Accessible technology is an important topic since many K-12 schools, colleges, and universities are transitioning towards “e-books” (electronic book readers), and some of these e-books are not accessible to students who are visually impaired or mobility impaired. Likewise, schools that deploy web applications on their websites may not be accessible to visually impaired students. As schools transition to e-books and other emerging technologies, it is important that school personnel provide equal educational opportunities to students with disabilities.

The “Dear Colleague” letter to the K-12 schools is similar to the “Dear Colleague” letter sent to colleges and universities. Both letters reference a “Dear Colleague” letter that was previously sent in June 29, 2010, which explained the importance of providing equal educational opportunities to students with disabilities:

The [Dear Colleague Letter of June 29, 2010] explains that under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, educational institutions cannot require the use of electronic book readers in a classroom setting if the readers are not fully accessible to individuals with disabilities, including individuals who are blind or have low vision, unless those individuals are provided accommodations or modifications that permit them to receive all the educational benefits provided by the technology in an equally effective and equally integrated manner. (Emphasis added.)

The FAQ explains that the “Dear Colleague” letters on accessible technology and e-books do not impose any additional requirements on K-12 schools, colleges, and universities. Rather, these letters are clear reminders that K-12 schools, colleges, and universities must comply with federal anti-discrimination laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974.

These “Dear Colleague” letters stress that school personnel need to be familiar with federal anti-discrimination laws and know when to develop individualized accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities. If you know of a student who is not being provided equal educational opportunities due to inaccessible technology, you may wish to consult an attorney to evaluate your options.

© 2011, Matthew Stoloff, Esq.. All rights reserved.

Matthew Stoloff, Esq.

Matthew Stoloff, Esq. is an attorney in New Jersey. He focuses on special education matters, disability discrimination issues, employment law and animal law throughout northern and central New Jersey. For more information about Mr. Stoloff and his practice, see his website.

Website - More Posts

Technology Accessibility in Schools originally appeared on Matthew Stoloff's Blog on June 10, 2011.

If you have a specific physical disability, humanoid robots will be programmed to mitigate that disability. If you have a specific mental disability, humanoid robots may help you adjust and, if necessary, the robots may be programmed to detect, identify, and respond to any abnormal behavior to influence positive outcomes.

You may be wondering, “Could it happen?” This is the wrong question. Because it is already happening. Scientists have been working on humanoid robots for many years. The right question is, “When will I get one?” Or: “Do I want one?”

It is common knowledge that Japan has been the forefront of the humanoid robot revolution. The elderly population in Japan is multiplying; and to help care for the aging society, Japanese scientists have spent years developing humanoid robots–or robots that work like nurses–to help the elderly. With old age comes frailty, Alzheimers, dementia, cancer, rhematoid arthritis, osteoporosis, and countless other diseases. Some may be lucky and live as healthy as a horse in old age, but most will experience disease that may require assistance with medicine, bathing, feeding, and all the things that make us human. Until a cure is found for any specific disease, the elderly must turn to their friends, their family, their aides, their service animals–or to their humanoid robots.

Once programmed, humanoid robots can be strong, intelligent, and caring. Look at this video:

If you are still not convinced, look at this one:

Some might say that Japan’s obsession with humanoid robots borders on madness. But context is important. Japan’s family structure has changed dramatically over the years. There simply aren’t enough nurses to care for the elderly in Japan. Therefore, one must acknowledge the important role that humanoid robots will play in Japan’s aging society.

For some scientists, robots performing physical tasks aren’t enough. Some want to develop emotional humanoid robots–that is, robots that can understand human behavior, whether normal or abnormal.

What is the point of this?

Imagine: A child with autism has poor socialization skills. A robot has been programmed with millions of computations and can detect the tiniest instance of progress or regression within a fraction of a second. By tracking the autistic child’s movements, facial expressions, moods, body temperature, and blood pressure, the robot will be able to identify what works and what does not work much faster than any human being. The robot can help the autistic child socialize faster in a more efficient way. This is not science fiction. It is already a work in progress.

Until the day comes when humanoid robots can be purchased at Amazon and Best Buy, simpler robots can be had for simpler purposes. For example, some elderly patients can interact with Paro, a robotic pet that resembles a harp seal. Paro alleviates stress and helps with depression by interacting with people and “responding as if it [were] alive, moving its head and legs, making sounds.” Paro can understand the difference between praise and admonition; the difference between being touched and being beaten; the difference between light and dark. If Paro does something and is subsequently admonished or beaten, it will remember not to repeat that action again. Likewise, if Paro is praised, it will remember to perform the action again in the future.

