[nfbmi-talk] Fw: Braille signs

[joe harcz Comcast]

This is correspondence with a signage expert from California whom I've known 
for some time.

And of course my response to her about Michigan and Wisconsin.

Joe Harcz
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
To: "Sharon Toji" <sharontoji at me.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: Braille signs


> Hi Sharon,
>
> Good stuff, but in our Capitol, and in Wisconsin there are no raised 
> character and Braille sings at all on permanent rooms, not even crappy 
> ones.
>
> Ditto for most other state buildings here in Michigan.
>
> Joe Harcz
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Sharon Toji" <sharontoji at me.com>
> To: <president at alumni.ecu.edu>
> Cc: "Joe Harcz" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 10:56 AM
> Subject: Braille signs
>
>
> Dear Justin,
>
> This email has become quite a lengthy essay, but I hope you don't mind! 
> I'm trying to give you enough background to be helpful.
>
> I got your letter about Wisconsin through another friend who is blind, and 
> is trying to get some changes in Michigan. First, let me introduce myself. 
> My name is Sharon Toji, and a lot of people call me the "ADA Sign Lady." I 
> have been involved in writing standards for accessible signage and other 
> communications devices since 1991, when I first contacted the Access 
> Board, and then the State Architect of California about the standards that 
> had just been adopted. Unfortunately, when they were first written, the 
> Access Board did not involve anyone in the field of graphics 
> communications, and the standards were terribly vague, disorganized, and 
> quite misleading and uninformative for the people who were going to have 
> to interpret them in order to make usable signs. Consequently, even where 
> building managers did try to implement, them often have ended up with 
> thousands of dollars worth of useless tactile signs, and even visual signs 
> that have too little contrast, or are so glaring and reflective that they 
> can't be read easily. If you can believe it, no one even thought about 
> people with what I call "garden variety" color blindness, who actually 
> make up about 8 percent of the male population -- a rather large number by 
> any standards!
>
> I started involving myself in trying to at least explain the standards 
> that went into effect in 1992, and by consulting with large numbers of 
> people who were blind or had severe vision impairments, by setting up 
> tables at national and state conventions for people who are blind (both 
> national organizations), I began to develop a set of "best practices" that 
> would make the signs more usable. I was appointed to the American National 
> Standards Association (ANSI) A117.1 Committee that writes the standards 
> for accessible and usable buildings and sites in 1992, and we began 
> immediately, through a committee that included representatives from the 
> NFB, the ACB, the AFB, the Lighthouse, and signage experts to do a massive 
> overhaul of the standards. When President Clinton requested the Access 
> Board to begin considering revisions to the ADA Accessibility Guidelines, 
> I was appointed to the Communications Subcommittee, and we began to work 
> to incorporate the new ANSI standards (which became the 1998 ANSI 
> Standards), into a major revision of the ADA Guidelines.
>
> To be frank, and without getting into any political land mines, if Al Gore 
> would have won the presidential election, those new guidelines, a huge 
> improvement in probably 98 percent of the ADA Guideines overall, and about 
> 1000 percent better when it came to signs, would have long since been in 
> place. However, President Bush was not a supporter of government 
> regulation in general, and put a "stop notice" on all the regulations that 
> were in the pipeline. The new ADA Guidelines languished, as the Access 
> Board tweaked them here and there, until 1994, when they finally adopted 
> them in hopes that the federal agencies would approve them. Every federal 
> agency did, except, unfortunately, the Department of Justice. Therefore, 
> in most states, any signs that did get installed were often not very 
> readable by touch, with braille that had sharp edges and flat tops, 
> letters with serifs that actually touched each other, etc.
>
> Finally, the standards were pulled out of mothballs after the 2008 
> election, and in 2010, they finally received DOJ approval. They became 
> legally enforceable in March, 2012. The major harm that the Access Board 
> did during those long years was to try to shorten the ANSI standards 
> significantly, so they telescoped the language to the point where some of 
> the major improvements are still in the standard, but are now so 
> convoluted that no one who was not in on the original version can 
> understand them!
>
> There are still a lot of weak spots, chiefly in terms of contrast and 
> glare, and in poorly written exceptions by the Access Board to the 
> original ANSI Standards. However, they do represent a huge improvement, if 
> we could just get designers and fabricators to take them seriously. The 
> clue to that, of course, is to get owners and government agencies to 
> demand that they be followed, and to get inspection with some teeth in it. 
> it seems unfortunate that lawsuits seem to be the best avenue!
>
> As far as passing new state laws go, I can tell you that California has 
> gone that route, and done it now at least three times. It's like putting 
> one band-aid on top of another. First, the California Council of the Blind 
> worked on legislation to require that inspectors be required to check the 
> braille signs, and that newly built facilities and remodeling projects 
> could not get certificates of occupancy without a sign-off on the tactile 
> room identification signs by the inspector. Some serious money was added 
> for the training of architects. That was passed. However, the money was 
> commandeered during an economic downturn, and most inspectors merely 
> glanced to make sure there were (in the exact words of one inspector I 
> spoke with) "bumps" on the signs. This law not only included all 
> government buildings, but was chiefly pointed to government buildings.
>
> Then, because of lawsuits (virtually never about signs, other than parking 
> signs), the legislature passed a law setting up a new commission to 
> attempt to educate everyone on the ADA. In addition, a Certified Access 
> Specialist program was passed, called CASp. I was asked to write 100 
