Thread: Unusual request for a Mystery Worship Board: Ecclesiantics / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=008487
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Didn't know whether to post this here or in Styx . . .
We've had a rather unusual request for a MW report from a person who is physically challenged.
She pointed out that physically challenged people such as herself are often at a disadvantage in church as well as in other places.
If, for example, she attends church with a person who is not physically challenged, she finds that people often greet her companion and engage the companion in conversation while ignoring her.
She also finds that if she chooses a seat where she can see, hear and participate in the service with the least amount of difficulty, someone will invariably position themselves so as to "cut her off" without regard to her needs.
So (if I read her request correctly) she is asking for a Mystery Worshipper who is challenged like herself to report on a service from the standpoint of how well the Mystery Worshipper was accommodated.
(I've tried to be careful in wording the above so that the nature of the request is clear without actually revealing what the person's physical challenge is and thus providing a clue as to who it might be.)
If anyone "fits the bill," so to speak, and would like to attend a service and report on it given the above requirements, could you please PM me? Thanks.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Actually, in general perhaps it isn't a bad idea to include a section in mystery worshipper reports highlighting difficulties that disabled people might have in the church. I'm not sure one has to necessarily be disabled in order to notice.
For example, I church I know well places wheelchairs right at the front between the congregation and the choir, which I think might be a bit conspicuous for some people.
Also one might mention poor acoustics, hard-to-read notices, projectors, mumbling preachers etc.
A bit subjective, for sure, but it might help someone.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A church I know well places wheelchairs right at the front between the congregation and the choir, which I think might be a bit conspicuous for some people. Also one might mention poor acoustics, hard-to-read notices, projectors, mumbling preachers etc.
Old Miss Amanda's hearing isn't what it used to be, and she's grown quite accustomed to poor acoustics and mumbling preachers (although she suspects others hear them quite well).
Wheelchairs at the front at least make their occupants able to see the goings-on without one's view being blocked -- which is one of the objections made by the person making the request.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
This thread raises a very good question. Perhaps the MW questionnaire should suggest that we keep an eye out for accessibility--- perhaps in the pew section??
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
Not just the pew section, but the entrances and exits, the restrooms/toilets, the church hall if coffee/tea are provided, etc. When I worked in my parish office, I occasionally had phone calls from newcomers asking if we had wheelchair access. (Yes, we did. Since our church building is very new, we have to be compliant -- which I hope we would want to be anyway.)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Wheelchairs at the front at least make their occupants able to see the goings-on without one's view being blocked -- which is one of the objections made by the person making the request.
An adult person sitting in a wheelchair is the same height as an adult person sitting or kneeling in a pew. Not quite sure why this is an issue, except that I suppose the person using the wheelchair doesn't have the opportunity to slide along in the pew a little.
We have one regular who now uses a wheelchair - her family position her chair at the end of the pew they sit in, so she can sit with her family. I don't expect she'd want to be parked in some kind of special wheelchair zone.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
I think it would be a good idea to add a question about accessibility to the MW reporting form. I can run it by Simon.
Getting back to the request, all I can tell you at this point is that the person in question is not wheelchair bound.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
She also finds that if she chooses a seat where she can see, hear and participate in the service with the least amount of difficulty, someone will invariably position themselves so as to "cut her off" without regard to her needs.
So (if I read her request correctly) she is asking for a Mystery Worshipper who is challenged like herself ...
(I've tried to be careful in wording the above so that the nature of the request is clear without actually revealing what the person's physical challenge is ...
The problem for me is that if I don't know any more than this about the challenge, I can't tell whether I am similarly challenged.
Does the problem affect height of viewpoint (as being unable to stand might do)? Does it involve lack of mobility (so you can't slide along a pew to deal with a person in front)? Are there perceptual problems such as inability to hear or see (don't have to specify, but it might be useful to say something like "this person needs to be within 10 feet of the pulpit for perception reasons").
Finally, given that the person gets routinely overlooked by people conversing with her companion, is that due to an appearance issue, a confusion issue (e.g. assuming that persons with that challenge cannot communicate and/or understand) or to a problem of height?
FWIW, I have a challenge that forces me to sit during worship most of the time and involves pain and a certain limiting of mobility. I would prefer it if I didn't have to be looking at the backside of the person in front of me during the Creed etc. but that's not going to happen unless I'm in the front row (too crowded). So maybe that matches the "cut off" problem. But I doubt I'm a good match for your requester otherwise because my physical problem is invisible and does not lead people to ignore or overlook me in conversaton.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
To be honest, it is quite hard to see how we can possibly satisfy this request. We don't know geographically where the person is, we don't know what kinds of church they're interested in and we don't know what their disability is - and we don't want to speculate otherwise we might "out" them.
We might be able to slightly adjust the focus of the MW reports going forward, but it is just impossible to address this request without more information.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
We might be able to slightly adjust the focus of the MW reports going forward, but it is just impossible to address this request without more information.
