In article <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
wrote:
>physician, who said that only two weeks ago a disc problem suddenly put him
>in a wheelchair, where he expects to spend the rest of his life.  He was
>grateful that many labels and exhibits in our museum are at a convenient
>height for him to enjoy from his chair, but his walking companions, of about
>the same age, complained that THEY were unable to read some of these same
>labels because they were at an inconvenient height; they didn't think they
>should be forced to stoop and contort themselves, at their age, to read
>labels that seemed too low!  What to do?

Easy.  Two sets of labels, one high and one low.  Sheets with label
text available at the door, so that visitors can take them with them.
Laminated sheets with label texts that visitors can return when they're
done touring the exhibit.  Binders with copies of the labels and photos
of the exhibits available so people who can't physically visit the
exhibit can also view it (these also make good permanent records of
the exhibit, and/or great fodder for museum outreach).  A docent or
staff member available to read the text of signs.  Most of these are
low cost solutions.

Not all solutions meet the needs of every disabled person (or even
every TAB!).  The most valuable asset for ADA compliance that a
museum may have is often a staff that is flexible and creative and
able to suggest solutions "on the fly".
>
>I'm woefully ignorant about specifics of the ADA, but I've been hearing some
>horrific interpretations that affect the way museums do business, and I
>wonder if anyone can speak knowledgeably (and civilly) about these issues.

Ed Muskie has put up an excellent web site on ADA and compliance issues,
with explanations.  See  http://muskie2.usmacs.maine.edu/~csdispol/infodoc.htm
for the index; the parts that concern most museums are in Titles 2 and 3
of the ADA, and http://muskie2.usmacs.maine.edu/~cisdispol/3high.htm#efr
does an excellent job covering "private entities" and the ADA, title 3.

In essence, the ADA requires good-faith efforts to make *readily achievable*,
*reasonable accomodations* to allow access for people with disabilities.
Building a ramp up a couple of steps is probably a reasonable thing for
most museums.  Making sure doorways are wide enough to allow a wheelchair
through when you move that doorway is probably a readily achievable and
reasonable accomodation.  Giant Well-Endowed Museum is going to be
responsible for more costly forms of accomodations (for instance,
putting in an elevator during remodeling) than Historic Little Red Schoolhouse
Run By Volunteers -- reasonable accomodations in that case might be
a ramp (if possible), bringing artifacts or photos of artifacts out
to visitors, or reading labels and describing artifacts to someone who
is blind.

There are some limits on what the costs should be... as I recall, if
adding full handicap accessibility to a remodeling would add more than
20% to the cost of the remodeling, it's not considered "readily achievable".

And there are exemptions for historic structures, or things that would
irretrievably alter the character of the experience for all.  For instance,
the museum I volunteer at has a submarine, the USS Blueback, docked.  It's
not wheelchair accessible, nor is it accessible to anyone who can't
fit through a sub doorway.  We have a videotape of the sub interior
for anyone who can't or doesn't want to take the sub tour.  That's considered
a reasonable accomodation that does not alter the character of the
experience of being in a submarine.  I suppose if we had two
subs, we could transect one of them and make the second one available
that way.  But we don't, so we're not required to alter that exhibit.

> (It would be nice to get this back on a museum track anyway, instead of
>dwelling narrowly on political and economic philosophy.)  As a visually
>oriented person (especially photographs), I'm particularly interested in the
>implications of the ADA for the way museums can (or can't) serve visually
>handicapped people.  A few months ago a museum official surveyed our archival
>research center for handicapped access, and asserted that our textual
>collections (several million pages' worth) ultimately would all have to be
>translated into Braille to accommodate the blind for compliance with ADA.  I
>didn't even broach the subject of our pictorial collections (Braille
>photographs?), but strongly doubted the existence of sufficient funds (public
>or private), space, or time to accomplish such a Herculean task; I said that
>if the ADA specifically mandated such a solution, it clearly was not possible
>and quite absurd, if not insane.  Has anyone ever had any experience with
>this issue?

