Miss-Delectable
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 17,160
- Reaction score
- 7
As personal technology explodes, deaf and blind people feel left behind
Olivia Norman's fingers fly across her laptop keyboard, dexterously tapping out instant messages to friends and entering search-engine queries without committing a single typo. A minute later, she's listening intently to the voice cues that help her read e-mail and send text messages on her smartphone.
Norman is blind, so the cues help her navigate the tiny keypad and understand the words on the screen.
She can't order an on-demand movie because she can't read the on-screen menus. She had trouble setting up an online music account because the speech-synthesizing software she relies on couldn't find the right link on the Web site.
"It's a curse and a blessing at the same time," said Norman, 27, of Washington. "The Internet has revolutionized my life, but there are basic things that are still completely inaccessible."
Web technologies and mobile devices have created many new ways for blind and deaf consumers to find information and connect with friends. But as entertainment and communications tools increasingly take digital form, some people with disabilities feel left behind. Online videos are not required to have captions, for example, and ticker-style emergency messages are not narrated.
Various groups have tried to address some of these hurdles over the past few years. The Federal Communications Commission last year ruled that Internet phone services that connect to the public telephone network must be compatible with hearing aids and relay services, as traditional phone service is. The agency also decided that wireless carriers must ensure that at least half of their cell phones are compatible with hearing aids.
Five years ago, the FCC set rules requiring video operators to provide "video description" services that narrate scenes. But those rules were overturned in court when movie studios argued that the FCC did not have authority to make such rules.
Last week, a Democratic congressman introduced legislation to restore those requirements and bring other big changes to the way Internet phone and video are designed.
"Now we're full-blown into this digital era, and we, in general, need to upgrade the laws that ensure that there is accessibility for all the people who use these new technologies," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the House subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet.
The bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., calls for new rules for devices that display video programming. Federal law requires all TV sets with screens larger than 13 inches to display closed captions. Under the new legislation, all gadgets from MP3 players to cell phones would be required to show captions.
Devices would also have to provide video description services and read aloud scrolling emergency messages. On-screen menus would have to be usable by people with disabilities.
In addition, Markey's bill would extend existing Internet phone service requirements to other services that let users exchange voice, text or video communications over the Internet.
Various advocates of people with disabilities have lined up in support of the bill, arguing that it's time that the law spelled out technology standards that consider the needs of consumers with visual or hearing impairments.
Tech industry groups say that such a list of requirements would dampen the innovation that's already making these products and services available and more accessible. They also argue that new regulations will drive up the price of products for all consumers.
"No one thought about these things five years ago, and yet these technologies are coming down the pike on their own, and we need to make sure we don't stifle that growth," said Dane Snowden, vice president of state and external affairs for CTIA, the wireless industry's main lobby group in Washington.
Robert McConnell, a student at Washington's Gallaudet University for the hearing impaired, said Web cameras, instant-messaging and his BlackBerry allow him to communicate in ways that were unavailable to previous generations of people who were deaf and hard of hearing.
"We live through our thumbs," he said of his dependence on his cell phone to send text messages and photos of sign-language sequences.
But video clips and many TV shows that are streamed online are often unintelligible to him without captions. Now, it is up to content producers whether to provide captions.
CBS's Web site, for example, does not have captions for all of the network's content, but Hulu.com, a joint venture between NBC and Fox, often does.
Captions are hard to post with online videos because there is no common standard for how they are decoded and displayed, said Larry Goldberg, director of media access at WGBH, a public broadcasting station in Boston. The station is coordinating a coalition called the Internet Captioning Forum, formed last year by AOL, Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc., that is working to draw up standards.
Markey's bill would not extend to the homemade clips posted on YouTube and other video-
sharing sites but would require major TV networks and movie studios to include captions with Web-bound content.
Made-for-TV content is required to have captions, but they are not always easy to use on the Web. For example, if a show is broken up into smaller clips for the Web site, the prerecorded captions can be garbled or destroyed.
Some companies have created programs that cater to those who are deaf or blind. FeedRoom, a New York company, has created a video player that can display captions. Audiopoint Inc., in Rockville, Md., has a text-to-speech program that reads e-mail and news alerts over the phone.
But the software can cost hundreds of dollars, and compatible devices can cost in the thousands, said Karen Peltz Strauss, of the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology.
She said she thinks federal action would help make the technologies more affordable.
Vincent Morris, communications director for the Information Technology Industry Council, argued that government action would also lead to higher prices for all consumers.