I thing we're going to have to settle for that. The person told me she is a Shipmate, although to be honest I don't know what her Ship name is. But I don't want to "out" her by going into specifics to the point where she can be identified.
I don't know her geographic location either.
I will write to Simon re adding a question to the MW form re "Is the church able to accommodate persons with disabilities?"
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
Without knowing the geographical location, I do not know whether I am in a position to consider MWing this church, or not.
Either it is in my part of the world, or it isn't!
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
I suspect that the question needs to be more along the lines of "What apparent provision was made for people with disabilities?"
A full accommodation for people with disabilities is an extensive piece of work and one I have only really seen tackled when there were people in the congregation who not only had specific disabilities but were strong enough to make themselves awkward. Even then it tackled their disabilities and not others. It is not that congregations are unwilling, it is that the imagined provision is often different from the needed provision. They spend money doing one thing only for something else to be required.
I also feel that a mystery worshipper would not be in the position to find out whether there were large print books available if you asked unless it was on the service sheet or they just happened to sit in a chair with one. Even if on the service sheet does not mean it is readily available. For instance, some congregations would only print enough large print copies of the service sheet for regulars who require them.
Jengie
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
This is true. We don't really know what provision there is for particular disabilities unless one has that disability and turns up.
Maybe we just need more MWs from people with disabilities.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Without knowing the geographical location, I do not know whether I am in a position to consider MWing this church, or not.
The request was not to MW a particular church.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Maybe we just need more MWs from people with disabilities.
Yes.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Good idea. A stroke last year has left me disabled and I recently was in a church whewre people were reluctant to let me sit in a pew which was one of the few I could manage. A steward asked them twice.
I was treated like a half wit.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
Is there a reason why she doesn't want to register as a MW reporter herself?
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
I've invited her to. She may just yet.
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on
:
A few remarks about each church from the point of view of access for those who have different abilities would be great. It is certainly a basic item that is missing from the current formula.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:
A few remarks about each church from the point of view of access for those who have different abilities would be great. It is certainly a basic item that is missing from the current formula.
Agreed. I proposed the idea to Simon, as I don't have the ability to change the form myself. I haven't heard back from him yet -- I hope he hasn't been abducted by gypsies again.
Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on
:
One of the reasons I stopped going to church was it was sometimes feast of famine. Sitting at the back of a church, even with clear sight lines does not help someone with a hearing impairment. Sitting at the front with clear sightlines does not improve hearing if the preacher is a mumbler, a rambler, and ex-tempore speaker. I remember, once, getting terribly excited when I heard that a pastor would provide an on-line sermon. Imagine my disappointment when it turned out to be a video.
So far, I have received 2 copies of sermon notes from a protestant church I visit sometimes when I am out and about (My friend is an elder, and has some pull.) Another in NZ provided me with a full sermon, with the usual caveat, and I was able to follow along. (Thanks Zappa!)
Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on
:
Our church has a loop system, and this used to be advertised on our weekly new sheet - not sure if it still is, I'll have to check
We have large print books, but most of the songs are on the overhead projector, though the music group leader usually gives the number too.
Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on
:
Perhaps this is not the place to argue, but I can assure you that, as a profoundly deaf person, a loop system only makes a mumbler or a mutterer's speech more louder, not clearer. Most preachers, or speakers, of my acquaintance start out loudly but they all end up in a lower tone, until the very loud AMEN.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
I'm not deaf, but my hearing is not what it used to be. Unless the sound system is very good and the preacher's diction is very clear, it's hard for me to make out what is being said.
And if it's in Spanish -- fuggetaboudit!
One of the most useful devices I ever saw was a sermon outline projected onto the screen while the preacher preached it.
Posted by verity (# 18571) on
:
I've just applied to be a MW.
I'm autistic, and have recently found i have a bit of an obsession with accessibility in churches.
I don't know a lot about physical disabilities or issues, but i'd agree with having a question about facilities in the MW form.
"What does the church appear to offer towards inclusion?" Would be good.
In my previous church I did quite a bit of work on inclusion, and made a whole page on our website about inclusion amd accessibility for disabilities, so that's a start.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
I remember, once, getting terribly excited when I heard that a pastor would provide an on-line sermon. Imagine my disappointment when it turned out to be a video.
Our place posts audio recordings of the sermons, but that's really for people who couldn't make it to church, rather than for those with trouble hearing. It's a reasonable recording (recorded directly from the audio system) so it might help people with marginal hearing, but I can't see that it would improve on a loop system.
Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
I remember, once, getting terribly excited when I heard that a pastor would provide an on-line sermon. Imagine my disappointment when it turned out to be a video.
Our place posts audio recordings of the sermons, but that's really for people who couldn't make it to church, rather than for those with trouble hearing. It's a reasonable recording (recorded directly from the audio system) so it might help people with marginal hearing, but I can't see that it would improve on a loop system.