It has been suggested that “robotic pets are safer, cleaner and more predictable in pet therapy programs than flesh-and-blood cats or dogs.”

Maybe so. There is no doubt that humanoid robots and service animals have one thing in common: they both help the disabled live independently.

But doesn’t the unpredictability of a real live service animal make life interesting? At the end of the day, when the animal is home and relaxed, the handler enjoys interacting with a living, breathing animal. A playmate. An animal that peers at us with curious eyes. A creature with a cold nose, a warm touch, and a unique personality that never ceases to give us love and laughter.

Hal 9000 in 2001 was intelligent, replicants in Blade Runner were cunning, and C-3P0 in Star Wars was funny.

Imagine a humanoid robot that exudes the likeness of certain robot characters from our favorite movies and helps the physically disabled, the mentally impaired, and the elderly.

Could humanoid robots ever replace service animals? Would you prefer to have a service animal or a humanoid robot? Does this video give any clues?

Chime away by posting a comment below.

© 2009, Matthew Stoloff, Esq.. All rights reserved.

Matthew Stoloff, Esq.

Matthew Stoloff, Esq. is an attorney in New Jersey. He focuses on special education matters, disability discrimination issues, employment law and animal law throughout northern and central New Jersey. For more information about Mr. Stoloff and his practice, see his website.

Website - More Posts

Will Humanoid Robots Replace Service Animals? originally appeared on Matthew Stoloff's Blog on November 30, 2009.

Caption: A headset is placed over a fishbowl while a lone goldfish swims around.

Listen:  Can you hear the mosquito ringtone?

The point I am trying to make is that not everyone has good hearing and some people are unable to hear anything at all. Most of  us who fall under this category rely on sight. The deaf and profoundly hard of hearing are visual people who often depend on their eyes to understand and interact with the world.

In 2005, a married deaf couple with four hearing children slept inside their apartment in Texas. A fire that started from a faulty power strip began roaring and smoke filled the apartment. The fire alarms rang, but the deaf couple could not hear it. The alarms were not even loud enough to wake up the children. In the end, only the husband and two children survived.  To read more about this tragic, see this news report.

If a visual fire alarm had been installed in the apartment, the chances of entire family surviving the fire would have been much greater.

The photograph below depicts a visual fire alarm. When smoke is detected, the alarm not only rings an audible alarm, but the lights flash on and off intermittently.

Caption: Photo of a visual fire alarm.

The Department of Justice Americans with Disabilities Act Title III Regulation requires visual fire alarms in many places of public accommodation, such as schools, hospitals, shopping malls, and so forth. (See also the ADAAG Technical Bulletin.) While federal law may require installation of visual fire alarms inside the common areas of apartment buildings, landlords and apartment managers may not be required to install them inside the apartment units where tenants sleep. However, local and state government can pass laws that require stricter building code requiring installation of visual fire alarms inside apartment units.

In the case of the husband who lost his wife and two children in Texas, the city had strict building codes requiring installation of visual fire alarms in the apartment unit. The apartment manager had not followed city code. Consequently, a multi-million dollar verdict was awarded against the apartment company. For a follow-up to this story, see this blog post.

It is important for apartment managers and landlords to be aware of all building code and keep up with the changes. This means checking and complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act, state law, city law, and town building code on a regular basis.

It is equally important that tenants with disabilities be aware of their rights. Tenants who believe that the landlord or apartment manager is not complying with the law should address their concerns with the landlord or consult an attorney.

To date, only a handful of jurisdictions require visual safety alarms inside apartment units. It is hoped that in the not-too-distant future, state and local governments across the country will adopt more stringent standards and require, among other things, the installation of visual fire alarms in every apartment unit. In the meantime, landlords and apartment managers who want to save lives and lower litigation expenses would do well to take the initiative and investigate the different types of safety equipment that are available for the deaf, blind, and deaf-blind, and evaluate the pros and cons of installing such safety equipment inside the apartment units. It is not expensive to install safety equipment that exceeds the minimum standards set forth in federal or local building code, and the costs pale in comparison to the costs of litigation and the damages associated with life and  limb.

© 2009, Matthew Stoloff, Esq.. All rights reserved.

Matthew Stoloff, Esq.