> multiple choice sign questions, but obviously a only a few of those made 
> it into the final 100 question test. The test was very difficult, though, 
> and fewer than 20 percent passed it. However, it was also very expensive, 
> and most business owners could not afford to hire a CASp, or didn't even 
> know the program existed. Lawsuits increased, and the commission has been 
> toothless, partly because their funding is almost non-existent.
>
> Finally, a third law was recently passed, giving businesses time to fix 
> things if they had a CASp certificate showing they had an inspection made 
> and were engaged in removing barriers. Also, every building department had 
> to hire at least one CASp as an inspector or supervisor. Lawsuits are 
> still increasing, but more people are going the federal route rather than 
> suing under the state.
>
> So, I would not put much faith in passing new laws. Frankly, the only law 
> that should be needed is already in place. The new signage standards would 
> actually be ideal for using in an historic structure, but first, someone 
> has to understand the convoluted language! As far as installation location 
> is concerned, the new standard also address that in a much more helpful 
> way than the previous ones did. Again, it does require some understanding 
> of the new standards, and the intent behind them.
>
> Although I don't believe that Title 2, which is the part of the law that 
> applies to state owned, operated or leased facilities, includes barrier 
> removal in quite the same way as Title 3 does, it does require program 
> access. I think that people who are blind and visually impaired can easily 
> make the case that program access is denied to them when they cannot 
> independently have an opportunity to ascertain that they have reached the 
> correct destination where the program is located. This could even include 
> locating the restrooms, obviously, or the gift shop or cafeteria if those 
> are provided for the public.
>
> Although, because we have not yet been able to develop really good, 
> accessible and inexpensive audible wayfinding methods, people who are 
> functionally blind will still have to ask questions, most likely, in order 
> to head in the correct direction, the law does mean that when they get in 
> the vicinity of their destination, they should be able to check doors and 
> efficiently locate the one they want.
>
> I do believe, though, that the broad use by people who are functionally 
> blind, of the latest touch screen smart phones is going to very soon mean 
> that we can get people around the interiors of buildings through these 
> phones and other blue tooth devices, and that the braille and raised 
> character signs will then just be a convenient means to determine that the 
> correct destination has been reached. I think that time is not far off, 
> and getting the tactile signs in place now, will be very important.
>
> I am still a voting delegate to the ANSI Committee, and am the current 
> representative of the Hearing Loss Association of America. I work closely, 
> also, with the two organizations that are currently on the committee that 
> represent people who are blind and visually impaired, and also with the 
> representative of the National Association of the Deaf. Our opposition 
> comes chiefly, unfortunately, from the Society of Environmental Graphic 
> Designers and the International Sign Association, who want most standards 
> for signage to disappear. I am currently trying to get a better, and more 
> measurable standard for contrast and glare through the committee, and am 
> facing stiff opposition, although I also have had a lot of support. It's 
> just touch and go whether that will hold through the final vote, which is 
> coming up soon, and where I have to get two-thirds approval.
>
> I have a firm belief that good signage regulations benefit everyone, 
> because the majority of people who are legally blind do have some usable 
> vision, and can use signs if they can get close enough to them, if they 
> have high dark/light contrast and as little glare as possible, and if the 
> text is non-decorative and properly sized. Those same signs benefit people 
> who are deaf, hard of hearing, or cannot speak clearly to ask directions, 
> and of course good wayfinding is also of special benefit to people who 
> have trouble walking -- those using crutches, braces, canes, or walkers. 
> Altogether, and especially if you include those who are colorblind, and 
> have particular trouble with signs that are red on black, and all kinds of 
> "red/green" combinations, you have a huge percentage of the population. 
> This is something really worth fighting for.
>
> And, of course, the fact about braille and raised characters is, that 
> there is no point in providing them at all if you don't do so in a manner 
> where they are readable by touch. That is why good regulations are needed, 
> education is needed, and enforcement is needed. People who need these 
> signs are going to also need to be educated about the standards, and to 
> demand that the signs be provided and that they be readable and usable.
>
> Here in California we have been fortunate about one thing: We never used 
> the flawed ADA Guidelines in the first place, but had our own standards 
> that were more stringent, and did not allow raised serif letters. We have 
> also required rounded or domed braille dots for some time, and had our own 
> braille spacing standard for easier reading by people who were beginners 
> or had neuropathy or just were aging. I am a long time member of the 
> Access Committees of the State Architect, the Building Standards 
> Commission, and the State Fire Marshal, so I am able to be helpful on many 
> fronts.
>
> I would be pleased to take you through the new standards, so you could see 
> what the improvements are, and how they could be applied to the signs in 
> your government buildings, even when they are historic in nature. I'm sure 
> there are solutions out there, if you can just get a ground swell of 
> action from the membership of your state blindness organizations. I know 
> many people who are blind don't understand how signs could possibly be of 
> interest to them, but if they were truly readable and usable, and part of 
> an audible system that we might be able to put in place quite soon, I 
> think they would be pleasantly surprised.
>
> Please let me know how I can help.
>
> Sharon Toji
> Access Communications
> 949 929-6512
> sharontoji at me.com
>
>