Please re-read Pete's comments about loop systems. I am nowhere near as deaf as Pete is, but wear hearing aids well turned up. Loops do not work very well for me. Diction is not better, just louder, and depending on actual loop, there may be a different tone to the sound which is offputting and hard to get used to , especially in a church not normally attended.
I find a clear line of sight more useful as it aids in lip reading. That may not mean right down the front but it definitely does not mean up the back. Diction is important even fpr those without hearing disabilities. Too many taking a public part in a service mumble. That sounds like an excuse but it is true. When I was doing homiletics as part of a BTh, we spent sometime at the beginning of each lecture on voice production and projection and exercises for clarity of speech. We did not enjoy them, but they were useful.
[ 31. May 2017, 00:35: Message edited by: Lothlorien ]
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by verity:
I'd agree with having a question about facilities in the MW form. "What does the church appear to offer towards inclusion?" Would be good.
The trouble with terms like "inclusion" is that they are euphemisms for something more, erm, direct. Thus they are likely to be misunderstood.
The suggestion I proposed to Simon for adding to the form is: "Does the church make an effort to accommodate people with disabilities?"
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
...
So far, I have received 2 copies of sermon notes from a protestant church I visit sometimes when I am out and about (My friend is an elder, and has some pull.) Another in NZ provided me with a full sermon, with the usual caveat, and I was able to follow along. (Thanks Zappa!)
We do our best ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
(though in the pad I attend these days there is no sound system)
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Given how good voice recognition programmes seem to be these days, is it at all possible to link via one of those from the speaker to any screen in the church?
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
It would be amusing to see how various voice recognition systems cope with the habits of various speakers. I know I get some very strange messages in the Visual Voice Mail app on my phone.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Given how good voice recognition programmes seem to be these days, is it at all possible to link via one of those from the speaker to any screen in the church?
Given how "good" speech recognition is these days, I suspect that the titters running around the church might detract from the message a touch.
It might be possible, however, that such software could produce a first pass of a sermon transcript that a human could beat into shape fairly quickly.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
If you're lucky, you'll get the heuristic that favors any L word--ANY other L word--over "Lord," with amusing and occasionally blasphemous results. The optical character recognition program I used a few years ago was like this. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Disabilities of course are not always visible or physical - things like sensory profiles of church venues help enormously, but just don't occur to many churches. The sound-softening effect of wooden pews is a strong point in their favour for many folks with sensory processing difficulties (which can be part of a number of neuro issues, not just autism), whereas churches held in warehouses etc can be unbearably noisy.
The attitude of the congregation/leader(s) is so important. Things like understanding that many conditions are fluctuating, or that some disability aids are not needed constantly (but are still needed) is important - one of the reasons there's been a big push for 'wheelchair user/using' rather than 'wheelchair bound' is that many wheelchair users do not need their chairs all the time, but there's a perception that unless someone's in a wheelchair 24/7 they don't really need it. The same goes for many chronic illnesses, which may not always be obvious. I've been in far too many churches which support the 'scrounger' rhetoric by suggesting some disabled people don't really need the support they use or ask for.
I'm both disabled (in multiple ways) and do some volunteering in this field, so I am particularly aware of this - but far too many Christians excuse what is at best incompetence and at worst active ableism because it's church. It's at the point where I will just expect Christian environments to be worse at accessibility and disability issues than secular environments - places like Greenbelt (which has won awards for its disabled access provision from secular disability organisations) are rare within Christian circles. Ableism is a huge, huge problem within churches.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
There's been a big push for 'wheelchair user/using' rather than 'wheelchair bound' is that many wheelchair users do not need their chairs all the time, but there's a perception that unless someone's in a wheelchair 24/7 they don't really need it.
[TANGENT] Not to derail the thread, but I have a story to tell that is too good not to tell here.
One of my dearest friends, now deceased, was the nephew of the woman who worked as Irving Berlin's secretary for 19 years. We went to visit her once -- a very old lady in a wheelchair. Naturally she regaled us with stories about Irving Berlin. At one point she asked, "Perhaps you'd like to see some memorabilia I've collected over the years?" Of course we assented. At which point she got up out of her wheelchair, walked into the bedroom, fetched a large box down from a closet shelf, and brought it back into the living room to show us.
Something I'll never forget.
[/TANGENT]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
There is a twelve-year-old young man who is currently working on an Ability App that will allow people with disabilities to determine if certain businesses are accommodating. I would hope he also includes churches in the app.
[ 02. June 2017, 15:08: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Thank you, Miss Amanda, for that little anecdote!
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Our Place is a big old barn of a church, with a number of steps where no steps need be (people obviously weren't physically challenged in 1909). To adapt it in order for every part of the building to be easily accessible to all might not be impossible, but would be impossibly expensive.
We do our best (a former porch, closed for years, has been refurbished and reopened to provide level access into the church itself), but we always welcome suggestions from people with varying needs as to how best to accommodate them.
Pomona makes an interesting point re noise. The acoustics in the church are excellent, but I find trying to hold a conversation in the hall very 'trying' indeed, IYSWIM, and I now avoid 'coffee hour' after the service because of this.