Matthew Stoloff, Esq. is an attorney in New Jersey. He focuses on special education matters, disability discrimination issues, employment law and animal law throughout northern and central New Jersey. For more information about Mr. Stoloff and his practice, see his website.

Website - More Posts

Visual Safety Alarms in Apartment Units originally appeared on Matthew Stoloff's Blog on October 26, 2009.

Caption: Photo of a $1 bill

Over the years, I have read about blind and visually impaired people who blog or comment about how difficult it is to distinguish currency notes.

Virtually all of them have developed a system for distinguishing notes: $1 notes are unfolded, $5 notes are folded left-to-right, $10 notes are folded top-to-bottom, and so forth. This is a slow and cumbersome way of keeping track of notes.  Before the bills are folded, it is necessary for blind persons to ask someone else to verify that this bill is indeed $1 and that bill is indeed $10. (Of course, we hope that in relying on the kindness of strangers, the blind are not cheated in the process.) Those with money could choose to shell out $200.00 for a pocket computer that will announce the denominations of US paper currency. Those with low vision can purchase a high powered magnifier to distinguish one denomination from the other.

But is any of this really necessary? Why not just make it simple and ask the Treasury Department to design the notes in a way that blind and visually impaired people will be able to distinguish one note from another?

Shouldn’t U.S. notes be accessible to the blind and visually impaired under federal law, specifically Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973?

At least one blogger suggested that “I don’t think you will find this conversation going on anywhere else in the world.” Actually, Canada, Indonesia, and Japan consulted with the blind before printing new money. As far back as 2004, Japan currency has had raised tactile marks that distinguish between denominations. Euros and Swiss Francs also possess tactile features. In some other countries, a conversation wasn’t necessary because the notes were already in different colors and shapes, which made it easy to distinguish between notes.

Caption: U.S. Dollars are all green whereas Euros are multicolored depending on the denomination

In 2002, a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the American Council of the Blind argued that our current U.S. notes were inaccessible. The court agreed and ordered the U.S. Treasury Department to redesign its notes to make it more accessible. In his court opinion, Judge Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote that the blind and visually impaired plaintiffs “demonstrated that they lack meaningful access to U.S. currency…. I find, accordingly, that the Treasury Department’s failure to design and issue paper currency that is readily distinguishable to blind and visually impaired individuals violates [section] 504 of the Rehabilitation Act…”

See also Judge Rogers’ opinion which affirms the District Court’s ruling (“The current design of paper money springs from the world of the sighted….”).

The Treasury Department is required to provide the court a “status report” every six months “outlining its progress” in designing and implementing the new currency.  The Department’s most recent status report (August 2009) can be found here.

There is still no timetable for the redesigned currency.  It’s anyone’s guess when the new, accessible notes will be issued.

In the meantime, the Treasury Department recently issued a commemorative coin to honor the 200th anniversary of Louis Braille, the inventor of the Braille system of reading and writing for the blind. In a short but provocative post, one blogger wrote, “I find this move by the U.S. Mint to be honorable, but insulting at the same time. They’re willing to put Braille on a coin, which is already distinguishable by the blind, but not on our bills which the blind can not distinguish.”

Go figure.

© 2009, Matthew Stoloff, Esq.. All rights reserved.

Matthew Stoloff, Esq.

Matthew Stoloff, Esq. is an attorney in New Jersey. He focuses on special education matters, disability discrimination issues, employment law and animal law throughout northern and central New Jersey. For more information about Mr. Stoloff and his practice, see his website.

Website - More Posts

Identifying Money by Color and Touch originally appeared on Matthew Stoloff's Blog on October 19, 2009.

Caption: A photo of Proloquo2go icons on an iPod Touch. Photo courtesy of Proloquo2go. Copyright © 2009 Tommy Reynolds & Jaime Alvarez of Fat Bird Studios.

A week ago, the New York Times published Insurers Fight Speech Impairment Remedy, a story about a mother with Lou Gehrig’s disease (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis) who is speech impaired and requires an AAC device to communicate. Medicare, however, would rather cover the cost of an $8,000 “clunky” AAC computer than a $300 iPhone running a $200 AAC app (such as Proloquo2go) that would help the mother communicate. (For a follow-up story to the original New York Times article, see Text-to-Speech Technology Reaches an Inflection Point.) Bloggers like RangelMD, Prince McLean, and MobiHealthNews, and netizens who use Twitter, are engaging in a conversation about this story, correctly observing the relationship between emerging technologies, the need for health care reform, and the importance of monitoring fraud.

