Inclusive Information and Communication Technologies for People with
Disabilities Jenifer Simpson Senior Director, Telecommunications &
Technology Policy
Initiatives American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD)
Washington, DC USA E-mail:
[email protected]
Abstract
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) has the potential both
to enhance access for people with disabilities and to contribute to
creating barriers.
What we now call the digital divide actually began long before the
introduction of computers — barriers have existed and still exist
today with telephones,
television, the Internet and other information technology. It is
important to remember that people with disabilities have many
different accessibility
needs and that there are different ways to make technology accessible
and that new accessibility needs emerge as technology changes. This
paper looks at
the state of accessibility policy in the U.S. in several technology
infrastructures that may provide some lessons and directions for
increasing inclusive
information and communication technologies worldwide. For instance, if
the many provisions involving technology in the UN Convention on the
Rights of Persons
with Disabilities are to have real and substantive meaning, policy and
implementation at the infrastructure level must occur.
1
Introduction
Lack of access to telecommunications and technology is seen as a
"digital divide" for people with disabilities. Information and
communication technologies
must be designed, developed and fabricated at the outset for
accessibility and usability for people with disabilities. Absent this
design and development
approach, people with disabilities are left behind and are forced to
play catch-up — an expensive and undesirable path. It is important to
note that no
matter what the stage of development of the communications
infrastructures — such as wire line or broadband or wireless networks
or the television delivery
infrastructure — disability advocates and interested others can work
to ensure that barriers are removed or, just as importantly, are not
created as technology
infrastructures advance.
This paper provides illustrations from the U.S. experience of ways to
ensure access and usability in technology. Examples are provided of
influencing legislation
and standards, and working directly with government and industry
representatives to achieve accessible and usable information and
communication technologies
for people with disabilities. The key catalyst is reported — how it is
essential to have people with disabilities and their family members
involved as
policy changers to secure institutional change.
This paper does not discuss the indirect discrimination against people
with disabilities that results from a lack of affordable technology in
the marketplace
or a lack of availabile technology that may occur as a result of
multiple non-disability factors, such as: no delivery infrastructure;
low overall employment;
war or other extreme factors. This paper also does not discuss access
to assistive technologies.
2
A key point in advancing non-discrimination policy in technology is
that people with disabilities must not be relegated to obsolete
technologies, i.e.,
last year's donated models, or clumsy and expensive workarounds that
may cause a new set of problems for a person with a disability and
their family. This
is a form of paternalism sometimes hard to see by people without
disabilities who may believe that any solution is better than no
solution.
In short, people with disabilities must have equal opportunity to
benefit from the full range of mainstream communication products and
services that are
necessary to participate equally in employment, educational,
recreational, and governmental and other settings. The focus of this
paper then is to provide
examples for both information and inspiration and to look primarily at
telephony, television and the Internet as the technology
infrastructures targeted
to ensure people with disabilities are not left out.
If the many provisions involving technology in the UN Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) are to be realized in
regard to inclusive
communication technologies, policy and implementation should include
people with disabilities alongside everyone else. The goal must be
that any technology
used in everyday settings by people without disabilities must also
work for people with disabilities. This, then, is the road to reducing
the "digital
divide" in information and communication technologies.
The Digital Divides For People With Disabilities
Without disability accessibility in design, development, and
fabrication of telecommunications services and products — from
television programming and its
distribution to the common everyday electronic devices that everyone
uses daily — people with disabilities will be left out and left
behind. This exclusion
becomes ever more compelling as technologies converge and the pace of
change increases with more and more products and services made
available through
new means of "digitization." There is not one barrier that can be
described concerning accessibility, digital technologies, and people
with disabilities.
Generally, "digital divides" for people with disabilities manifest
along several fracture lines. These include: varying ability within
intellectual, visual,
and hearing abilities; change due to aging; complications from
accidents and multiple disabilities; differences in fine motor skills
and ability to reach
or approach equipment; and one's income and access to emergency
information. These fracture lines occur generally in the four main
areas of communications
technology — telephony, television, the Internet, and information
technology — or any technological device or equipment found in public
and private settings.
Table 1 provides a matrix to help illustrate these fracture lines
among the various everyday electronic information and communications
devices and services.
table Caption: Table 1. Digital Divide Disability Fracture Lines
Table with 5 columns and 10 rows
Telephony
Television
Internet
Electronic & Information Technology
List of 5 items
• phones
• phone-like devices
• services
• availability
• billing, customer service & product materials
list end
List of 5 items
• TV "set"
• controls
• remote controls
• programs
• billing, customer service & product materials
list end
List of 6 items
• content
• user interface
• authoring
• browsers
• videoclips
• billing, customer service & product materials
list end
List of 2 items
• faxes, copiers, voting machines, ATMS, info kiosks, computers, any
electronic appliance
• billing, customer service & product materials
list end
Intellectual disability
X
X
X
X
Vision disability
X
X
X
X
Hearing disability
X
X
X
X
Gross motor ability limitation
X
X
X
X
Fine motor limitation
X
X
X
X
Aging, multiple disability, limitations due to accident
X
X
X
X
Low and very low income
X
X
X
X
Independent access to emergency information
X
X
X
X
table end
Note: X indicates where a means of accessibility and usability must
occur for there to be inclusive information and communications
technology
Digital divides occur across the various functional limitation areas
and across communication technologies. Divides exist even as telephony
and television
shift from analog to digital technology — a transition in the U.S.
