Authors Guild, Inc. v. Hathitrust

Filing 259

LETTER, dated 10/09/2013, re: reference material, on behalf of Appellee Georgina Kleege, National Federation of the Blind, Blair Seidlitz and Courtney Wheeler, RECEIVED. Service date 10/09/2013 by CM/ECF.[1062152] [12-4547]--[Edited 10/09/2013 by DH]

SPEC Kit 321
Services for Users with Disabilities

ISBN 978-1-59407-855-2

9 781594 078552

90000 >

Kit 321

Services for Users with Disabilities

December 2010

SPEC KitS
Supporting Effective Library Management for Over Thirty-five Years
Committed to assisting research and academic libraries in the continuous improvement of management sys­
tems, ARL has worked since 1970 to gather and disseminate the best practices for library needs. As part of
its commitment, ARL maintains an active publications program best known for its SPEC Kits. Through the
Collaborative Research/Writing Program, librarians work with ARL staff to design SPEC surveys and write
publications. Originally established as an information source for ARL member libraries, the SPEC Kit series
has grown to serve the needs of the library community worldwide.

What are SPEC Kits?
Published six times per year, SPEC Kits contain the most valuable, up-to-date information on the latest issues of
concern to libraries and librarians today. They are the result of a systematic survey of ARL member libraries on
a particular topic related to current practice in the field. Each SPEC Kit contains an executive summary of the
survey results; survey questions with tallies and selected comments; the best representative documents from
survey participants, such as policies, procedures, handbooks, guidelines, Web sites, records, brochures, and
statements; and a selected reading list—both print and online sources—containing the most current literature
available on the topic for further study.

Subscribe to SPEC Kits
Subscribers tell us that the information contained in SPEC Kits is valuable to a variety of users, both inside and
outside the library. SPEC Kit purchasers use the documentation found in SPEC Kits as a point of departure
for research and problem solving because they lend immediate authority to proposals and set standards for
designing programs or writing procedure statements. SPEC Kits also function as an important reference tool
for library administrators, staff, students, and professionals in allied disciplines who may not have access to
this kind of information.
SPEC Kits can be ordered directly from the ARL Publications Distribution Center. To order, call [phone],
fax [phone], e-mail [e-mail], or go to http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/.
Information on SPEC Kits and the SPEC survey program can be found at http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/
spec/index.shtml. The executive summary for each kit after December 1993 can be accessed free of charge at
http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/spec/complete.shtml.

SPEC Kit 321
Services for Users with Disabilities
December 2010

M. Suzanne Brown
Research Assistance, Instruction & Outreach Services Librarian
University of Florida

LeiLani Freund
Associate Chair, Library West
University of Florida

ASSoCiAtion of RESEARCh LibRARiES

Series Editor: Lee Anne George

SPEC Kits are published by the
Association of Research Libraries
21 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036-1118
P [phone] F [phone]
http:/
/www.arl.org/resources/pubs/spec/
[e-mail]
ISSN 0160 3582
ISBN 1-59407-855-6
978-1-59407-855-2
Copyright © 2010
This compilation is copyrighted by the Association of Research Libraries. ARL grants blanket permission to reproduce and distribute
copies of this work for nonprofit, educational, or library purposes, provided that copies are distributed at or below cost and that ARL, the
source, and copyright notice are included on each copy. This permission is in addition to rights of reproduction granted under Sections
107, 108, and other provisions of the US Copyright Act.
The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R1997) Permanence of Paper for
Publications and Documents in Libraries and Archives.

executive Summary

Introduction
When ARL last gathered information from member
libraries about services for users with disabilities more
than 10 years ago, several trends emerged. There were
a growing number of library users with a broad range
of disabilities. While physical access to libraries was
improving, more work remained, particularly in older
buildings. Assistive technology was prevalent, but
equipment maintenance could be an issue. And staff
training and attitudes were the weak link in the ser­
vice chain.
This survey sought to better understand library
services for users with disabilities today and how
accessibility has changed for them in the complex en­
vironments of ARL libraries. It explored what services
are being provided and how users are made aware of
them; what assistive technologies are being offered to­
day and who maintains them; which library staff have
responsibility for providing services and how are they
trained; and what service policies and procedures are
in place for users with disabilities. The survey was
conducted between August 23 and October 15, 2010.
Sixty-two of the 125 ARL member libraries completed
the survey for a response rate of 50%.

