A CONSUMER PERSPECTIVE ON TECHNOLOGY by Curtis Chong President National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science Introduction On behalf of the National Federation of the Blind, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to share my perspectives with you about technology and its relation to the blind. It is in the nature of things that consumers and rehabilitation professionals do not always agree. But the fact that you have asked to have some consumer participation in your deliberations is indeed encouraging. Even if we may not agree, we can at least talk with each other as equals, recognizing that each has something to contribute. When I was a student in high school (That would have been around 1970), the most sophisticated piece of technology I knew about was a reel-to-reel tape recorder that could play and record on four tracks. The cassette recorder was just beginning to come on the scene, and some people in my home state (at that time, Hawaii) were toying with the idea of using this machine as a portable note taker to replace the slate and stylus. Back in those days, no one had ever heard of a talking computer, an electronic note taker, or a reading machine that could turn print into synthesized speech. The closest thing to a word processor was a magnetic tape selectric typewriter, which was regarded as the ultimate in high tech. That was then, and this is now. I think it is safe to say that a lot of things have changed, some for the better. Certainly, the technology that is now available to the blind is far more complex and pervasive than it was twenty years ago. In fact, we find technology creeping into almost every aspect of our lives. Today, people in the field of work with the blind have had to learn to talk about "rehabilitation engineering" (whatever that is), "interfacing," "optical character recognition," "high technology," "low technology," "assistive technology," "graphical user interfaces," "paperless braille," "bits," "bytes," "RAM," "ROM," "chips," "Windows," and (most dreaded of all) "the mouse." Today, I want to talk to you about aspects of technology from the point of view of the blind consumer. I plan to touch upon three broad areas: 1. Good and bad outcomes of technology, 2. Special versus mainstream technology, and 3. Financing technology. Good and Bad Outcomes of Technology There is no question that in many ways, technology has benefitted blind people. Braille (at least for literary purposes) has become more plentiful and less difficult to produce because of technology. Using computers equipped with speech, braille, or magnified print displays, blind people have been able to word process, manage data bases, crunch numbers on spreadsheets, and communicate with other people using electronic mail. With optical character recognition hardware and software, information on a printed page can now be converted to synthesized speech or stored in a computer as text with reasonable accuracy. Technology has brought us talking clocks, scales, and calculators; braille embossers; Grade 2 Braille translators; and electronic note takers. Because of technology, blind people have been able to enter the computer age along with the rest of society. As the rest of society continues to plunge ahead in a seemingly endless quest for more and better technology, the very real possibility exists that the blind will be left behind. Consider computer systems that use graphics. These include the well known Windows platform and IBM's OS/2 operating system. Although we have been able to achieve major progress in terms of our ability to use text-based computer applications, we still have a long way to go before we will have total independent access to systems that rely exclusively upon the graphical user interface. In and of itself, technology has not improved public attitudes toward the blind. Nor has it made it any easier for blind people to secure comprehensive and positive training in the alternative techniques and attitudes necessary to compete on terms of equality in a world designed for the sighted. Too often, technology has been used as an excuse for not providing badly needed training and other services. Here are some of the more outlandish ideas I have heard expressed about technology and its relationship to the blind. Bear in mind that these come from members of the sighted public, rehabilitation counselors, and yes, even from blind people themselves. "We don't have to teach a blind person braille anymore. We have talking computers." "With reading machines, blind people can be completely independent." "Who needs to learn how to use a slate and stylus. We have electronic note takers now." "Blind people can hold regular jobs now. They have talking computers." "Computer assisted instruction will eliminate the need for a blind person to learn the Nemeth Code." These statements demonstrate both a lack of belief in the basic competence and normality of people who are blind and a lack of understanding about what technology, as it exists today, can accomplish for the blind. With respect to the former, this is a problem that we in the National Federation of the Blind have been wrestling with ever since the founding of our organization in 1940. The development of talking computers and other technologies merely adds a new dimension. I am constantly amazed by the large number of rehabilitation counselors who feel more comfortable purchasing expensive and complex high tech gear for their clients instead of encouraging them to seek comprehensive training in the basic skills of blindness--skills such as braille reading and writing, independent travel with the long white cane, and the development of a positive philosophy of blindness. I have personally dealt with situations in which a blind person would be supplied an enviable albeit incredibly expensive computer setup (including a computer, speech system, and braille embosser) but where the blind person couldn't read a printed memo or find his or her way to the cafeteria. There are far too many individuals