that will bring its own set of accessibility and usability concerns
such as in the not-so-smooth
pass through of captioning. Furthermore, people without disabilities
may not discern the need for accessible and usable billing, customer
service and product
materials to ensure independence for the person with a disability. For
example: a blind person may need their bill in an alternate format
such as Braille
or to have access to bill payment by voice over a secure phone system;
a person with an intellectual disability may need an easy-to-remember
phone number;
the training video on how to use a product must have captioning of the
audio track for hard of hearing or deaf person; the elderly or
sight-impaired person
may need larger font on a website, in operating instructions, and/or
on packaging.
To reduce the barriers in telephony, for instance, there must be
hearing aid compatibility of all phones — whether for wire or landline
and wireless devices.
There must also be design of phone devices so that these are
accessible to and usable by people with vision disabilities and with
other disabilities. Such
accessibility includes designing for fine motor disabilities to "dial"
and audio outputs to facilitate navigation of on-screen or menu
information for
people with vision disabilities. It can also mean a range of relay
services for people who are deaf or who have speech disabilities. The
availability of
services and their cost are critical aspects in telephony, and may
involve adjusting the service package, such as charging less for
bundled voice service
when deaf customers use only the text messaging portion.
Reducing barriers to access in television includes captioning for
people with hearing and other disabilities, and ensuring smooth
technological pass through
of these captions as television transmission systems move from analog
to digital. In television, video description
3
for people with vision disability also reduces the digital divide.
Likewise, the ability to independently manage controls and navigate
menus can be a two-edged
sword when new software controls replace yesterday's mechanical
switches. Where telephoning and viewing television are a public or a
shared activity, physical
access may be an issue.
The Internet constructs barriers to access in content, in the user
interface, and in authoring and other tools used to create Web content
regardless of
the general availability of the computing device used to access the
Internet. Information technology in public and private settings
typically has user
interface barriers for people with vision disabilities, and reach and
positioning difficulties for users with physical disabilities. If
sound, an audio
track, or an additional telephony component is involved, barriers must
be reduced for people with hearing disabilities and for people with
speech disabilities.
Who Needs Inclusive Communications Technologies
Central to reducing barriers for people with disabilities when dealing
with infrastructure issues is knowing the needs, specifically in
relation to telephony,television,
and the Internet. This knowledge is important for several reasons:
List of 5 items
• People with sensory disabilities — such as hearing, vision and
speech — will encounter the most immediate barriers to using
information and communication
technologies and if they are organized as consumers of phone and
television services, they can collectively impact manufacturers and
services providers.
4
• The types of changes to communications technologies that make it
work for those with sensory disabilities may often also make it work
for people with
intellectual disabilities, and for people who are aging.
• Government officials will want to know the numbers of PWDS, and
advocates must marshal these statistics to support their arguments.
After passage of the
Americans with Disabilities Act in the U.S. in 1990, advocates at all
levels worked hard to ensure that the ten year Census count, and other
efforts that
focused on population research, included and asked the right kinds of
questions to elicit useful numbers for policy purposes.
• The companies providing telecommunication and technology products
and services will want to know these population statistics.
• To know the numbers of people with low incidence disabilities is
especially important — those, for example, with speech disabilities,
or those using a
non-native language and having a disability, such as people who are
Spanish-speaking and hard-of-hearing, or people who are deaf-blind —
or their needs
will never be addressed. The market place will most likely not address
low incidence communications needs at all, even if it does provide
some facilitation
for more well-known disabilities. It really is up to advocates to
ensure that any mandates for services include these needs or they will
always be pushed
aside in favor of higher incidence disabilities.
list end
Government Mandates and Voluntary Commitments to Accessibility
Critical arguments to support government mandates to ensure
accessibility and usability of communication technologies include
realizing that:
List of 3 items
• Market forces will not ensure accessibility since there is no
easy-to-profile "disability consumer" as disparate disabilities may
require different forms
of access; there is lack of information about disability
household/consumer spending; people with disabilities lack the
geographic specificity found with
other groups.
• While one or two companies may have exercised leadership and brought
to market an accessible cell phone or an accessible computer or
provided captioning
on some of their web-based videos, there is usually no guarantee of
interoperability, as technical standards may differ widely. Assuming
that things that
are "digital" are compatible or interoperable is a mistake advocates
cannot make.