Library Staff Assistance
All of the responding libraries provide assistance with
retrieving books and other materials from the library
stacks. All but a few help users with disabilities to
search the catalog and other online resources, and to
copy, scan, or print library materials. Some provide de­
livery service to buildings on campus, assistance with
adaptive equipment, and directional assistance for us­
ers with visual impairment. Library staff will also or­
der alternative format textbooks or special equipment,

if needed. A significant number of respondents also of­
fer proxy borrowing cards and extended loan periods.
While it is common that students first register with
their university’s office of disabilities services to ob­
tain a referral for library assistance, almost all of the
responding libraries report that users may approach
any service desk to request assistance or may request
an appointment by phone or e-mail. About half of the
respondents also have an online request form; about
a quarter have a special service desk.

Workspace Accommodations
Workspace accommodations are quite varied among
the respondents. A majority of the responding librar­
ies (52 or 84%) provide height adjustable workstations,
a relatively inexpensive solution and a minimal ac­
commodation for people who are in wheelchairs or
who simply need adjustable furniture. One library
mentioned that all of their study carrels and tables are
wheelchair accessible. Thirty-seven respondents (60%)
provide some kind of assistive technology on their
general-purpose public computers (several mentioned
the Microsoft accessibility package and/or Zoom Text)
and well over half provide workstations in a quiet or
separate workspace of some kind.
Other workspace accommodations include circula­
tion of special equipment and laptops outfitted with
specialized software, accommodation for seeing-eye
dogs, light dimmers and window blinds, improved
lighting for less reflection and better color rendering,
sound-proofed or non-quiet rooms for dictation, and
voice recognition tools.
As might be expected, given the range of size of
the responding libraries and differing models of col­
laboration with campus disability offices, the number
SPEC Kit 321: Services for Users with Disabilities · 11

of multiple purpose public workstations with some
assistive technology is extremely variable. One li­
brary system reported 500 workstations, all with some
kind of accessibility software, including Zoom Text,
JAWS, and Kurzweil 3000. The largest number of pub­
lic workstations with assistive technology is 558; the
smallest units have one. The average is 114 worksta­
tions, but the median figure is eight. Clearly, the more
common approach is to provide assistive technology
on just a few of the general-purpose workstations. The
number of dedicated assistive technology worksta­
tions is low, commonly only two or three. The average
number of quiet rooms is also just two or three, but
one respondent reported 20 rooms available.
Disabled patrons have a variety of options for ob­
taining access to specialized workspaces. Seventy-five
percent of the respondents indicated that patrons
may approach any service desk. Almost half reported
that workspaces are self-service with signage point­
ing the way. Thirteen libraries have a special service
desk. Seven issue a key, code, or card swipe access
to special, locked workspaces, and most of the cor­
responding Web pages had quite specific directions
for obtaining and using these keys. The intent of these
libraries seems clear: to provide security for equip­
ment but also to provide access without intervention
for disabled persons so they can come and go as they
please. Only five have online reservations for special
rooms or equipment.

Specialized Software
The responses to the Specialized Software section of
the study reflect a still fairly limited pool of choices of
high-quality software packages. Existing options for
software can be cost prohibitive, and the technology
may not be as sophisticated as we might expect or de­
sire (e.g., screen readers still cannot interpret graphics.)
Sixty libraries reported use of text magnification
software. Of those, 78% use the Zoom Text magnifier
and reader, noted above as being ubiquitous in some
of the larger public computer labs. Adobe Acrobat
and the Microsoft Magnifier come in at 55% and 40%,
respectively. MAGic seems to have lost ground, used
for magnification by only twelve of the respondents.
Of the 52 responding libraries reporting use of screen
reader software, 47 (90%) have JAWS, 13 (25%) use
12 · Survey Results: Executive Summary

MAGic as a reader, and 13 have Narrator (part of the
Microsoft Accessibility package.)
The increase of awareness of learning disabilities
was noted in SPEC Kit 243 in 1999 and is reflected
in much of the current literature. As knowledge of
such disabilities has increased, the more sophisti­
cated scanner/reading/writing systems have gained
in popularity and usage. These systems are also very
useful for learners of English as a second language.
Twenty-nine of the 62 responding libraries report
using some version of Kurzweil, clearly the front run­
ner in this type of system. Survey respondents also
reported use of regular scanners plus OCR software
such as OpenBook (Freedom Scientific) and ABBYY
FineReader. Dragon Naturally Speaking dominates
the field of speech recognition or dictation software.
Eighteen respondents have word completion software
with Inspiration as the front runner.
Only 16 respondents reported use of the Microsoft
Windows accessibility package (now under “Ease of
Access” in the Accessories menu of Windows 7). Since
individual components of the Microsoft accessibility
package drew higher numbers in responses to other
sections of this survey, this low number could reflect
usage of only parts of the package and/or confusion
over the name of this suite. It is likely that most li­
braries have not explored all the components of this
toolkit, which may be readily available on their pub­
lic computers. Only three libraries reported using
the Premier Accessibility package, probably due to
the readily available Windows package. It should be
noted that software for converting text to Braille was
not included in the survey but is mentioned in the
open comments by at least three libraries. Several
libraries in this and other sections of the survey also
mentioned the services for Braille readers available
through the Library of Congress.