in the public, in the rehabilitation profession, and in the blind community who do not understand what technology can and cannot do. They fail to recognize, for example, that an Arkenstone reading system will not necessarily eliminate the need to hire a sighted reader. They fail to understand that in today's world of local area networks and terminal emulation systems, you can't just connect two computers together and expect them to talk to each other without a lot of initial work. Managers responsible for the hiring of rehabilitation personnel tend to hire individuals with a strong rehabilitation background as technology specialists instead of hiring someone for their technical expertise--expertise which I believe to be sorely lacking in the field of work with the blind. Technology can produce both good and bad results for blind people. Talking computers, reading machines, and other devices can, if properly used and understood, enable the blind to compete on terms of equality with their sighted peers. If properly applied, technology can open new doors of opportunity for the blind. If rehabilitation agencies would hire true technology specialists as opposed to rehabilitation personnel who have been forced to learn about computers, they would have fewer problems getting a blind client's computer system integrated into the workplace. However, as long as technology is viewed as a substitute for training in the alternative techniques and attitudes necessary to function independently without sight, millions of dollars will be poured down the drain. As long as blind people, rehabilitation counselors, and employers see technology as "the key to independence and equality for the blind," the vast reservoir of human potential represented by our nation's blind population will remain largely untapped. Special Versus Mainstream Technology As most people in the field of work with the blind know, there are quite a few devices that have been developed that are necessary and unique to the needs of persons who are blind. As examples, one could cite the braille writer, the talking book, the braille watch, the slate and stylus, the long white cane, screen reading systems for the IBM PC and Macintosh computers, the Braille 'n Speak--the list goes on and on. Most of this so-called special technology is extremely expensive. For example, the braille writer, which continues to be an excellent mechanical device, costs about $600 per unit. The Braille 'n Speak, which is an immensely popular electronic note taking device, costs about $1,300. The high cost of these devices is a direct result of a small market. Simply put, there aren't enough blind people in this country to generate enough revenue to justify the high cost of mass production. For many specialized pieces of technology, this will continue to be the case. I am encouraged, however, by the cost reductions that have occurred over the past few years. On the other hand, if a piece of mainstream technology just happens to be helpful to someone who is blind, its cost is often quite reasonable. Consider the talking calculator. In the mid seventies, TeleSensory developed a talking calculator for the blind market. This calculator, which was not small enough to fit into a coat pocket, cost about $400. In the early eighties, Scharpe developed a talking calculator for the general market. This calculator, which could be carried in a coat pocket, cost about $50. Clearly, Scharpe was able to benefit from projected economies of scale to keep the cost of its calculator down. A good example of how a piece of technology developed for the general public can incidentally meet the unique needs of someone who is blind is found in the PhoneMate answering machine that I have at home. This combination phone and answering machine places a verbal day and time stamp on the message tape for each call recorded. Every programmable function of the machine has a verbal prompt. A blind person can do everything with it that a sighted person can: set the clock, program in a security code, enter in and read back numbers programmed into the machine's memory, and read back the last number dialed. Yet, the PhoneMate was not designed specifically for the blind but was developed for a large market. Hence, its cost is relatively low, slightly over a hundred dollars. An example of a commercial product that is not completely useable by the blind is the humble video cassette recorder (VCR). Most VCR's marketed today are computers in their own right, complete with on-screen programming, digital clocks, and programmable tuners. Unfortunately, the higher level functions of the typical VCR marketed today cannot be performed without sight. As more and more of today's commercial products are designed around digital technology, there is a very real possibility that they will not be able to be operated without access to a video display. Will this be a problem for blind people? Only time will tell. With some very slight and practical modifications, many commercially-marketed devices can be used independently by the blind. Often, it is as simple as having buttons that can be easily felt and pushed. At other times, it is as simple as putting tactile markings on a turnable dial. The important principle to be kept in mind here is communication. Manufacturers and marketers of technology for the general public should consult with blind consumers to determine how or if their product can be modified so as to permit maximum independent use. By the same token, we as consumers do not plan to be hesitant about keeping commercial marketers informed about our views concerning their products. Certainly, it behooves us to work with companies as early as possible during the development cycle of any new piece of technology. There will always be a need for technology that is unique to the needs of the blind. We as consumers will do what we can to persuade developers of such technology to charge a fair price for their products. In this regard, stimulating competition seems to help. If we have nothing else today