IJ
Posted by verity (# 18571) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by verity:
I'd agree with having a question about facilities in the MW form. "What does the church appear to offer towards inclusion?" Would be good.
The trouble with terms like "inclusion" is that they are euphemisms for something more, erm, direct. Thus they are likely to be misunderstood.
The suggestion I proposed to Simon for adding to the form is: "Does the church make an effort to accommodate people with disabilities?"
True, but it covers everything then, not just disability.
And the MW form does explanation notes to the MW, so after a while it would become obvious what it meant.
And remember lots of disabilities are hidden, so accessibility is a better word than "accommodate people with disabilities"
It's about allowing everybody to be included, rather than specifically disabled people. Things that will benefit everyone (and hopefully change mindset in.the process)
Posted by verity (# 18571) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
I remember, once, getting terribly excited when I heard that a pastor would provide an on-line sermon. Imagine my disappointment when it turned out to be a video.
Our place posts audio recordings of the sermons, but that's really for people who couldn't make it to church, rather than for those with trouble hearing. It's a reasonable recording (recorded directly from the audio system) so it might help people with marginal hearing, but I can't see that it would improve on a loop system.
My suggestion here would be to use the recording to make a transcription of the sermon and put them both on the website - side by side.
Then everyone is included.
I don't like listening to sermons - I prefer to read what's being said. And I have no hearing problems (although I suppose sensory processing is easier when I can see what's being said)
Posted by verity (# 18571) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
place is a big old barn of a church, with a number of steps where no steps need be (people obviously weren't physically challenged in 1909). To adapt it in order for every part of the building to be easily accessible to all might not be impossible, but would be impossibly expensive.
IJ
It does depend what those steps are for.
if they're to go up different levels (for example the nave being lower than the altar), then it's not a good plan to replace completely with ramps.
Ramps are good, but some people cannot walk up or down slopes - so you need both.
Obviously if the floor can be levelled then that's great, but as you say, lots of expense there, usually.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Good point about the need for ramps and steps, verity.
Our problem stems from the fact that the church and hall (the hall came first) are built on a slight slope, so that shallow steps were built at the west end of the church as it progressed towards the hall, IYSWIM, in order to eventually link the two (the church was built in two stages, WWI intervening). This was not done until 1959, when a new porch was created for that purpose, BUT it then involved climbing up steps from the street into the new porch, and then climbing down the steps into the church...
And yes, there are differences in level at the east end, too, albeit only one or two shallow steps, but you still have to go down steps into the vestry and sacristy, where the only WC not in the hall is to be found (down yet another step ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
).
As I said, a former porch on the level (the original entrance to the uncompleted church) was recently re-opened, and now forms the main way in. Those in wheelchairs who want to go into the hall, from the church, have to take to the street! Fortunately, we have disabled access to the WCs in the hall (though they could be improved), and a portable ramp for wheelchair access from the hall lobby (where the WCs are) into the hall itself - up yet another bloody step.
We'd love to demolish our useless west end, along with the hall, and start afresh on the level, DDA compatible, and all, but....£££££££££
IJ
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by verity:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by verity:
I'd agree with having a question about facilities in the MW form. "What does the church appear to offer towards inclusion?" Would be good.
The trouble with terms like "inclusion" is that they are euphemisms for something more, erm, direct. Thus they are likely to be misunderstood.
The suggestion I proposed to Simon for adding to the form is: "Does the church make an effort to accommodate people with disabilities?"
True, but it covers everything then, not just disability.
And the MW form does explanation notes to the MW, so after a while it would become obvious what it meant.
And remember lots of disabilities are hidden, so accessibility is a better word than "accommodate people with disabilities"
It's about allowing everybody to be included, rather than specifically disabled people. Things that will benefit everyone (and hopefully change mindset in.the process)
Likewise, steps taken to enlarge accessibility may not be obvious either. I wonder if the better question is something like "What indications did you see that the church seeks to make the building and services accessible to all worshippers?" That would focus the response on concrete things that could be observed ("there were places for wheelchairs," or "large-print bulletins and hymnals were available"), as well as on congregational attitude—does this seem to be a place that tries to be accessible?
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
The suggestion of an additional question/s is IMO an excellent one.
A loop system is an essential as is good digital projection.
In the church I know best chairs are removed from a row when a wheelchair user arrives.
When I was a preacher I always projected my sermon points on a screen (sometimes with graphics - think about that when I got to the sermon about when life begins and abortion ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
): I had positive feedback for this practice (if not always for the content!). It helps to concentrate the mind when preparing, keeps the preacher 'on track' and, hopefully, it helps to keep people awake. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
However, now that I have a hearing challenge there are some preachers with whom I cannot cope - the ones who shout and have a heavy accent are a pain to my ears as well as to my theology: no sound system will accommodate them - and no training will help as such people are not easily changed (to put it kindly).