Specialized Hardware
The responding libraries provide a large array of assis­
tive hardware for disabled users. At the 53 responding
libraries, scanners (79%) and speakers (66%) are the
most common types of equipment, followed by micro­
phones, noise reduction headphones, and motor track­
balls. A third of the respondents provide some kind
of augmented keyboard and some provide joysticks.

Only one library has vocal labels for the keyboard,
and one other has light signals for computer sounds.
Desktop video magnifiers and CCTV units for the
visually impaired are available at a majority of the re­
sponding libraries. Three libraries have at least small
pocket or portable magnifiers. In the open comments,
fifteen respondents reported the availability of some
kind of Braille equipment: raised, tactile keyboards,
Braille printers, Braille embossers, and Braillers
(typewriters). Two libraries mentioned videophones
for sign language. Others noted talking calculators,
desktop illuminated magnifiers, and talking book
players, including the discontinued Kurzweil Reading
Edge machine. Digital voice recorders are provided at
fourteen locations.

Selecting and Publicizing Services
When asked how the library decides which services
and technology to provide for users with disabilities,
the majority reported that they respond to patrons’
requests. At a little more than half of the libraries,
a service coordinator makes recommendations. At
many institutions, a central disabilities office man­
dates which services and technology to provide, and
a significant number of the responding libraries con­
sult or coordinate with that office. About a quarter of
the respondents have received donations for specific
items. Only nine libraries report that they have sur­
veyed their users about their needs.
The three most common methods libraries use
to inform potential users about services are through
the campus disabilities office, the library website, and
word of mouth. Services are also promoted through li­
brary signage, in instruction and orientation sessions,
and through brochures and flyers. A few respondents
have placed articles in either a library newsletter or
campus newspaper.

Coordinating Services
At 18 of the responding institutions, an individual in a
central unit has primary responsibility for coordinat­
ing support services for persons with disabilities. At
another 18 institutions, this responsibility is shared be­
tween the central disabilities coordinator and a library
disabilities coordinator. Thirteen respondents report
that a library disabilities coordinator has primary

responsibility for this role. Ten other libraries report
that another individual or a committee assumes the
service coordination responsibility.
The frequency with which the central coordinator
and library staff interact ranges from infrequently, to
as needed, to often. Most of the respondents indicated
there is regular, on-going contact as often as they feel
is necessary.
The survey asked the libraries that employ an
ADA officer/disabilities coordinator or other desig­
nated person to oversee services for users with dis­
abilities to provide the approximate percentage of
time spent coordinating services. Of the 29 positions
described, only three spend 90% to 100% of their time
on coordinating services. Four devote 30% to 50% of
their time to these activities. For the rest, service co­
ordination accounts for between 1% and 10% of their
work responsibilities.
The survey next asked who has responsibility for
interpreting applicable disabilities laws for library
staff. At all but a few institutions, the central disabili­
ties coordinator has primary responsibility. At many
institutions, this individual shares the responsibil­
ity with the organization’s counsel or legal unit and
the library’s disabilities coordinator. At the other in­
stitutions the responsibility falls primarily on legal
counsel.

Library Service Providers
Responses to a question about which library staff
members are expected to provide services for users
with disabilities overwhelmingly echoed the state­
ment that, “All staff who work on a public services
desk are responsible for assisting users with disabili­
ties.” Or as one respondent commented, “At the mini­
mum, anyone approached should be able to make a
proper referral.”
The primary way that library staff members re­
ceive training about assisting users with disabilities
and how to use the available assistive technology is by
hands-on training from the disabilities coordinator. A
number of respondents report that staff also occasion­
ally attend workshops, webinars, and conferences, or
consult manuals. Twelve libraries reported making
use of vendors or outside consultants for technol­
ogy training as well as tips on helping the users and
SPEC Kit 321: Services for Users with Disabilities · 13

sensitivity awareness. A significant number report
that staff members are entirely self-trained. Online
tutorials and video training are not common, used
by 10% or fewer of the respondents.

