Communication access is very important to all people especially when it comes to using phones at any time, any place to anybody at a moments notice. Technology is helping change that dynamic use of a telephone and provide even greater access for more people. But to read one organization recent press release did they provide some misleading information about CSD’s announcement of their teaming up with Chicago airport over a phone deal?
CSD, the nation’s leader in providing communication access services for deaf and hard of hearing consumers, has teamed up with The Chicago Airport System (O’Hare and Midway International Airports), to furnish public access videophones (PAV) capable of providing video relay service (VRS) and point to point calls.
VRS is the functionally equivalent way for deaf and hard of hearing people to make phone calls. With VRS, a caller using sign language can communicate with a hearing person via a video interpreter and by using a video connection. By providing PAVs for their deaf and heard of hearing consumers, The Chicago Airport System is recognized as the first airports in the nation to offer this level of communication access.
The charge of misleading information came from one blogger who runs “Lightkeepers Journal.”
In a July 25 press release touting a new video relay service contract with Chicago airport system, they make this statement: “VRS is the functionally equivalent way for deaf and hard of hearing people to make phone calls.” This is stretching it. On the contrary, VRS is the relay service that the Deaf who use sign language use to communicate. But for hard of hearing people? No, it does not provide them with a functionally equivalent way to make a phone call. Most hard of hearing people want to use their residual hearing, supplemented by relay services such as captioned telephone or VCO IP relay. They prefer to speak for themselves and listen as much as possible. They do not typically use sign language as people do who prefer VRS.Was this recent CSD press release a misleading one?
Our own Brenda Battat, Associate Director of the Hearing Loss Association, and national advocate for functionally equivalent telecommunications wrote this recently: “This misinformation settles in the minds of policy makers, telecommunications innovators, ADA covered facilities, and the general public and makes it so much harder for us to advocate for the most appropriate access for people who prefer to use spoken language and do not use sign language. Yes a few, very few people who are hard of hearing use VRS. They know sign language and therefore can benefit from this wonderful relay service. But let’s not forget that less than 5% of people who are hard of hearing use sign language as their preferred way of communicating and therefore VCO [Voice Carry Over] and captioned telephone today are their most functionally equivalent relay services for them, assuming they cannot rely on HAC/volume [Hearing Aid Compatibility] control phones. Typically speech reading is too hard to use VRS successfully and so until VRS includes captioning it will not be the relay of choice for this population.”
Looking around I came across the author's later blog piece under a different topic that got me thinking as well about the use of state and federal fundings via statistics in order to get fundings but intended to serve only a select group instead. The author was responding to Shane’s blog piece in DeafDC not too long ago about this one.
The main issue is that there are organizations and groups in the country who are confusing state and federal policy makers by stating or implying that if you provide sign language interpreting, then all 31 million people who have a hearing loss have access. I think this point was missed in the DeafDC Blog.
It is unethical to increase program and service funding using statistics made up primarily of a group of people you never intend to help at all, or provide token assistance. I am sure it makes the funding case stronger, but it is oppressive to the service and program needs of people who wish to maximize their residual hearing using technology and other strategies, and continue to verbally communicate.
Are there Deaf/deaf/hh organizations out there who purposely misuse statistics and/or twist certain data or information for the sake of getting funds from state and/or federal governments with the intention to only serve a select group of people?
An interesting thought there.
Oh, about my blog title? Yeah, it was misleading, no? Actually, my blog is for everybody, deaf and hearing. Just thought I let you know.
No comments:
Post a Comment