Search results

This study aims to determine the state of library services to people with disabilities in the USA since the last study conducted in 2008. Social capital theory provides a lens to reconceptualize equal access in a global context, and to offer insights on the effects of new information technologies for re-envisioning universal access. Strategic alliances with education and human–computer interaction researchers are proposed.

Librarians serving the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS/BPH) were surveyed. Questions addressed clientele, services, technologies, career opportunities, leadership, library and information science (LIS) education and librarian demographics.

Human resources, leadership, outreach and out-of-the-box solutions applying mainstream technologies are identified as major challenges to the future of information access for disabled persons through the NLS/BPH system.

The survey was limited to librarians serving the NLS/BPH. A similar survey distributed in other nations could expand the possibilities of future research and collaboration.

Information from this survey can aid information professionals planning delivery of information services to disabled patrons. Suggestions for shifting from special access to universal access philosophy ensure access for all. Results can also help LIS educators prepare graduates to serve an aging population that will challenge standard methods of information access and services.

This study provides the current perspective of services to persons with disabilities compared to findings by the researchers in 2008. Since the first survey in 2008, the service has been updated through a national effort of digitization. This study is the first comparative study of the NLS.

The paper seeks to determine the state of library services to people with disabilities in the USA. It aims to use social capital theory to provide a lens to reconceptualize equal access in a global context, and to offer insights on the effects of new information technologies for re‐envisioning universal access.

Librarians serving the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS/BPH) were surveyed. Questions addressed clientele, services, technologies, career opportunities, library and information science education, and librarian demographics.

Human resources and information technologies are identified as major challenges to the future of information access for disabled persons. Professional perspective suggests there is strong potential for technologies and the internet to bridge the information access divide if libraries commit to providing access through assistive technologies.

The survey was limited to librarians serving NLS/BPH. A similar survey distributed in other nations could expand the possibilities of future research.

Information from this survey can aid librarians planning delivery of information services to disabled patrons. Suggestions for shifting from special access to universal access philosophy assure access for all. Results can also help library educators prepare graduates to serve an aging population that will challenge standard methods of information access.

The literature review demonstrates that this survey is the most recent in three decades to determine the state of library and information services to disabled people in the USA. It is the first to address the topic in relation to new technologies, leading to better service through better understanding.

This study aims to examine the usability of three popular electronic reading devices (e-readers) to determine which device provides the best functionality for individuals with print disabilities. Adaptability and flexibility for use with assistive technology are also evaluated.

This study reports the results of a usability test of e-readers and their potential for use by individuals with print disabilities. Students enrolled in a School of Library and Information Science evaluated and compared the devices through a series of tasks designed to measure functionality. Participants completed a series of questionnaires and engaged in small group discussion about the efficacy of the devices. Likert scales and open-ended evaluation were employed in the evaluation and analysis.

Two of the three devices examined offered no accessibility features for individuals with low or no vision who require assistive technologies to use information and communication technologies. The third device, while offering greater universal access functionality for individuals with mild-to-moderate print disabilities, also had weaknesses for individuals with severe print disabilities.

With the rapid deployment of e-readers, little research has been completed measuring the accessibility and functionality for individuals with print disabilities in library or educational environments. The paper provides data on the usability of e-readers for users with print disabilities and recommendations for adopting e-reader use in libraries and educational environments. It will inform and guide information professionals seeking to provide greater access to resources for patrons with specialized access needs.

This chapter provides a glimpse of an ongoing journey of library and information science (LIS) educators and social justice advocates speaking up and speaking out of efforts to decenter white privilege and dismantle its socially ingrained underpinnings that all take for granted in a typical southern university. The narrative is creatively developed to include scenarios of real and/or imagined situations that correlate white privilege in an LIS program with entrenchment within the grips of an emerging American academy. Insights might resonate with incidents of white supremacy and spread of white oppressions experienced nationwide in the entirety of the LIS professions and beyond. The chapter also develops scenarios in the use of collegiality as a weapon that white administrators and LIS faculty (along with those from other disciplines) use to silence efforts that challenge their white privilege and decenter their unfair and unjust infrastructural components in the entrenched academic institution.