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
It's not just about the preacher, of course! In the church I know best the door to the toilet with access for people with disabilities cannot be opened by anyone who is not strong-armed; yesterday Mrs Wuntoo had to find a fit and strong young person to open it. As others have said, it's about awareness of the needs of others, simple.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
The suggestion of an additional question/s is IMO an excellent one.
A loop system is an essential as is good digital projection.
But there were a couple of posters upthread who said that loop systems made matters worse for them. So a loop system may work for many (St Sanity has one and there never have been any complaints) but perhaps also many for whom it is a hindrance. What's the answer?
I talked of voice recognition - I have used one for about a 15 years and it works for me.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
The suggestion of an additional question/s is IMO an excellent one.
A loop system is an essential as is good digital projection.
But there were a couple of posters upthread who said that loop systems made matters worse for them. So a loop system may work for many (St Sanity has one and there never have been any complaints) but perhaps also many for whom it is a hindrance. What's the answer?
I talked of voice recognition - I have used one for about a 15 years and it works for me.
Indeed, so if it doesn't work for me I don't switch it on. But it must be available to those for whom it works which is why I say it is an essential.
Voice recognition wouldn't work for preachers because voices vary so much (Methodists, for example, rely on numerous leaders). And certainly not for those who shout with a heavy accent.
Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on
:
I was one who said loop system often does not help. I turn it on to test but often it goes off.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
For loop systems to work properly you usually need a young deaf person who understands what it means for them to work. Older people with hearing loss too often just blame problems on the hearing aid.
When I did the sound system we always had a loop listener whose job was to tell us when it failed to work plus we could listen in as well if we wanted to. The problem is that there are two different broadcast systems. One operator used to just listen to the loop with the result that the sound for the rest of the congregation was not good. We did find that the loop sound normally had to be louder than the speaker sound as those using the loop only got it through the loop while the speaker system was really reinforcing the preacher's volume.
Jengie
[ 05. June 2017, 13:53: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I am sound and AV person at our Church. I have a loop system user who gives me the thumbs up or down if I've got it wrong.
Now if we could do the same with preachers ...
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I am sound and AV person at our Church. I have a loop system user who gives me the thumbs up or down if I've got it wrong.
Now if we could do the same with preachers ...
I would like to volunteer for vetting the preacher.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
... And certainly not for those who shout with a heavy accent.
Irrespective of accent, can you recall any preacher who shouted who had anything to say that you and everyone else present would have been anything other than better off if they had not had to hear it?
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
... And certainly not for those who shout with a heavy accent.
Irrespective of accent, can you recall any preacher who shouted who had anything to say that you and everyone else present would have been anything other than better off if they had not had to hear it?
Difficult to say, innit? Even though I was kept awake I didn't understand what was said or the sound volume was too high to hear.
So I'll pass on that one.
Posted by verity (# 18571) on
:
A lady in my last church gets nasty feedback from a loop and so doesn't use it. It's definitely the hearing aid with her, but it works for her much better tgan the more modern hearing aid she tried out.
But then, that highlights for us that we shouldn't be saying "well, it works for others+ so tough".
Even if we don'thave an answer, we must always seek one
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
We had problems in my last church hall with long-life light bulbs (admittedly rather old ones) interfering with the loop system - producing a constant buzz or whine for users.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
I don't mean to be facetious, but there's something to be said for candles after all.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by verity:
A lady in my last church gets nasty feedback from a loop and so doesn't use it. It's definitely the hearing aid with her, but it works for her much better tgan the more modern hearing aid she tried out.
But then, that highlights for us that we shouldn't be saying "well, it works for others+ so tough".
Even if we don't have an answer, we must always seek one
It works for some but obviously the result for others is not simply that it does not work, but has a strong negative effect. How do we reconcile these competing needs?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The light system interfering with the sound loop comes from someone bodging the sound loop. To make a sound loop work properly it should use proper (expensive) cables that are insulated against other inputs and they shouldn't be run through with the lighting cables.
(Says someone who suffered the consequences of a similar buzz on a sound system where the bodgers had run a spur into a chapel, failed to use insulated wires and used the nice convenient route followed by the lighting cables. The perpetrators were all too old and deaf to hear the resultant mosquito whine. I was told I was fussy and difficult moaning about it. I now have tinnitus at that pitch and no longer attend that church because I'm not prepared to damage my hearing any further.)
PS The nice young curate came to find me and ask about the nasty whine because he has also been complaining about it, and had been told I had been talking about it for ages.
[ 06. June 2017, 06:00: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Thanks for that ... when the buzz was reported to me I did a little bit of on-line research, and the British Deaf Association said that it is quite a common problem.
Another bugbear is PA systems which put out a high-pitched whistle which is above many people's auditory range, so if you say anything they reply that they know nothing about it.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
I've been reflecting a bit on the original question. I hope that it is agreed to have a question for Mystery Worshippers. But ISTM that facilities for people with disabilities won't always be immediately spottable for MW'ers who are mobile, for example. One church that I have become aware of recently advertises tea and coffee after the service upstairs. If there is a lift it may well be tucked away at the back out of sight. (I'll try to find out ) A loop system may not be advertised (though, of course, it should be). An adapted toilet maybe round a corner when an old building has been up-dated.