• All affected companies must comply; this more evenly spreads the
"need" to ensure accessibility and usability and will result in common
standards and
greater interoperability.
list end
Digital Divide: Telephony
Making a phone call is central to independence, full citizenship, and
total integration of people with disabilities into all aspects of
society and the
natural environment. From inquiring about a job, to setting up a
medical appointment, being on the job, ordering take-out food, or
finding a mate, using
the phone is ubiquitous and matter-of-course. However, those with
disabilities involving hearing, speech and vision may encounter
numerous barriers if
phone systems are not set up to accommodate to the needs of people
with disabilities.
For instance, most telephones — or voice communication devices — are
not designed to be hearing aid compatible, so people with hearing loss
who use either
hearing aids or who have cochlear implants may not be able to use cell
phones or wire line or newer "smartphones" that are Internet-enabled
or "3G" spectrum
phones that everyone else wants to purchase. They simply either
encounter interference with their hearing aids, or dead silence, or
find themselves hearing
beeps or uneven tones.
Solutions include telecommunications relay services, manufacturing
phone devices and providing services that are accessible and usable,
including hearing
aid compatibility, and ensuring industry standards for accessibility.
Reducing the Divide: Telecommunications Relay Services
A federalized and ubiquitous system of telecommunications relay
services was mandated in the fifty states in the U.S. with passage of
the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990. This act reduced significantly
communications barriers for people with hearing disabilities and
people with speech disabilities.
Over the eighteen years of this system, through advocacy work and
innovations by the telephone relay system providers, new and more
sophisticated means
of relay service have developed in the U.S., illustrating the need to
update systems as technologies evolve. These include Speech-to-Speech
relay services,
captioned telephone service ("Captel"), Internet Protocol (IP) relay,
Spanish relay, Hearing Carry Over (HCO), Voice Carry Over (VCO) and
the most recent,
Video Relay Service (VRS). Table 2 describes these forms of relay and
the types of users who benefit and illustrates.
table Caption: Table 2: The Various Forms of Telecommunications Relay Services
Table with 3 columns and 10 rows
Form of Relay Service
How It Works
Population Benefitting
Text-to-Voice TTY-based TRS
A TTY is a text telephone, generally using analog technology
TTY user calls Communication Assistant/Operator at relay center who
voices call to hearing person.
Any person with a disability particularly elderly, people without
computers, and without wireless text message or text paging services
available
Voice Carry Over (VCO)
Person with a hearing disability who wants to use his or her own voice
to speak directly to called party and receive responses in text via
the Communications
Assistant
Senior citizens who have lost their hearing ability but can still speak
Hearing Carry Over (HCO)
Person with a speech disability uses TTY but also uses his/her own
hearing to listen to called party
People with speech disabilities
Speech-to-Speech (STS) Relay Service
Specially trained communications assistant at relay service center
repeats what caller says in a manner that makes the caller's words
clear and understandable
to the called party. No special telephone is needed.
People with speech disabilities
Captioned Telephone Service
Special telephone that displays captions of what called party is
saying and allows user, on one line, to speak to called party and to
simultaneously listen
to the other party and read captions of what the other party is
saying. A "two-line" version of captioned telephone service offers
additional features,
such as call-waiting, *69, call forwarding, and direct dialing for 911
emergency services.
People with speech ability and some residual hearing ability
Internet Protocol (IP) Captioned Telephone Service
Similar to Captioned relay service but uses the Internet — rather than
the telephone network — to provide the link and captions between the
caller with
a hearing disability and the communications assistant.
People with speech ability and some residual hearing ability
Internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service
Text-based form of relay that uses Internet, rather than traditional
telephone lines, for the leg of the call between the person with a
hearing or speech
disability and the Communications assistant. Caller uses a computer or
other web-enabled device to communicate. Caller needs internet
connection.
Person with any disability
Video Relay Service (VRS)
Internet-based form of relay allows people whose primary language is
American Sign Language (ASL) to communicate with Communications
Assistant in sign language
using video conferencing equipment. The communications assistant
voices what is signed. Caller needs Internet connection.
Sign language users
Shared Non-English Language Relay Services -
Spanish or other Language relay service (interstate required only)
People with hearing and/or with speech disabilities whose first
language is not English
table end
Reducing the Divide: Mandating Accessible Phone Devices and Services
Phones that do not have tactility, or no means to distinguish keys or
to hear audio outputs of the features and functions, will leave those
with vision
disabilities out of the phone system altogether. Routine phone calls
may become insurmountable if the technological barriers are not
resolved well before
the phone device enters the marketplace or as the phone services
network is established.
