there is nothing indicating what
> constitutes adequate. I don't know if such standards exist, honestly.
> but if they do, I think it would be good to include those as you have
> specified things for accessibility for folks who use wheel-chairs.

I wondered about this too. Again, the issue is accessibility for those  
with low hearing. I will contact some of the organizations for people  
with hearing limitations and see if any of them have developed or know  
of measurable standards. If not, of course, one has to rely on the  
educated eyes and experience of those with the disability.

> I also don't understand question 25 regarding venting printers fax
> machines and computers to the outdoors> I've never heard of such a
> thing. Maybe it could be taken out?

The issue is of importance to people with chemical sensitivities. The  
outgassing from the plastics, circuit boards, and toner, in the  
absence of suitable and sufficient ventilation, are significant  
factors in "sick building syndrome" and many kinds of physical  
reactions to being in their vicinity. People also react to the  
electromagnetic fields, especially those generated by computers.

> Also in the question that asks
> about all parts of a building being accessible to people who use
> wheel-chairs, I think that should be revised to ask about whether all
> parts of the building which will be used by the public. If this is the
> check list we want people to consider when looking at outside rental
> space, it is not relevant if certain parts that our people wouldn't  
> use
> are not accessible, e.g. maybe there are offices that don't have
> accessible desks, but we won't be needing to use them.

Good point. I will work on how that could be better worded.

>  I think we could provide this list, minus the stuff about programs,
> policies and practices, as the check list for folks looking to rent
> outside facilities for church events, The program practice and policy
> part does not seem relevant for them, since they are considering
> facilities, except the part about listening devices and amplification
> systems  for the hearing impaired, so I think that should be included
> in  the first part about the facility, not the part about the programs
> etc.

I put the listening devices questions in the "program, practice, and  
policy" part mainly because I think of them more like furnishings, not  
part of the physical plant itself. I suspect you are right that not  
all questions are of equal relevance, depending on the reason for the  
survey and the type of facility being evaluated. There would be quite  
different expectations regarding accessibility for a SMG meeting in  
someone's home, for example, compared to a pledge campaign kick-off  
dinner at Lane Community College. How important is it to design the  
questionnaire for each particular kind of use?

> What would guidance under question 48 look like? My first reaction is
> to say I don't even like that question. It feels like special
> consideration. How would it be to ask does your congregation provide
> guidance for, say people of color, or women, or glbtq people in
> services? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but why should there be such
> guidance and what would it look like?

"Guidance" could be a number of things. In our case, I think first of  
the statement in the church bylaws that says:

020.2 We covenant to affirm and promote the full participation of all  
persons in all our activities and endeavors-including membership,  
programming, hiring practices, and the calling of religious  
professionals-without stereotype based on race, color, gender,  
physical or mental disability, sexual orientation, gender identity,  
class, national origin, or political affiliation.

Then there is the Board policy on accessibility that says:

ACC.1 As far as possible, the church and its staff shall make  
reasonable accommodation in its programs and facilities to make all  
aspects and areas of the church accessible to members and others with  
disabilities. These accommodations may include facilities  
enhancements, alternate materials and publications, adaptive equipment  
and/or accommodations by staff.

Another example that I found on the UUCE website is in the mission  
statement for the youth program, that includes:

. . . UUYouth, advisors, and supporters strive to nurture one another  
by:
. . . . • providing developmentally appropriate activities and  
experiences that accommodate diverse learning styles.

The guidance I see in these instances strikes me as "this is how we  
will do things" statements, not "this is the way you will do things."  
As such, I'm not riled by them. But you raise an interesting question,  
and it could be helpful to get some feedback on both the wording and  
the intent from some church members of color, or who are women, or  
glbtq. So let's solicit some opinions.

> I would suggest moving question 46 to the first part as it has to do
> with the facility, not a policy or program; its signage.

Good catch, as Martha might say.

> Regarding alternative lighting, isn't there something about  
> fluorescent
> lighting, dimmer switches or some new kind of lighting or something
> that makes them ok or at least better than they use to be. We just had
> a discussion at the accessibility committee of the HRC on this topic,
> but I don't remember the technical details. A fix is nontrivial.

My discussions with people who are sensitive to electromagnetic  
radiation (EMR), plus reading on the subject, indicates that natural  
daylight is best, and that incandescent lighting is much better than  
either fluorescent or LED lighting. Fluorescent and LED lighting both  
require ballasts, which produce EMR. Fluorescent lights flicker and  
induce seizure activity in some people. When I think of a complete  
fix, I see the architectural provision of three systems of lighting --  
natural, fluorescent or LED, and incandescent. Building in all three  
would involve extra expense, though those costs would be offset some  
by the savings in electricity usage over time. The much easier fix is  
to have a number of incandescent lamps that can be moved from room to  
room and used where needed, as needed.

> Sorry I'm late commenting on this. I'd love to hear what others think.

Stay tuned to this listserv and you will!

> Mary

David G.