Yup.  Under ADA guidelines, it's not necessary to braille anything as long
as you've got someone who can read it to the person needing the accomodation,
or describe the pictures, etc.  In fact, I doubt brailling your archives
would be the best solution to access for visually handicapped people, since
there are many who can't read braille, especially adults who lose their
sight later in life.  For them, something like a Kurzweil reader or
scanner/computer/voice output system would be far preferable -- and would
also serve the needs of someone who also can read braille.  Pricetag?
Perhaps $3,000 right now.  And prices are coming down as technology
improves.  (do a web search for "assistive technology" for lots more
information!).  In addition, the computer-assisted "reader" would also
make your archives available for someone who is dyslexic, or illiterate,
or who understands but does not read English.

Likewise, it's not necessarily required to provide ASL interpretation
if staffers are willing to communicate by pen and pad.  Of course, this
is fairly clumsy compared to ASL interpreters, but again, many of us
with hearing losses don't sign, or sign poorly.  For me, the opposite of
the computer solution above... something that translates speech into
writing on a computer screen... would be preferable.  It's available
now in forms like "Dragon Dictate", software that also allows someone
who can't use a keyboard to use a computer.

There was a study in the last year or so... and I'm probably going to
misquote it... but it looked at the costs of ADA compliance for employers.
Something like 80% of the accomodations required so that disabled people
could hold jobs cost the company $0.  90% cost less than $1000.  I'll
see if I can locate the precise reference.

I suspect that the same sort of statistics could be gathered for museums.


>
>Trying to accommodate museum exhibits for the visually handicapped can run
>squarely into conflict with conservation policy.  While conservators are
>pushing for low light levels to prevent damage to museum artifacts,
>provisions of the ADA would require brighter illumination.  Then we can fall
>into what I consider the replica "trap": if original objects cannot be
>illuminated brightly, then there is a temptation to show copies and
>surrogates, thus denying viewers with "normal" vision the opportunity to see
>the "real thing

I don't see that this would be required under the ADA.  Possible solutions
would be to allow a visually handicapped visitor to use a flashlight as
supplemental illumination (perhaps providing it with a UV filter!), to
provide copies of the photos or objects that can be looked at under
brighter lighting, or to turn the lights up for the few minutes that
the visitor might need, if doing so would not irretrievably damage the
objects.   Again, ADA criteria are *readily achievable* and *reasonable*.

Personally, I'd probably prefer the combination of copies (again, those
are great for museum outreach) and increased temporary illumination for
those objects the person requesting the accomodation identifies as being
of great interest.

For those of you who have no real experience with assistive technology,
let me invite you to tour the OMSI (Oregon Museum of Science and Industry)
"handicapped house" and "handicapped office".  You can get into the
house via ramps using one of our wheelchairs, and try to reach things,
or use items in the house and office.  You can also try the phone and
fire flashers (meant for people with hearing losses), the portable
amplifiers, TTDY, Kurzweil reader, etc.

Your state probably also has a collection of these sorts of devices
that you can try: if nothing else, call the state Vocational
Rehabilitation office, and ask them about particulars.

Or make use of some of the greatest local resources you've got:
local people who are handicapped/disabled/"differently abled" (gag!).
Most of us are full of low cost suggestions that would help make a
museum experience easier and richer for us.  For instance, I volunteer
in the Earth Science hall at OMSI.  I'd love to have a visual paging
system for the museum, but that's not going to be in the budget for
awhile (the floods last February put us in a real financial bind).
So if I'm working there, and you ask me what the last page was, I'll
dial the front desk, hand you the phone, and let you ask.  ;-)
If I'm working in the hall by myself, I can't hear the pages or even
the walkie-talkies used for staff communication, so I just ask the
people in Life Science, the next hall, to let me know if there's something
important that comes over those systems.  And they do.  A no-cost
solution, but one involving a bit of human effort.

If you're interested in some of the issues around "handicapped access",
I strongly encourage you to read John Hockenberry's 1994 book, _Moving
Violations_, about his life before and after a car accident left
him a parapelegic.  Hockenberry is probably best known as an NPR
reporter, and one who worked in Palestine and Jerusalem.  His chapters
on "access" in Palestine, Jerusalem, and New York City provide a lot
of food for thought.  Besides that, it's well-written, funny, and
insightful.

Kay Lancaster   [log in to unmask]
.