Since passage of the ADA, advocates have pushed for enactment of
various federal statutory and regulatory changes to ensure that
telephone devices incorporate
accessibility. These changes took the form of amending the nation's
Communications Act with Section 255 to mandate accessible and usable
design in telecommunications
products and services if it is readily achievable for a phone company
or phone device manufacturer to do so. Section 255 also requires
Interactive Voice
Response (IVR) systems to be made accessible to and usable by people
with disabilities, if readily achievable. Even though the work is
never complete as
companies upgrade analog networks and bring to market ever more
"digital" systems and more sophisticated devices, this struggle was
begun by and continues
to be efforts to gain meaningful access to telecommunications products
and services.
5
More recently, advocates initiated and influenced regulations to
ensure that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the U.S.'s
independent regulatory
authority, amended its previous Section 255 requirements for
accessible and usable phone services and equipment with the advent of
Voice Over Internet
Protocol (VOIP). This amendment resulted in a requirement for
accessibility for Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) services
providers where systems interconnect
with the public switched network, another example of ensuring
previously secured accessibility requirements to keep up with changes
in technology infrastructure.
Table 3 summarizes the statutes, the accompanying regulations, and
shows what private sector entities or companies are most impacted by
the U.S. telephony
accessibility requirements.
table Caption: Table 3: U.S. Legal Requirements Ensuring Inclusive
Telecommunications Technologies
Table with 3 columns and 4 rows
Technology Area
(Year statute enacted)
Statute and Regulations
Companies Affected
Accessibility of telephone systems
(1990)
Americans with Disabilities Act Title IV, Section 225 Communications Act
Telecommunications Relay Services for Hearing Impaired and Speech
Impaired Individuals (includes multiple forms of relay service such as
traditional TTY,
Speech-To-Speech service, Hearing Carry Over, Voice Carry Over,
IP-Relay, Video Relay Service, Captel and IP-Captel.
Regs. 47 CFR Part 64.601
All phone services providers (wireless, wire line) must contribute to
relay services funds
Accessibility of Telephone Devices and Services
(1996)
Section 255, Communications Act
Accessible Telecommunications Services and Devices Including
Interactive Voice Response Systems
Regs. 47 CFR, Parts 6 & 7
All phone companies, including wireless and wire line
All manufacturers of phone devices and products
Hearing Aid Compatibility
(1988)
Sec 710 Communications Act
Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988
Hearing Aid compatibility and volume control
Regs. 47 CFR Parts 68.4 and 68.6
All telephone devices, including wire line, wireless and cordless
table end
Reducing the Divide: Developing Telephone Standards for Accessibility
Consumer advocates have worked their way into some of the industry
sponsored standards and have greatly influenced telecommunications
regulations. For instance,
the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) is an
industry entity that develops and promotes technical and operations
standards for the
communications and related information technologies industry
worldwide. They have worked directly with people with hearing
disabilities and with other
disabilities to ensure regulations that meet the statutory and
regulatory requirements of the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act and
Section 255 of the Communications
Act. For hearing aid compatibility, extensive negotiations have taken
place with this and other industry bodies to ensure that as the nation
moved from
wire line to wireless phones, and from analog to digital systems, new
standards were implemented to ensure compliance with the hearing aid
compatibility
statute.
Similarly, in the past, disability advocates worked directly with
industry representatives to establish a standard and a plan for
testing TTY accessibility
to wireless phone service. This group, the Wireless TTY Forum, was
comprised of representatives from wireless carriers and manufacturers,
emergency and
relay service providers, and consumer groups representing individuals
who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. Lessons learned here by advocates
include discerning
what is an absolute requirement and where a willingness to compromise
may result in a workable agreement.
Digital Divide: Television
No matter what one's opinion of television, it remains a major source
of information, entertainment, and news for millions. Anyone without a
disability
takes for granted the ability to access video programming. However,
those with hearing disabilities and those with vision disabilities do
not have access
unless the infrastructure incorporates inclusive design. Also, people
with all sorts of disabilities may not even be able to operate the
controls or the
interfaces that manage the features and functions of the display or
recording device as home electronics move from components to
system-based purchases.
For instance, it simply is no longer the case that the sound of
clicking a dial to the left or right allows freedom to select a TV
channel for a vision
disabled person. There are more likely "soft" or touch control
"buttons" combined with menu options.
Table 4 summarizes most of the statutory requirements in the U.S. that
reduce the digital divide fracture lines in television and shows the
entities affected.
table Caption: Table 4. Telecommunications Statutes and Regulations
Ensuring Access to Television in the U.S.
Table with 3 columns and 4 rows
Technology Area
Year statute enacted
Statute and Regulations
Companies Affected
Accessibility of telephone systems
1990
Americans with Disabilities Act Title IV, Section 225 Communications Act
Telecommunications Relay Services for Hearing Impaired and Speech
Impaired Individuals (includes multiple forms of relay service such as
traditional TTY,
Speech-To-Speech service, Hearing Carry Over, Voice Carry Over,
IP-Relay, Video Relay Service, Captel and IP-Captel.