Assistive Technology and Funding Support
The survey asked respondents to indicate financial
support for three types of assistive technology: soft­
ware, computer hardware, and other equipment. The
funding source for 60% of the libraries is their regular
library operating budget. Just under half of the re­
spondents indicated some financial assistance from
the central disabilities office. The library IT budget
provides funding at 38% of the responding libraries
and the central IT budget provides funds at 19%. Only
three libraries have a portion of their budget identified
specifically as an ADA/disabilities allocation. Other
sources were grants and donations. One respondent
mentioned the university’s computer access fee as a
possible source that could be applied for, but was very
competitive.
By far, the major source of technical support for
maintaining library workstation hardware, software,
and other equipment is the library’s IT staff. The
central disabilities office and/or the central IT staff
supplement this support at 17 libraries (29%), depend­
ing on the type of service. At about a quarter of the
surveyed libraries, the library coordinator has some
responsibility for troubleshooting software, but has
little to do with installations or hardware and equip­
ment repair. A significant number of respondents
indicated that library facilities staff service equipment
and also mentioned warranties that are serviced by
the vendor.

Library Website Accessibility
Having an accessible library website is clearly a con­
cern for the majority of libraries; over 60% of those
surveyed have staff trained in Web accessibility for
users with disabilities. Fewer libraries (about half)
have staff trained in testing Web products such as
databases, in-house branded pages, and Web tutori­
als. Most libraries have at least one Web developer on
whom they depend for special skills in these areas.
One library mentioned their systems staff as resourc­
es. Several libraries noted that the Web developer is
14 · Survey Results: Executive Summary

mainly self-taught or has a special interest in accessi­
bility issues. Support from the central disabilities office
is a fairly common way for the library Web person to
develop skills in this area.
Few libraries are looking at vendor databases yet;
some respondents said they rely on their reference
staff to notice problems with databases, the catalog,
and other resources. Regular and frequent auditing of
Web pages appears to be uncommon, but there seems
to be a heightened awareness of Web accessibility
standards and the need to apply them. The question
dealing with the criteria used for Web accessibility
testing yielded very specific responses that demon­
strated a considerable depth of understanding and
awareness; libraries may be doing more evaluation
than they realize. Compliance with Section 508 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and/or W3C (World
Wide Web Consortium) standards is the method most
often mentioned in the survey responses. WAVE is a
frequently mentioned accessibility evaluation tool.

Conclusion
Most sources, including the US Census Bureau, cite
figures of almost 20% of the population being affected
by a disability of some kind. The majority of these
people are not institutionalized. As the baby boom­
er generation grows, this figure will likely increase,
hopefully in concert with greater understanding and
awareness of what it means to have a disability that
requires adaptive technology. Libraries are particu­
larly willing partners in providing accessibility, but
challenged further by shrinking budgets to meet the
needs of this growing population. One way to offset
the lack of resources is to collaborate. The survey re­
sults indicate an increasingly close relationship be­
tween campus or central disabilities offices and the
academic libraries. In several cases, the campus dis­
abilities office runs the library assistive technology
center or workstations and usually provides funding
and staff support at some level. Often, the library’s
services are guided by the campus office; libraries
tend to work through them rather than surveying the
students themselves.
Information technology is changing at lightning
speed and the assistive technologies will likely im­
prove accordingly. However, the names of some of

the major players in the field of assistive software
and hardware have not changed since 1999, although
they may have swapped parent companies. Prices of
the older tools remain high and newer, more sophisti­
cated programs are sometimes impossibly expensive,
especially for smaller library systems. Hopefully, the
growing market for adaptive technology will drive a
more competitive market and result in more reason­
able pricing.
Static library budgets have also resulted in signifi­
cant staffing cuts throughout the past decade. Some of
the most striking parts of this survey are the respons­
es in the staff training and library providers sections.
Although all or nearly all staff in most of the surveyed
libraries are expected to have some level of ability
to help users with disabilities, a surprising number
of staff members are entirely self-taught or getting
their training as best they can, in occasional work­
shops, at conferences, or from vendors. The majority

of library ADA coordinators allocate only 1% – 10%
of their time to performing ADA-related duties. They
are bibliographic instruction coordinators, subject
specialists, building managers, reference librarians,
and digital services librarians with many additional
responsibilities. Only two of the surveyed libraries
had full-time coordinators for ADA services. This
fragmented approach to coordinating the programs
was in evidence at the time of the older ARL surveys
and has not changed. However, this did not stop the
vast majority of responding libraries from providing
an impressive array of services which is well dem­
onstrated by a perusal of some of the representative
Web pages in this publication. Yet the respondents’
comments yielded repeated concerns that they were
not doing enough. Clearly, the dedication to providing
assistive services is there and the challenge remains
to find ways to maintain them at a high level.

SPEC Kit 321: Services for Users with Disabilities · 15