RLI 286  21 RESEARCH LIBRARY ISSUES: A REPORT FROM ARL, CNI, AND SPARC 2015 to be prepared for the intersection of researchers—who may have any of a number of disabilities of varying severity—with the array of services and resources the library provides? Attention, inclusion, awareness, flexibility, humility, and creativity will position the library to provide the best possible service with the potential to stand as a model for the institution as a whole. A mental readjustment to focus on accessibility and equity and away from disability and accommodation is a shift from a problem-based model to one rooted in fairness instead. Accessibility should be at the front end of new innovations and programs, built into planning and design processes as a critical component of the model. Tacked on at the end, the opportunity to maximize effectiveness is lost as makeshift adjustments and add-ons reduce the likelihood of the fullest and most complete access. An example is the expanding move to use Google products in academic enterprises. Google did not consider accessibility in creating its popular e-mail, calendar, and other services. Now, as more and more institutions move to Google for a wide range of reasons—financial, user familiarity, general ease of use—post-hoc adjustments must be made for those who use assistive reading technology, since Google products do not work well with such tools. While the idea of creating policies may seem contradictory to responding rapidly to user needs, the development or adoption of new technology and services could benefit from policies that insist on step- by-step evaluation of the match of these items to accessibility. When the newest aggregator database vendor assures a library’s electronic resources officer that its database is fully accessible, it will be up to the buyer to confirm these claims. Details on the vendor’s accessibility testing—for example, what software it used and how many users with disabilities were in its beta test group—should be ascertained and evaluated independent of the vendor’s claims. Advocating the value of producing inclusive learning resources will help vendors keep accessibility in mind as they test product proposals with potential buyers is another way to be proactive. The library could also benefit by partnering with campus offices that serve students and faculty with disabilities to identify their own beta test group and hire them to evaluate and put new electronic resources through their paces. When developing new services, building new facilities, or remodeling old ones, libraries should make it standard practice to include users with disabilities in planning stages. Users of all abilities can pinpoint issues pertaining to physical access that go beyond building codes. It is also good practice to engage with accessibility experts to help the library focus attention on providing maximum accessibility to the broadest possible range of users. It is not always possible for all groups to be represented however, the library staff still have a responsibility to lobby for inclusivity in all areas of service delivery. Consideration of different experiences and perspectives can spark creative decisions that meet a wider range of needs, encouraging staff to develop “personas” throughout the process of designing a new interface or developing a new patron app. With specific accessibility policies firmly in place, planners of future initiatives will be reminded to be more inclusive, to the potential benefit of a much broader spectrum of researchers and library users. No policy should ever stand in the way of good service. It should be a straightforward matter for research libraries to assure ready assistance to those who are unable to access book stacks, map cases, computer
Previous Page Next Page