Regs. 47 CFR Part 64.601
All phone services providers (wireless, wire line) must contribute to
relay services funds
Accessibility of Telephone Devices and Services
1996
Section 255, Communications Act
Accessible Telecommunications Services and Devices Including
Interactive Voice Response Systems
Regs. 47 CFR, Parts 6 & 7
All phone companies, including wireless and wire line All
manufacturers of phone devices and products
Hearing Aid Compatibility
1988
Sec 710 Communications Act
Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988
Hearing Aid compatibility and volume control
Regs. 47 CFR Parts 68.4 and 68.6
All telephone devices, including wire line, wireless and cordless
table end
Reducing the Divide: Captioning
To make television accessible for people with hearing and other
disabilities, televisions — or apparatus that receive video
programming — must be able to
display captioning. First, this involves a decoder chip in the
television receiver that is installed by the manufacturer before sale
in the U.S. Second,
there must be captioning embedded in the video programming for display
to viewers. In the U.S., video programming distributors — that is,
cable TV services
providers, satellite TV services, phone companies that provide TV
service, and TV broadcast stations — are held responsible for ensuring
that captioning
is built in the video programming. While these entities generally pass
along the cost of captioning to the program producer they are
responsible to ensure
pass-through in their constantly evolving television service delivery
equipment. These requirements, for both English and Spanish
captioning, are enforced
by the FCC and impact millions of people on the North American continent.
6
Reducing the Divide: Video Description
For those with vision disabilities, while the audio track provides a
great deal of critical information, it is video description that
provides the full
context. Video description consists of verbal depictions of key visual
elements in a video or television program which is inserted into
natural pauses
in the spoken dialogue.
7
Video description is selected or turned on by the user and typically
uses the Secondary Audio Programming (SAP) or other audio track in
video programming.
8
Perhaps even more significant than access to entertainment,
description of emergency information is needed for people with vision
disabilities to hear,
understand and appropriately respond to warnings of hazardous weather
and similar emergency conditions.
Unfortunately, the mandate for video description in the U.S. was lost
during a legal struggle in 2002 after eight months of rules
implementation. That is,
previously, there was a fairly simple requirement for four hours a
week of video description of some television programming but this was
overturned by
an industry challenge to the regulations based on an argument that the
implementing agency did not have the authority to promulgate
regulations. The lesson
learned here by American advocates is to ensure that statutory
language for accessibility includes the specific authority to
promulgate regulations.
There is currently a legislative proposal in the U.S. House of
Representatives that would re-instate this obligation for video
description and in light
of the transition to digital television; it is mandated to occur by
February 17, 2009 in the U.S., when most TV stations in the U.S.
broadcasting analog
transmissions are required to broadcast using digital technologies.
9
A key point, here again, is that as technology advances, it is
important for advocates to ensure previous requirements for
accessibility are also updated
or carried forward into new forms of communications technology.
Reducing the Divide: Accessible Interfaces
The legislative proposal to reinstate video description also includes
never-before-seen provisions to make accessible user interfaces and
controls where
on-screen text menus or other visual indicators are used. This is an
accompanying audio output to enable control of functions by
individuals who are blind
or have low vision. The proposal also asks for a conspicuous means of
accessing closed captioning and video description, such as a single
button on the
remote control for activating captioning and video description and to
ensure such options are on the top tier of on-screen menus. Even more
far-reaching
is a request to make the programming guide — that is, any onscreen
television channel programming display — have a means of navigation in
real-time by
individuals with disabilities who are unable to read the visual
display. If enacted, this could drive solutions to even more usable
menu interfaces such
as for other electronic goods. Advocates dream of a time when any
electronic product comes out of the box with options for
self-configuring accessibility,
such as on voice command for, say, "set up for deaf person," "set up
for vision disability" or "configure for deaf-blind use."
Digital Divide: Internet and Computer Technologies
Even in countries lacking a ubiquitous Internet infrastructure, there
is a sense that economic development depends and will rely heavily on
this technology.
Few may think of the need to ensure accessibility and usability at the
outset and should bear in mind the consequences of not having
disability consumer
safeguards for new Internet-based, digital and video technologies.
Accessible user interfaces on consumer equipment, interoperable text
transmissions,
and inclusive web programming will create access to the vast resources
of the Internet that everyone else, without a disability, takes for
granted. Indeed,
one can foresee new digital divides looming for people with
disabilities in areas such as public safety and emergency response and
in greater deployment
of health information technologies.
Emerging technologies include wireless access to the Internet that
could lead to deaf people's needs unaddressed if emergency service
centers are unable
to receive live text "help" phone calls. Similarly, as a means to
reduce health costs, initiatives to advance health information
technology may omit efforts
to ensure that the consumer user interfaces — to access databases or
services such as for claims or personal management — must be
accessible also for blind
people. Phone connection must also accommodate deaf people or people
with speech disabilities; for instance, attention must be paid to
whether telephone
prescription (Rx) service connects to all the different forms of relay service.