"Our goal would be to craft something that works for the broadest number of people, and we're not convinced this bill is a good example of that," he said.
Olivia Norman's fingers fly across her laptop keyboard, dexterously tapping out instant messages to friends and entering search-engine queries without committing a single typo. A minute later, she's listening intently to the voice cues that help her read e-mail and send text messages on her smartphone.
Norman is blind, so the cues help her navigate the tiny keypad and understand the words on the screen.
She can't order an on-demand movie because she can't read the on-screen menus. She had trouble setting up an online music account because the speech-synthesizing software she relies on couldn't find the right link on the Web site.
"It's a curse and a blessing at the same time," said Norman, 27, of Washington. "The Internet has revolutionized my life, but there are basic things that are still completely inaccessible."
Web technologies and mobile devices have created many new ways for blind and deaf consumers to find information and connect with friends. But as entertainment and communications tools increasingly take digital form, some people with disabilities feel left behind. Online videos are not required to have captions, for example, and ticker-style emergency messages are not narrated.
Various groups have tried to address some of these hurdles over the past few years. The Federal Communications Commission last year ruled that Internet phone services that connect to the public telephone network must be compatible with hearing aids and relay services, as traditional phone service is. The agency also decided that wireless carriers must ensure that at least half of their cell phones are compatible with hearing aids.
Five years ago, the FCC set rules requiring video operators to provide "video description" services that narrate scenes. But those rules were overturned in court when movie studios argued that the FCC did not have authority to make such rules.
Last week, a Democratic congressman introduced legislation to restore those requirements and bring other big changes to the way Internet phone and video are designed.
"Now we're full-blown into this digital era, and we, in general, need to upgrade the laws that ensure that there is accessibility for all the people who use these new technologies," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the House subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet.
The bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., calls for new rules for devices that display video programming. Federal law requires all TV sets with screens larger than 13 inches to display closed captions. Under the new legislation, all gadgets from MP3 players to cell phones would be required to show captions.
Devices would also have to provide video description services and read aloud scrolling emergency messages. On-screen menus would have to be usable by people with disabilities.
In addition, Markey's bill would extend existing Internet phone service requirements to other services that let users exchange voice, text or video communications over the Internet.
Various advocates of people with disabilities have lined up in support of the bill, arguing that it's time that the law spelled out technology standards that consider the needs of consumers with visual or hearing impairments.
Tech industry groups say that such a list of requirements would dampen the innovation that's already making these products and services available and more accessible. They also argue that new regulations will drive up the price of products for all consumers.
"No one thought about these things five years ago, and yet these technologies are coming down the pike on their own, and we need to make sure we don't stifle that growth," said Dane Snowden, vice president of state and external affairs for CTIA, the wireless industry's main lobby group in Washington.
Robert McConnell, a student at Washington's Gallaudet University for the hearing impaired, said Web cameras, instant-messaging and his BlackBerry allow him to communicate in ways that were unavailable to previous generations of people who were deaf and hard of hearing.
"We live through our thumbs," he said of his dependence on his cell phone to send text messages and photos of sign-language sequences.
But video clips and many TV shows that are streamed online are often unintelligible to him without captions. Now, it is up to content producers whether to provide captions.
CBS's Web site, for example, does not have captions for all of the network's content, but Hulu.com, a joint venture between NBC and Fox, often does.
Captions are hard to post with online videos because there is no common standard for how they are decoded and displayed, said Larry Goldberg, director of media access at WGBH, a public broadcasting station in Boston. The station is coordinating a coalition called the Internet Captioning Forum, formed last year by AOL, Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc., that is working to draw up standards.
Markey's bill would not extend to the homemade clips posted on YouTube and other video-
sharing sites but would require major TV networks and movie studios to include captions with Web-bound content.
Made-for-TV content is required to have captions, but they are not always easy to use on the Web. For example, if a show is broken up into smaller clips for the Web site, the prerecorded captions can be garbled or destroyed.
Some companies have created programs that cater to those who are deaf or blind. FeedRoom, a New York company, has created a video player that can display captions. Audiopoint Inc., in Rockville, Md., has a text-to-speech program that reads e-mail and news alerts over the phone.
But the software can cost hundreds of dollars, and compatible devices can cost in the thousands, said Karen Peltz Strauss, of the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology.
She said she thinks federal action would help make the technologies more affordable.
Vincent Morris, communications director for the Information Technology Industry Council, argued that government action would also lead to higher prices for all consumers.
"Our goal would be to craft something that works for the broadest number of people, and we're not convinced this bill is a good example of that," he said.