in the area of technology, we certainly have more choices than we did even ten years ago. Paying for Technology One of the most frequent questions I am asked is "Is there any special financing or grant money available to help blind people pay for technology?" Alas, there is no simple answer. Clearly, the rehabilitation system has a major role to play in this regard. This is especially true when a potential employer is considering hiring a blind person for the first time. In this context, who should pay for any required technology? Today, what seems to happen is that both parties, the rehabilitation agency and the employer, dicker with each other to try to get the other party to pay. The rehabilitation agency is typically interested in getting the employer to contribute to the cost of the technology and probably feels morally obligated to do this in light of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The employer, on the other hand, having never employed a blind person before and perceiving a financial risk, tries to get the agency to pay for the technology. In the middle, we have the blind person, who is interested only in getting the job. If both parties, agency and employer, are sufficiently intractable, nobody pays for any equipment, and the blind person loses. In my view, the rehabilitation agency should be prepared to purchase any required technology, particularly if (1) this is the first job ever being obtained by the blind client or (2) this is the first time the prospective employer has ever considered hiring someone who is blind. Once the blind person has proven his or her ability to do the job, the employer is likely to be more willing to purchase any technology that might be needed in the future. When technology is required for something that is not directly related to a job (as is the case when a college student needs a computer), one cannot predict what a particular rehabilitation agency will do. Some agencies purchase full computer systems for blind college students. Others do not. Although I cannot fathom why a rehabilitation agency should purchase a reading machine for each and every blind college student, I can see where a computer might be helpful for some. Fortunately, the rehabilitation system is not the only source of funds for technology. In an effort to make technology more available to persons who are blind, the National Federation of the Blind has initiated a technology loan program through its Committee on Assistive Technology. Through this committee, blind persons who need technology either for employment or to improve the quality of life can apply for three percent loans. The Committee can loan as much as three thousand dollars to any one individual for a maximum of four years. I understand that the American Foundation for the Blind offers a loan program for blind persons who want to obtain a Kurzweil Reading Machine. I am also told that Easter Seals Foundation has some sort of loan program available. There is no simple solution to the problem of funding technology. Individuals who need technology for a specific purpose still have to do quite a bit of research to locate sources of money. Too often, they must do battle with the rehabilitation system to justify their technological needs. Conclusion No one would argue that we are in a time of extreme change. This is certainly true when you consider technology and its relationship to persons who are blind. Technology is not the only key to independence and equal treatment for the blind; as technology becomes more prevalent in the world, attitudes toward blindness and blind people must improve. Along with this improvement, manufacturers and marketers of commercial products should do what they can to ensure that what they are developing can be used independently by the blind. Blind consumers are doing what they can to influence the direction of the technology that affects their lives. In September of 1991, the National Federation of the Blind sponsored a US/Canada Conference on Technology, which leaders in the field of blindness- related technology attended. Represented were organizations of the blind, leaders in the field of rehabilitation, and the top marketers and developers of technology for the blind. This conference more than anything else has brought diverse interests in the field together in an effort to arrive at some common understandings and develop a blueprint for joint future action in the area of technology. With respect to the growing use of the graphical user interface, the recent announcement by IBM about its Screen Reader/2 product offers tremendous hope that the blind will not be shut out from its OS/2 system. Although no marketable product has yet surfaced to provide access to the Windows platform, there is enough work, thought, and discussion being given to this topic to lead me to believe that a breakthrough may be coming soon. Funding for technology continues to represent a serious problem. Despite the efforts currently under way to provide grants and/or loans to persons who are blind, the plain fact of the matter is that a lot of the specialized technology for the blind is difficult for individuals to afford. As we have seen over the past few years, however, the price of technology for the blind continues to decline. The rehabilitation system must build up its base of knowledge about technology--particularly, that technology that is used to integrate different computer systems. At the same time, rehabilitation personnel must raise their expectations for their blind clients. In addition to technology, blind people desperately need training in the basic skills necessary to function independently. Unless a blind person has those skills, the potential that can be achieved with technology will never be realized. Technology has a vital role to play in our present and in our future. Our hope as consumers is that we will be able to acquire the technology we need and that ultimately, we can integrate blind people into the mainstream of society on a basis of true equality.