One can always ask about these things but it would raise suspicions and may out the MW'er. But no reason not to have a question.
Just some thoughts.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Good thinking. But shouldn't part of the MW evaluation be about whether a church makes these facilities known - eg on the notice-sheet, or with signs at the place where they give out hymnbooks, or by discreet words from the sidespeople?
One particular gripe of my wife is those churches that project everything onto screens (and I don't want to start a discussion here on the merits of screens vs. books per se). Her concern is for people who have difficulty reading screens because of poor distance vision - are (?large-print) sheets of the words available and offered at the door? In my experience that's rare.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Good thinking. But shouldn't part of the MW evaluation be about whether a church makes these facilities known - eg on the notice-sheet, or with signs at the place where they give out hymnbooks, or by discreet words from the sidespeople?
That's why I worded my suggested form of the question the way I did: "What indications did you see that the church seeks to make the building and services accessible to all worshippers?"
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
"What indications did you see that the church seeks to make the building and services accessible to all worshippers?"
That's a little wordy, though. Perhaps simply: "Are the building and services accessible to all worshippers?"
At any rate, Simon seems to have been abducted by gypsies again. Once they let him go, he and I can discuss the precise wording.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
No Nick's maybe wordy but it is possible to assess, the second is impossible to assess unless you have someone with every disability present. Believe me making provision is not the same as being accessible unless you have tested it with a person present. For instance, having braille hymnbooks seems to make the worship more accessible to people who are blind. However, unless you also provide a seat with a table in front the blind person cannot use them.
I also think I have come across conflicting needs with different disabilities. For instance, putting the music system through the speakers may well be something that includes some deaf people, it can also be something that excludes people* whose m.e. is sensitive to loud sound.
Jengie
*based on a real case.
[ 06. June 2017, 13:07: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
"What indications did you see that the church seeks to make the building and services accessible to all worshippers?"
That's a little wordy, though. Perhaps simply: "Are the building and services accessible to all worshippers?"
It may be a little wordy. I can tend in that direction.
But it's a different question from "Are the building and services accessible to all worshippers?" The latter asks simply whether there is accessibility. As others have noted, a MWer—particularly one who doesn't need anything for accessibility—may not pick up on accessibility issues.
Part of what I was trying to get at is whether the church communicates ways in which the building or services are accessible. Some things (such as ramps and room for wheelchairs) may be easily seen, while others may be more "hidden." For example, there may be large-print hymnals or bulletins available, or there may be a loop system, but as a visitor was the MWer made aware of them? Part of accessibility is having things in place; the other part is communicating, especially to visitors, that they're there. In my experience, many churches are good at the first part but not at the second part.
So what I was trying to get at is whether it appeared to the MWer that this is a church that communicates to visitors the ways in which it tries to make things accessible, which in turn says something about the church's attitude to accessibility as an aspect of hospitality.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Given how good voice recognition programmes seem to be these days, is it at all possible to link via one of those from the speaker to any screen in the church?
Have you ever tried the closed captions on an internet video? They are usually very bad.
As far as steps are concerned, I can manage just fine if there is a handrail. Without a handrail, I am at risk of falling.
Moo
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Have you ever tried the closed captions on an internet video? They are usually very bad.
There's a difference between closed captions prepared beforehand for a film or canned presentation of a re-run TV show, and closed captions generated on the fly for a live broadcast such as news.
I find the latter jerky and spasmodic and very prone to error. I would not be surprised, for example, to see the word "justification" spoken in a sermon to be closed-captioned as "just tiff vacation."
BTW -- Pre-prepared closed captions for downloaded films are sometimes contained in an .RTF file in the same folder as the film, and can be edited to your heart's content if they don't please you.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
The internet ones are usually automated and thus crap. You can really tell the difference when prepared captions have been supplied.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
FWIW I like Nick Tamen's wording. I might be able to answer the question "What indications did you see that the church seeks to make the building and services accessible to all worshippers?" I would never be able to answer "Are the building and services accessible to all worshippers?"
I think indicators of accessibility could be conveyed. But as an able-bodied person, I would not be able to declare that 'the building and services were accessible to all worshippers.' I would have neither the experience nor the expertise to make that assessment. But I do think that anyone capable of serving as a Mystery Worshipper - with whatever other abilities they may have - could and should note their observations about accessibility as part of the report.
It might help to attach a huge YMMV notice.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
There's a difference between closed captions prepared beforehand for a film or canned presentation of a re-run TV show, and closed captions generated on the fly for a live broadcast such as news.
I find the latter jerky and spasmodic and very prone to error. I would not be surprised, for example, to see the word "justification" spoken in a sermon to be closed-captioned as "just tiff vacation."
Or "euthanasia" captioned as "youth in Asia" (I've actually heard of that one happening).