Reducing the Divide: Electronic and Information Technology Standards Development
Standards development is a critical area for advocates to work in,
resulting in more products and services coming to the marketplace that
are accessible
to, and usable by, people with disabilities. One example includes
participation on the U.S. Access Board's
10
Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory
Committee ("TEITAC"), a federal advisory committee charged with
refreshing Section
508 Standards and Section 255 Guidelines.
11
A federal procurement requirement is seen as a significant force for
accessibility and usability in common workplace technologies since the
government is
a large purchaser and must ensure accessibility for its employees and
customers. Section 508 calls for the implementation of accessible
controls in information
and electronic technologies, including video equipment that is
purchased or used by the federal government, and accessible web sites
for the customers
and employees with disabilities of the federal agency.
12
Reflecting the convergence of communications technologies that
digitization brings, the TEITAC recommended, in April 2008, that the
Access Board focus its
rules on "product characteristics" rather than "product categories,"
and that it move from "telephone systems" to "real-rime voice
conversation functionality."
The TEITAC was able to harmonize accessible software standards for web
site development,
13
and it refreshed the old rules from the existing "software, Web, other
content, and interface behavior" provisions into a converged "User
Interface and
Electronic Content" provision, again reflecting some of the trends in
the marketplace. The Advisory Committee's report also provided
valuable information
for a standard, yet to be developed, for real time text and offered
some approaches on how assistive technology should interface with
other technologies.
The TEITAC was not the first time such a large federal advisory
committee met to hammer out some issues resulting in standards and
regulations. Previously,
in 1997, disability groups were involved in the Telecommunications
Accessibility Advisory Committee (the "TAAC") to work out the
equipment guidelines for
the regulations for Section 255 of the Communications Act. Likewise,
before TEITAC there was the EITAAC, or the Electronic and Information
Technology Accessibility
Advisory Committee, also convened by the U.S. Access Board. EITAAC
drafted the first set of Section 508 guidelines for electronic and
information technology
regulations.
While these committees may not always reach consensus on many topics,
standards-making processes are very important for building
relationships between people
with disabilities, and between organizations representing people with
disabilities and individuals who represent the concerns of the private
sector. Disability
consumer representatives participated on all of these significant
committees as voting members; such participation can lead to great
exchanges of information
and opinion and to the building of relationships between consumers and industry.
While it is important for disability groups to represent themselves
and to have voting seats on federal advisory and standards-making
committees, there
is little doubt that there will always be an imbalance between the
resources of industry and those of consumers who participate in such
rule-making processes.
For instance, even after months of work by the TEITAC committee,
consumers with disabilities remained concerned that products can be
made that are theoretically
accessible under the rules but will not be actually be usable by
people with disabilities. Advocates take heart that there is another
bite at the apple
when the agency has to issue official draft regulations and there is
yet another opportunity to comment on and influence these proposed
regulations before
they are implemented. Advocates are always at a resource disadvantage
since representatives as few or no disability advocacy organizations
have the regulatory
and engineering capacity to bring the type of resources to the table
that industry brings.
Table 5 summarizes the current statutory requirements that ensure some
accessibility to electronic and information technology.
table Caption: Table 5. Summary of Legal Requirement Ensuring Some
Accessibility to Electronic and Information Technology
Table with 3 columns and 6 rows
Technology Area & Year Statute enacted
Statute and Regulations
Companies Affected
Accessibility of Information Technology and the Internet
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794d
All federal government agencies.
1988 (check)
Requires federal government to purchase electronic and information
technology that is accessible for its employees with disabilities and
for "customers"
of the federal agency
Many state government agencies
"web sites"
Regs. 36 CFR, Part 1194
All electronic and information technology (typically used in offices,
including websites)
"computers"
Other electronic and information technology
table end
Reducing the Divide: Web Site Accessibility
It is easy to overlook a key aspect of the Internet — that websites
themselves must be accessible and usable by people with disabilities.
Key components
of good design involve:
List of 5 items
• Content designed for the greatest number of users.
• Availability of accessible Web browsers and media players and other
"user agents" that interact with the pages.
• Availability of assistive technology such as screen readers,
alternative keyboards, switches, and scanning software, typically used
by people with vision
disabilities.
• Consideration of users' knowledge, experiences, and adaptive
strategies when they use the Web — that is, was the site designed with
the full range of
potential users in mind rather than the "gee-whiz" artistic expression
of the developer.
• Developers, such as the designers, coders, authors, and other users
who contribute content are aware of accessibility concerns and issues.
list end
All of these components have to be addressed with disability in mind
or significant numbers of people with disabilities find they can't use
the site. They
are likely to give up going to the site, and the creator of the site
could lose the sale or not get their message out or have their
business regarded as
"unfriendly to disability." For example, not only product information
but order forms or payment modules should be made accessible. An
emerging concern
is the frequent use of video clips on the Internet without captioning
or a means for a deaf or hard-of-hearing people to access the content.