All things being equal, Medicare and insurance companies should not be faced with the “difficult” choice of picking a $200 AAC app on top of a multi-functional device (like the Apple iPod Touch) that costs approximately $200 over a uni-functional device that costs $8,000. From a taxpayer’s perspective, the choice is clear. Since Medicare (and some private health insurance companies) will only pay 80% of the cost of the device, the choice is also clear for the patient who must pay the remaining 20%.

But we’re assuming that an AAC app running on the iPod Touch can provide the same essential features and performance as an $8,000 device. This is the first issue that must be addressed. We know that the iPod Touch is portable and easier to carry than a bulky $8,000 box. But what else do we know? We–and especially the insurance companies–need more information about what features are available and what features are lacking in either device. There needs to be a comparison chart, illustrating what can and cannot be done on either system. Education is key.

Fraud is the second issue that politicians, insurance companies, and taxpayers are concerned with: If health insurance should only cover the costs of medical devices for medical purposes, then does it follow that iPhones and iPod Touch should not be covered?

The $8,000 system the New York Times refers to is a uni-functional computer that runs only the medical application required to assist the speech impaired person to communicate. All other programs, such as email, web, and word processing applications are permanently disabled (or “locked”) because these things are not medical applications.

Medicare’s uni-functional requirement is a way of ensuring that the device is used only for medical purposes. This helps prevent fraud. If Medicare agrees to cover multi-functional (non-medical) applications, might it be possible that more people with disabilities would take advantage of the Medicare system to obtain multi-functional computers at a reduced cost? Wouldn’t this constitute fraud?

Assuming that an iPod Touch installed with a particular AAC app is just as good (or better) than an $8,000 system, couldn’t Apple provide a uni-functional iPod Touch that runs just one AAC app to meet Medicare’s strict uni-functional requirement? I see no reason why they couldn’t. My guess is that Medicare has never asked Apple if this could be done. If Medicare insists on the uni-functional requirement, I imagine that Apple would be more than happy to disable all of the “multi-functional” features. After all, there’s more money in it for Apple.

A netizen proposed that Medicare/Medicaid/insurance companies should pay for the iPod Touch, and the patient should pay for the AAC app. But this wouldn’t ensure that the patient would actually use the iPod Touch for medical purposes, would it? The way the system is set up, you need the iPod Touch first in order to purchase an app.

Another netizen suggested that Medicare/Medicaid/insurance companies should pay for the AAC app, but the patient should be responsible for purchasing the iPod Touch. This sounds like a better solution than the first.

Would it be a viable option to have Medicare/Medicaid/insurance companies pay 80% of the cost of both the iPod Touch and AAC app? That’s another idea worthy of debate.

Health care reform is an important topic. Politicians, lobbyists, insurance companies, and the American people are encouraged to think creatively and with an open mind. We need to find ways to save taxpayer money and prevent fraud, but at the same time, we need to help those in need obtain the latest technology at the best possible prices so that they can communicate effectively and live independently.

© 2009, Matthew Stoloff, Esq.. All rights reserved.

Matthew Stoloff, Esq.

Matthew Stoloff, Esq. is an attorney in New Jersey. He focuses on special education matters, disability discrimination issues, employment law and animal law throughout northern and central New Jersey. For more information about Mr. Stoloff and his practice, see his website.

Website - More Posts

iPhones, AAC, and Health Care Reform originally appeared on Matthew Stoloff's Blog on September 24, 2009.

If you are a sighted person and have a few minutes of spare time to participate in a research project, try this experiment. Remain seated in front of your computer. Keep your hand on the mouse or trackball. Now, close your eyes or put blindfolds on. While your eyes remain closed, move your mouse to the address bar and type in your favorite search engine. Once you think you’re in, type in a couple of keywords. Next, navigate to a computer folder, open up an audio app, and play your favorite music tracks.

Caption: Blindfolded female navigating her laptop.

It’s quite hard, isn’t it?

Really, we who are sighted must keep our eyes peeled in order to navigate the computer and the internet.

The blind and visually impaired depend on specially-designed software that allow them to navigate the internet. The software is sensitive, however, and some websites contain code that may disrupt the software’s ability to read the text out loud. Recently, the blind and visually impaired were involved in a lawsuit against Target because part of Target’s website was not accessible. In this blog post, I would like to provide a brief overview of how blind or visually impaired individuals surf websites, and what online accessibility means for the blind and visually impaired. In addition, I’d like to briefly discuss the impact the Target lawsuit may have had on other businesses with internet presence.

