              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.