Sourced from
television and movies, user-generated or from others — such as
political candidates — this omission is a new digital divide that
advocates must work to
end. More and more such videoclips are used in employment settings,
for training and workforce capacity-building; even with ADA's bar
against discrimination
in employment, the reality is that an employee with a sensory
disability may not be able to participate equally with others when
accessibility has not
been embedded.
At least one industry-sponsored body works on developing standards for
websites: the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) develops interoperable
technologies
(specifications, guidelines, software, and tools) to make the Web
accessible to people with disabilities.
14
While such voluntary efforts do occur and can lead to accessibility,
taking legal action is one way disability groups in the U.S. have
secured greater accessibility
of web sites on the Internet. These actions have been particularly
critical for blind people.
Court Cases and Settlements Involving Internet Accessibility
Some believe that the ADA pertains to web sites and there have been
several legal cases that have dealt with this, often with disparate
outcomes. However,
there has been no specific ruling from the U.S. Department of Justice,
the enforcing agency for the ADA, on this application of the ADA to
websites. Nevertheless,
recent settlements resulting from legal action may be influencing the
U.S. situation. Target stores, for example, have now committed to
making accessible
the Target.com web site for blind people who use assistive technology.
Likewise, earlier this year, a major pharmacy chain, Rite-Aid, agreed
to make electronic
telecommunicating point-of-sale devices more accessible to blind
people and the three main credit history bureaus in the U.S. agreed to
provide credit
information in accessible formats on their web sites; these were all
settlement agreements resulting from actions initiated by groups that
advocate for
the blind people in the U.S.
15
These cases represent expansion of the ADA into cyberspace, and may
provide impetus for other countries to ensure more consistent
accessibility requirements.
Digital Divide: Reducing Low Level Internet Use by People with Disabilities
Surveys within the U.S. consistently report that people with
disabilities have only half the rate of Internet access of people
without a disability, and,
despite regular increases over time, people with disabilities have not
caught up, and still face a significant digital divide simply in terms
of having
the tools to make use of the incredible resources of the Internet. The
most current data (October 2003) show Internet use by fewer than 30%
of those with
disabilities over age 15 while more than 60% of those with no
disability used the Internet at some location. Also, both metropolitan
and non-metropolitan
people with disabilities have lower rates of Internet use than their
geographic counterparts with no disability, with non-metropolitan
people with disabilities
having the lowest rate of Internet use (26.7%) of all groups.
16
This is significant information for some who may believe that lack of
national wealth is the only barrier to ensuring Internet use by people
with disabilities.
Table 6 summarizes this upsetting reality.
table Caption: Table 6. Use of Internet at any Location by People with
Disabilities
Table with 2 columns and 4 rows
Year of Survey
Percentage of people with disabilities
2002
with disability 26% compared to w/o disability 57%
2003
with disability 30% compared to w/o disability 62%
with disability, non metro areas, 26.7%
table end
Note: 2003 data finds that almost 40% of people with disabilities live
in a home with computer but only 24% use it (compared to 66% of those
without disabilities
in households with computers) and decreases in rural areas.
Reducing the Divide: Policy Solution Approaches With the Internet
There are some ways to increase use of the Internet by people with
disabilities. Policy approaches include:
List of 6 items
• Creating alternate discount rate schemes and other financial
incentives to use of the Internet such as use of low income discounts
or modified requirements
for loans.
• "Mainstreaming" or including at the outset, expenditure for
computers, software and Internet access for people with disabilities
in generic programs that
have built-in to their budgets any necessary accessibility.
17
• Budgeting for Internet use by clients of special education programs
and specialized work or benefits programs.
• Web site content providers designing to show information such as
captioning of video clips, sign language video clip options,
accessibility for the assistive
technology blind users commonly use, such as screen readers, insertion
of video description, and other means.
• Exhorting content providers to use available standards and
guidelines for people with intellectual disabilities that allow
content to be easy-to-read
or understood.
• Requiring both live and pre-produced television programs or movies
that were captioned previously to also be captioned through
re-formatting when it appears
on the Internet; similarly for any video described visual material.
list end
Uniquely, broadband Internet availability offers possibilities for
people with disabilities that simple dial-up does not. Table 7
summarizes the unique
features of broadband that may lead to greater inclusion for people
with disabilities.
table Caption: Table 7. Factors That Advance Broadband use by People
with Disabilities
Table with 2 columns and 6 rows
Unique Feature of Broadband
What It Can Do for People with Disabilities
Speed
Download waiting time reduces frustration, especially for some types
of intellectual and mental disabilities
24/7 availability
Allows service providers to provide supports and services outside of
normal business hours, such as chat rooms, buddies and interactive
games or immediate
response or services for those needing critical attention
Greater bandwidth
Allows more activity to occur onsite such as video-clips of sign
language users explaining what is usually in a text format for hearing
users of the site
Cheaper when scaling up
Allows disability and other not-for-profit organizations to expand
exponentially services and products that would otherwise need mailing
or faxing or phone
networking, such as vaster dissemination of newsletters and
information through electronic service
Video applications possible
Video relay Services (VRS) for sign language users to make and receive
phone calls
table end
Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) for businesses and others to tap
services of sign language interpreters, which is particularly useful
where there is a shortage
of interpreters or geographic distance deters on-site provision of interpreters.
