I recall a session that we both attended where the speaker rattled off her words very quickly. I thought she projected her voice very well and thought the level of sound would be good for you. I was surprised when you said, no, the speed ruined everything. Apparently, the speed makes it difficult to distinguish between words. Yes, loud is not the entire picture!

I have always been bothered by questions from the audience. I have good hearing and I cannot always hear these people because of the direction or acoustics. Some speakers were very good at repeating the question. However, there is one more nuance here. It shouldn’t be repeatquestionanswer. It should be Repeat question. Period. Answer.

Your pointers for speakers were presented at the Speaker training session on the Sunday before the conference began. However, not everyone attended, so next year, we must make sure this information gets to all speakers by pointing them to the posts we already have here on the blog, as well as placed in whatever material is handed out to them in advance of the conference.

Once again, this advice can benefit everyone. Presentations can bombard you with information. Clear and articulate speakers can also ensure that our brains can keep up sometimes!

Fabien - you put some icing on the cake with your distinction between ACCESS and ACCESSIBILITY. That is an interesting angle that I had not thought about. It is something that we could probably ponder a bit and consider in our work. Are we doing the minimum, or are we going that extra step? Thank you for sharing those thoughts.

For years, I have been trying to explain to everyone around me the distinct difference between ACCESS and ACCESSIBILITY. This report about “Hearing at the Philadelphia Summit” is a perfect example of this.

At the annual conference, ACCESS was to have microphone available for all speakers, and to provide assistive-listening devices to all who needed them. Ramps and automatic doors should now be taken for granted… ACCESSIBILITY, on the other hand, is to realize that there is a difference between volume and sound clarity. I agree totally.

Accommodations for people with disabilities have greatly evolved, but we are now in the 21st century. I don’t think I need to thank the Post Office any more for thinking of installing a ramp or an automatic door. This is ACCESS. It’s now the law.

But I will continue to thank a store (often publicly) who is conscious about the width of its aisles, to make sure that people using a wheelchair are able to move around safely in their store. That’s ACCESSIBILITY. Accessibility is going the extra mile, and beyond what the law dictates.

At the conference, ACCESS is asking speakers to speak into the mike, to repeat questions from the audience, etc. ACCESSIBILITY is informing speakers in advance (STC should do this…) that there will be people who have various disabilities in the audience, and they all deserve the same amount of respect and courtesy. Some can’t see very well, others can’t hear well, still others (like me by the way…) have a hard time making out anything that is said when there is a “hum” in the room, like people talking next to me, or even the noise of the air conditioning in the background. I have difficulty discerning sounds, like speaking to someone when the TV is on, or having a conversation at a noisy party.

Thank you again to the author of this report. I hope I have added to the (relative new) concept of ACCESS vs. ACCESSIBILITY.

Fabien Vais