Many blind and visually impaired individual use the same computers and laptops that you and I use. For some blind people to actually surf the internet, however, a special software program is installed onto the computer. The screen reader program is designed to convert text into speech. One of these screen reader program is called JAWS. (Other screen readers are listed here.) Essentially, JAWS works like the very popular Dragon NaturallySpeak software, in which the user speaks and the computer types. JAWS converts text to speech quite well most of the time. However, if the website contains certain code, JAWS may not be able to convert text into speech. When this happens, the blind and visually impaired aren’t able to fully enjoy access to the entire website.

In more simplistic terms, it’s like having a five CD disc changer. The CD player plays the first four CDs beautifully. But the fifth CD is actually a Blu Ray DVD. The CD player cannot read it because Blu Ray discs contain certain code that an ordinary CD player cannot read or interpret.

When the federal government enacted the law prohibiting discrimination of individuals with disabilities (the “Americans with Disabilities Act”), the year was 1990. At that time, the Internet had hardly entered the mainstream and Google was not yet a verb. Thus, the law did not explicitly state that the blind or visually impaired could sue for website inaccessibility. However, creative lawyers have suggested that the law is drafted in a way that could be interpreted to include website accessibility.

Caption: Handicap logo on a laptop keyboard

In the Target case, Target’s website contained code that prevented the blind or visually impaired from being able to fully enjoy Target’s website. The blind and visually impaired argued that Target’s website discriminated against them and that federal law required Target to remove the code. (Note: For an insider’s view of the Target case, see Jim Thatcher’s blog post, Accessibility, Law, and Target.com. Mr. Thatcher served as an expert witness in this case.)

The lawsuit raised a very interesting question: is a website a place of public accommodation? The Americans with Disabilities Act says that places of public accommodation include hotels, restaurants, supermarkets, bus stations, and other facilities where the public is invited. The law says that these places of public accommodations must not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. Additionally, the law requires that individuals with disabilities must be given equal access to the facilities as well as equal enjoyment of the goods and services provided by the establishment. For example, if a blind or visually impaired person visits a restaurant and there is no menu printed in Braille, then a waiter or waitress would be required to read aloud each dish if requested.

It appears that like hotels and other public facilities where the public is invited, a website could be seen as an open space where the public is invited.

Unfortunately, the Target court never got an opportunity to answer the question whether a website is a place of public accommodation. Target agreed to a $6 million settlement and the case was closed. The settlement was probably a good move on Target’s part since there is a split among the courts whether the internet was a place of public accommodation. The 3rd Circuit and 11th Circuit courts, for example, held that the internet is not a place of public accommodation, but the 1st Circuit and 7th Circuit courts suggested that it may be. It was really anyone’s guess just how the Target case would have been decided. Of course, the desire to preserve its public image was another reason why Target chose to settle.

In any event, the Target case raised awareness about the problems that the blind and visually impaired people have when accessing websites. Businesses with websites paid very close attention to the Target case and some have made changes to their website in order to prevent litigation–but some businesses may not have made any changes at all. While some bloggers were quite annoyed with the Target case, many website designers agree that it is simply good practice to ensure website accessibility because it can only help drive more traffic to the website, build a larger customer base, and generate more revenue. As blogger Roger Johansson writes, “[R]equiring websites to be accessible does not make building them too expensive or create an artificial barrier to entry. Neither does it mean websites have to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator or that you cannot use images, Flash, JavaScript, or Ajax.” Two excellent sources of information for designing accessible websites are: the Web Accessibility Initiative and The Great Accessibility Blog Roundup.

Like Target, businesses and bloggers alike should be mindful of people with disabilities who surf the web. Just as a rock star can never have too many fans, so too, no business can have too many customers and no blogger can have too many readers. Let’s make the most of technology and share it with as many people as possible!

© 2009, Matthew Stoloff, Esq.. All rights reserved.

Matthew Stoloff, Esq.

Matthew Stoloff, Esq. is an attorney in New Jersey. He focuses on special education matters, disability discrimination issues, employment law and animal law throughout northern and central New Jersey. For more information about Mr. Stoloff and his practice, see his website.

Website - More Posts

Web Accessibility for the Blind and Visually Impaired Under the ADA originally appeared on Matthew Stoloff's Blog on August 31, 2009.