Video relay service has been so successful that there are now almost a
dozen providers of video relay service (VRS) in the U.S. since first
authorized in
2000. VRS allows the over one million sign language users in America
to make phone calls in almost real time, something hearing people have
taken for granted
for years when making phone calls.
Catalysts for Change
The following are ways and approaches for advocates to ensure positive
policy changes leading to more inclusive communications technologies.
These are based
on the American experience in securing statutory mandates, federal
regulations and standards, engagement with industry for more inclusive
communications
technologies.
List of 8 items (contains 2 nested lists)
1. Active involvement of large national membership or representational
groups of individuals with specific and other disabilities. Such as
through:
List of 3 items nesting level 1
A. Creation of task forces and coalitions.
B. Organizational commitment to ICT efforts through passage of policy
resolutions, principles, or position statements.
C. Using technology to support coalition building, such as electronic
alerts, updates, websites, RSS feeds, etc.
list end nesting level 1
2. Presence on boards, consumer advisory bodies and other non-profit
groups interested in related policy topics such as broadband
deployment.
3. Disability representatives versed in statutory and regulatory
language, familiar with federal governmental and regulatory processes,
and deeply familiar
with the consumer accessibility needs of people with disabilities and who:
List of 2 items nesting level 1
A. Educate regulators on an ongoing basis to ensure disability issues
do not disappear.
B. Enter civil service and regulatory bodies as staff to advance
advocacy principles within the government.
list end nesting level 1
4. Federal agency rule-making processes that are open procedurally and
that allow individuals with disabilities and their organizational
representatives
to participate. These processes themselves must also be disability accessible.
5. Nonprofit organizations that commit to sustaining and working on
policy issues for extended periods of time and that take principled
positions, pass
resolutions, and ensure their membership and board support the policy worker.
6. Willingness on the part of disability representatives to work out
disability statutory language face-to-face with representatives from
the private sector
companies involved; in some cases, to compromise on legislative
language or regulatory requirements in order to reach a larger or
feasible incremental
goal.
7. Asking for, and having, a requirement for a disability point of
contact person at the company who is accountable for the concerns of
consumers with disabilities,
including responsibility for provisioning necessary alternate formats,
and who is familiar with needs of customers with disabilities and can
act as an
ombudsman within the company.
8. Involving as many providers as allies as possible, such as relay
service providers, captioners and video description providers or
developers, or companies
that have committed to universal design principles.
list end
Summary and Conclusion
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) has the potential both
to enhance access for people with disabilities and to contribute to
creating more
division and new forms of exclusion. It is thus vital that issues of
accessibility and usability be addressed as technology continues to
develop and spread
and as new technologies emerge.
What is now called the digital divide actually began long before the
introduction of computers — it is true today for telephones,
television, the Internet
and any electronic interactive system. It is important to remember
that people have many different accessibility needs and that there are
many different
ways to make technology accessible. For instance, telephones can be
accessible through their keypads, through using a telephone relay
operator and by making
phone devices work with hearing aids. In the USA, it took years of
lobbying to convince manufacturers to make television accessible and
this had to focus
on both TV sets and provision of closed captioning while video
description still remains a voluntary access service. Controls,
instruction leaflets, and
electronic program guides, for example, remain targets for
accessibility lobbying.
Sometimes the technology itself develops to a point where it may
promote more access. For instance, the increased use of broadband for
Internet deployment
could prove to be an effective boost for accessibility as it is
quicker and can carry videos and other media. However, Internet site
developers must design
at the outset to ensure disability access for Internet users. Computer
manufacturers must also ensure that software works for all
disabilities.
Lack of access to telecommunications and technology is understood as
discrimination by people with disabilities and is perceived as a
"digital divide."
Technology infrastructures such as in telephony, television, the
Internet and information technology must take into account user needs
of people with disabilities
for accessibility and usability. These needs must be addressed at the
outset of product and service development or situations for expensive
retrofit may
occur or people with disabilities will be left out or left behind.
The several provisions involving technology in the UN Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities must result in real and
substantive inclusion
approaches to communication technologies, policy and its
implementation at the infrastructure level. While researchers and
others may offer resources,
an absolute catalyst for change is the presence of people with
disabilities at every table — legislative, regulatory, standards
making — and their persistence,
in order to lead to more inclusive communication technologies.
thanks,
mukesh jain.
To unsubscribe send a message to [email protected] with
the subject unsubscribe.
To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please
visit the list home page at
http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in
