[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/08/2007 04:48:46 AM: > Why aren't book, magazine, and newspaper publishers "required" to > produce an audio or braille version of everything they publish?
Scanners have been available for years. More importantly the print medium is defined pretty much as private enterprise. One would be hard-pressed to impose a government accessibility standard on the private print industry, without running afoul with freedom of speech and freedom of expression issues. Besides, there is no inherent right of the individual to impose their accessibility issues within the private sector at this level; e.g., a private publishing firm could make a case of an "undue burden" if government attempted to force them to provide an accessible version of their products. Then there's that freedom of the press issue as well. (In blunt terms, there is no human right for a disabled person to read the latest accessible issue Sports Illustrated, Playboy or The Economist.) > Why aren't TV broadcasters and movie production companies "required" > to sub-title all of their broadcasts or films, or have an "off screen > reader" describing the scenes? Closed captioning allows persons with hearing disabilities to have access to television programming by displaying the audio portion of a television program as text on the television screen. Beginning in July 1993, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) required all analog television receivers with screens 13 inches or larger sold or manufactured in the United States to contain built-in decoder circuitry to display closed captioning. Beginning July 1, 2002, the FCC also required that digital television (DTV) receivers include closed captioning display capability. In 1996, Congress required video program distributors (cable operators, broadcasters, satellite distributors, and other multi-channel video programming distributors) to close caption their television programs. In 1997, the FCC set a transition schedule requiring distributors to provide an increasing amount of captioned programming. Source: http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/closedcaption.html By direct inference, movie producers in the US have to offer sub-titles if their movies are to make to the lucrative cable, satellite or on-air broadcast markets after a theatrical run. The sheer size of an industry in one country (in this case, the US) has a direct flow on effect with other countries (Although, I have great difficulty in finding a Region 1 US DVD of the movie "The Year My Voice Broke," at a decent price.). > Isn't saying one can't (shouldn't) use, for example, a popup window > on a web site because screen readers have trouble with them, like > telling Hollywood they can't (shouldn't) use certain special effects > because the "off screen reader" would have trouble explaining them to > a blind person? Government can easily impose accessibility standards to the airwaves because the electromagnetic spectrum is regulated by the government for its citizens. (WAG) The web is merely seen as an extension of this regulatory system. Federal government web sites in the US (and sites where federal tax dollars are involved) come under Section 508. Some states within the US are using Section 508 as an applicable standard (regardless of any federal funding) so Section 508 also applies. Recent court cases are attempting to apply the ADA law to private corporate web sites, claiming a public accommodation aspect. The New York State AG went so far as to use the ADA law as a basis for all private web sites compliance based in that state. Other enlightened countries have similar laws for similar reasons. When is comes to accessibility, the only disabled people are those who see it as a roadblock to their personal/corporate wealth, instead of seeing it as an opportunity to an expanding market. Twenty percent of the population of the USA meets the legal standard of "disabled" in one form or another. >From a simple ROI it makes economic sense to build in accessibility as a normal manner of doing business even if one's actual/potential client base is smaller than that 20 percent figure. That's because all too often, the cost of fighting what can be seen as an indefensible act will probably cost more than any perceived "added cost" of including accessibility from the start. Sorry, but the web isn't being singled out. It's just being added to the list already there. Dennis ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