Caption: Photo of the Apple iPhone

One of the great things about the Apple iPhone is that users can download many fun and useful applications that are easy to use and serve specific purposes. Apple’s iPhone Dev Center allows computer programmers around the world to develop iPhone applications for any specific purpose and share it with others for free (or for a fee). The iPhone is less than 3 years old (it was first released in January 9, 2007 according to Wikipedia), and many iPhone developers have created apps for people with various disabilities to help them be more independent. What follows is by no means an exhaustive list:

For the blind and visually impaired:

• AccessTech News has compiled an outstanding list of iPhone applications that will work with VoiceOver.
• While it’s still under development, the folks at Velti recently reported that scientists at iVisit have designed an iPhone app that will “recognize a variety of everyday objects.”
• Although it’s not quite a standalone app, Bruno Fosi designed a Silicon iPhone touch case that provides tactile feedback.  No word when exactly it’ll be launched on the market.

For children with autism or developmental delays:

• Proloquo2Go is a “natural sounding text to speech” app.
• iConverse “displays 6 different icons that represent a person’s most basic needs. When activated by touch, the icons give both an auditory and visual representation of the specific want or need.” This is reviewed in Scothoser’s Corner.
• iCommunicate is an app that develops a storyboard, which is “a collection of pictures that convey a concept.”
• iReward is designed to reinforce a certain behavior by providing motivation and a reward, e.g., a gold star, a new toy, etc.

For individuals with speech disorders:

• Locabulary appears to be a text-to-speech app that is based on your GPS location.
• Proloquo2Go is a “natural sounding text to speech” iPhone app.

For the Deaf and hard-of-hearing:

• Tunewiki is a fantastic (and free) app works like closed captioning for radio. When a song plays on the radio, a small box at the bottom of the screen shows the lyrics, line by line. Note: the lyrics will only scroll appropriately at the beginning of each song. If you switch stations to the middle of the song, the lyrics will appear, but it will not point to the appropriate line until the beginning of the next song.
• Imagine turning your iPhone into a hearing aid. The purpose of SoundAMP, Amplitude, and iHearClear are to amplify sound. (To read a written review about SoundAMP, see TechCrunch. Reviews about Amplitude may be found at the AppleInsider and the The Apple Blog.)
• iPhone users who are just learning American Sign Language can learn over 800 words in ASL with iSign. A good review of this app and an explanation of iSign’s limits may be found at ATMac.
• While it’s not an iPhone app, it’s worth mentioning that AT&T is offering a discounted plan for the deaf and hard-of-hearing. The plan is $40 per month and includes unlimited SMS messages, unlimited data usage, and Visual VoiceMail. For the link and more info, see The Boy Genius Report. As reported in Gizmodo, there is apparently an “eligibility application” to qualify for the discount.

For the dexterity challenged:

• A Special Phone allows the user to shake the iPhone a number of times, and it will dial the number that you want. A review of the Special Phone (along with a six minute video demonstration) may be found at the iPhone App Reviews blog.
• FluidTunes gives the user “control over your music using only a camera, and your hands, head, or feet.”
• Paul Natsch’s post, iPod Touch Apps for the Dexterity Challenged, reviews two speech recognition apps: Voxie and Vocalia.
• See also Ricky Buchanan’s iPhone Voice Commands.

For individuals with diabetes:

• Users can “manage” their diabetes with Glucose Buddy. A video demonstration of this app may be found here.
• Manny Hernandez at tudiabetes.com found three other iPhone diabetes apps (DiabetesLog, DiaMedic, and GlucoseLog). Read users’ personal perspectives in the comments section at the tudiabetes.com blog.
• There’s an interesting product called LifeCase & LifeApp System designed by two graduate students who won a $10,000 prize. This product is not yet on the market, however.

To find more apps, check out The Best iPhone App Review Sites for a list of blogs that provide good reviews of iPhone apps.

© 2009, Matthew Stoloff, Esq.. All rights reserved.

Matthew Stoloff, Esq.

Matthew Stoloff, Esq. is an attorney in New Jersey. He focuses on special education matters, disability discrimination issues, employment law and animal law throughout northern and central New Jersey. For more information about Mr. Stoloff and his practice, see his website.

Website - More Posts

iPhone Apps that Help People with Disabilities Be More Independent originally appeared on Matthew Stoloff's Blog on August 20, 2009.