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
FWIW I like Nick Tamen's wording. I might be able to answer the question "What indications did you see that the church seeks to make the building and services accessible to all worshippers?" I would never be able to answer "Are the building and services accessible to all worshippers?"
Agreed. If churches do have ramps, hearing devices, large-print bulletins, accessible toilets, or whatever, they are of no use to those who need them if they're a deep dark secret. A newcomer or visitor (or a Mystery Worshipper) should be able to see some indications of their availability.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I would not be surprised, for example, to see the word "justification" spoken in a sermon to be closed-captioned as "just tiff vacation."
Or "euthanasia" captioned as "youth in Asia".
Oh, the Freudian slip possibilities boggle the mind! Do I feel a Circus thread coming on? (Or did Sir Gus read "Go, Me Gone"?)
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Given how good voice recognition programmes seem to be these days, is it at all possible to link via one of those from the speaker to any screen in the church?
Have you ever tried the closed captions on an internet video? They are usually very bad.
Moo
No I haven't and to be honest I don't know what you're talking of. Perhaps it is that my voice recognition is now very used to me that means that I do not have problems. With regular clergy prepared to put in a bit of time training the system, similar results could be achieved.
I'm in favour of asking "what indications did you see etc". The OP suggests that the enquirer has a particular individual requirement, so individual that mention of it will lead to identification. If I were going into a church I may not know of the disability or what is needed to assist this person. I'd probably not be alone. So I'd see ramps, large print books and sheets, and perhaps mention of a hearing loop. I'd not be looking for what would support Miss Amanda's correspondent. So I could well honestly but inaccurately say that the church was accessible etc. OTOH, if I saw ramps, hearing loops, large print etc I could answer this version.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
No I haven't and to be honest I don't know what you're talking of. Perhaps it is that my voice recognition is now very used to me that means that I do not have problems. With regular clergy prepared to put in a bit of time training the system, similar results could be achieved.
Here's your problem right here. Very few people, clergy included, are willing to put in any time at all to learn and train a voice recognition program unless it has a direct major benefit to themselves and they are convinced of that fact. Ask them to put in all that effort for the sake of people who may or may not end up using the material, well...
Because of course those who need it are probably not attending services regularly. So the leaders think it is not needed and won't put the time in. It becomes a vicious circle.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Mine took about 3 hours most at training and has served well since. I'm sure that clergy could find that sort of time with a little bit of effort. My system even remembers unusual names last used many years ago.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
You must have a good system. The times I've tried to train one I've had to give up before getting closer than a rate of two errors per line. To be sure, that was some time ago; but I've hesitated to drop more money on a system after being taken several times.
ETA: I wonder if they hate sopranos?
[ 08. June 2017, 04:35: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I wonder if they hate sopranos?
Hate is such a strong word. Exasperated by sopranos, maybe.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Channeling Anna Russell: Why do sopranos have such beautiful voices? Because they have resonance where their brains ought to be.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Exasperated by sopranos, maybe.
Who isn't?
[Miss Amanda raises shield against hurled daggers as she runs to get her wrap.]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Damn. Walked into that one!
Posted by verity (# 18571) on
:
I prefer the question "what indication" to "what do they do" for precisely the reason that a MWer can watch out.
My notes in my first MW report were put in the "other place" section about accessibility because they were negative, even though I put them in the "other notes" section in my report (because of this thread)
I had aimed for a succinct criticism of Graham Kendrick
(Thank you for the edits on my report - it's very useful in guiding what to include in future reports)
Posted by verity (# 18571) on
:
I did want to make a minor comment on wording - I've been edited to "sounded like NIV", when i'd written "looked like NIV" because I was referring to the actual book that I could see but not reach, rather than what I recognised from hearing.
Obviously I'm happy for the edit to stand, as I'm sure readers would interpret the comment how you did.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by verity:
I did want to make a minor comment on wording - I've been edited to "sounded like NIV", when i'd written "looked like NIV" because I was referring to the actual book that I could see but not reach, rather than what I recognised from hearing.
But how could you tell it was NIV from its appearance -- unless New International Version appeared on the binding? Your eyesight is probably better than mine -- I would have to pick it up and inspect it at close range to see that. I'm happy to revert your wording to the original, though.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You must have a good system. The times I've tried to train one I've had to give up before getting closer than a rate of two errors per line. To be sure, that was some time ago; but I've hesitated to drop more money on a system after being taken several times.
ETA: I wonder if they hate sopranos?
They may well - mellifluous tenors more their scene?
I have what was then called the Professional version of a well-known system and then put in that Sunday afternoon to train it. Others on the floor use the same and are also happy with it. Most judges I know use it or a similar version as it lets them get down the outline of a judgement very quickly after a hearing, and later spend the time to refine it and put in the extra research needed.
I can't see the problems people refer to. We have visiting preachers a few times a year, but otherwise it's just the rector or assistant. If they each spend a short time, it will be up and running quickly. OK, punctuation will be scrappy and there will be the occasional mistaken word, but if it helps some to a better understanding of what's being said, so much the better.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I suspect i had what you have. I wanted it because i'm a writer andd I could probablh triple my outpug, but the error rate sgayed so friggin high that fixing it ate up all my timhe.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I suspect i had what you have. I wanted it because i'm a writer andd I could probablh triple my outpug, but the error rate sgayed so friggin high that fixing it ate up all my timhe.
Understood, but I've not had that sort of problem. I think you're probably right about the soprano voice.
Posted by verity (# 18571) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by verity:
I did want to make a minor comment on wording - I've been edited to "sounded like NIV", when i'd written "looked like NIV" because I was referring to the actual book that I could see but not reach, rather than what I recognised from hearing.
But how could you tell it was NIV from its appearance -- unless New International Version appeared on the binding? Your eyesight is probably better than mine -- I would have to pick it up and inspect it at close range to see that. I'm happy to revert your wording to the original, though.
Because I spend a lot of time in churches, and with books - it's my trade
It definitely looked like a NIV binding
Posted by verity (# 18571) on
:
you don't need to revert the wording - I'm sure most readers will assume I meant that I thought I was listening to the NIV. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
LC - I just love the idea of tripling one's 'outpug'! The thought of outpugging everyone else...
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
verity - well done. IMHO, it was an excellent MW Report. More, please, if and when you have the time.
IJ
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Believe it or not, that ebtry was the unintended redult of typing on this drattedc tablet i'll stop now,
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I tinhk herpaps yu shood...
IJ
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Just dun't use it to submik a Mysery Warship reaper.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
That just sounds like Norfolk dialect!
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Thas ryte, that is!
Dew yew keep atroshin, bor...
IJ
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Meanwhile, while we're waiting for the gypsies to release Simon, I will write to all current MWers encouraging them to include observations re accessibility in the Comments section of the report form.
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
FWIW I like Nick Tamen's wording. I might be able to answer the question "What indications did you see that the church seeks to make the building and services accessible to all worshippers?" I would never be able to answer "Are the building and services accessible to all worshippers?"
I think indicators of accessibility could be conveyed. But as an able-bodied person, I would not be able to declare that 'the building and services were accessible to all worshippers.' I would have neither the experience nor the expertise to make that assessment. But I do think that anyone capable of serving as a Mystery Worshipper - with whatever other abilities they may have - could and should note their observations about accessibility as part of the report.
It might help to attach a huge YMMV notice.
As an occasional [able-bodied] Mystery Worshipper , I agree that one can only report on what one perceives and that accessibility is an issue worth reporting on. . Perhaps a short question could be something like "any obvious accessibility issues?", with Nick Tamen's clear longer text as "explanatory text" (which is a guide to the Mystery Worshipper, but does not appear in the published report).
And in the meantime I'm quite willing to put in a comment on such issues under another heading (e..g "heavenly?" or "hellish?"), though I admit to not having thought about such issues in writing my earlier reports.
Posted by verity (# 18571) on
:
I put my accessibility comments in "other observations" which was then put into a relevant section.
Oh, Amanda, having looked at my photos again, I appear to have got the material of the building wring - looks like it's stone blocks, not kentish ragstone. I feel very contrite, but would you be willing to change that bit please?
Masonry isn't my strong point.
(All mediaeval Kent churches should be kentish ragstone)
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Pending a decision by Simon, I have written to all MWers of the past three years suggesting that they put observations re accessibility either in the heavenly bits section (if positive), or the "other place" section (if negative), or the comments section, from which the editor would move them as may be appropriate.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
verity: quote:
My suggestion here would be to use the recording to make a transcription of the sermon and put them both on the website - side by side.
That's a great idea, but unless the preacher writes out his/her sermon in full every time it would be a lot of work for somebody... how many congregations include a skilled audio typist? (I have had experience of trying to produce transcripts of audio recordings; it's not a trivial task).
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I have had experience of trying to produce transcripts of audio recordings; it's not a trivial task.
Indeed not. I've done it too. It might be amusing to see what voice recognition software might come up with, though.
But to update: The consensus is that more thought must be given to modifying the Mystery Worship questionnaire. We don't want it to look like we're conducting an official inspection of the church's compliance with disability requirements.
Meanwhile, some Mystery Worshippers have been commenting on such things as accessibility, availability of assistive listening devices, readability of the font used on projections, clarity of the PA system, etc.
Not exactly the same thing as how readily persons with disabilities seem to be accepted and assimilated into the congregation, but we do what we can do.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You must have a good system. The times I've tried to train one I've had to give up before getting closer than a rate of two errors per line. To be sure, that was some time ago; but I've hesitated to drop more money on a system after being taken several times.
ETA: I wonder if they hate sopranos?
What is quite possibly true is that all the development of said software is done on male white educated clear speaking such as its developers. Those whose voice is different for any reason have to train for longer. This gives you some clue to just how difficult adapting to a disability is.
Jengie
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0