Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Legislation To Make Web Devices Accessible To Disabled Users

Posted by Soulskill on from the we'll-tell-the-robotic-overlords-to-speak-up dept.

pgmrdlm writes "In an effort to make web devices accessible to the disabled, the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (H.R. 3101), submitted by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA) passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 348 to 23. The related Senate bill has been introduced by Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR). Quoting Representative Markey's website: 'We've moved from Braille to Broadcast, from Broadband to the Blackberry. We've moved from spelling letters in someone's palm to the Palm Pilot. And we must make all of these devices accessible.' The Washington Post coverage notes, 'Some broadcasters put videos on the Internet with captions, but not all. That can make inaccessible everything from the political videos that are now common on the Web to pop culture clips that turn viral.' As someone who has 20/200 vision with my glasses on, I completely agree that the web has not been kind to individuals with various disabilities. But due to the size of the web, and the large number of different devices that access it, is it even possible to legislate something of this nature? Or should we rely on education and peer pressure on the various manufacturers?"

45 of 274 comments (clear)

  1. Lameness filter by jrumney · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've heard that some sites even actively prevent users from making use of techniques such as LARGE PRINT. To rub it in, they call this a lameness filter.

    1. Re:Lameness filter by Haedrian · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've heard that most browsers come with a zoom feature so you can get print as large as you want.

    2. Re:Lameness filter by PatrickThomson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The parent has an important point - accessibility is a two-pronged approach. Sometimes, it's appropriate to modify the world (Wheelchair Ramps, disabled bathrooms) and sometimes it's appropriate to rely on technology to help individual people (White canes, seeing-eye dogs). Mostly, they meet in the middle somewhere (hearing aid loops in cinemas are much less invasive than subtitling, and service most people with hearing difficulties). I think it's important not to get too carried away and actively hinder the lives of everyone in service of some token PC gesture that never gets used. Specifically, my office has retrofitted electric push-button door openers, which take several seconds per set of door on a very long corridor in a working environment fundamentally unsuited for wheelchair accessibility.

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    3. Re:Lameness filter by Sulphur · · Score: 2, Informative

      browsers zoom feature

      Try control with the mouse wheel.

    4. Re:Lameness filter by arth1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've heard that most browsers come with a zoom feature so you can get print as large as you want.

      Zoom doesn't reflow text, so you end up having to scroll both horizontally and vertically. This can make the experience much less satisfying than if the text adjusted the size and reflowed.
      The problem is web "designers" who "design" pages for a certain resolution, DPI and eyesight.
      (And who seem to believe that everybody else are single-taskers who blow up their windows full screen too.)

    5. Re:Lameness filter by Lanforod · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm hard of hearing, and a hearing loop is not good enough for me. Even with the loop, I still miss at least half of the dialogue in standard movie, more in animated or face paced, loud action flicks. I need the captions, or at least dialogue subtitling. Deaf people get nothing from hearing loops, they require captions, including ambient noise. Also, the captioning standards need to be improved. It ticks me off when many, many movies take shortcuts by not captioning music, or changing what was actually said, even though the meaning is still the same.

  2. Eat your own dogfood, jerks by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's see: www.govtrack.us is not accessible. markey.house.gov is Joomla, ugh, definitely not accessible. How about showing the rest of us how it should be done before heaping yet another economy-destroying law on the productive class?

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      What makes you believe he believes that? It's pretty obvious that "productive class" doesn't mean "as opposed to people with vision deficiency" but "as opposed to politicians".

    2. Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks by ducomputergeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of those things, if you don't have an economy and it causes the numbers of "unfortunate" to rise to a critical mass, civil rights usually become the least of your worries.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    3. Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks by Kreigaffe · · Score: 3, Informative

      If all media were required to be presented in all manner of forms so that anybody with any disability or who speaks any language could make use of it, everything would be extremely costly to create. that would be economic destruction, plain and simple.

      even if it would employ thousands of otherwise unemployed translators, it would be a huge expense for little benefit.

      should government websites be disabled-accessable? sure. public services? obviously.

      news websites? questionable.

      viral videos? christ, sometimes i wish i was disables so I COULDN'T be exposed to them...

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    4. Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're totally trolling and I should be using my points to mod you down, but instead I'll provide a different outlook for your consideration.

      Many people in this country still access the internet using a dial-up 56K modem - many of _them_ are achieving only half that speed, due to physical distances and line quality. They cannot access many of the web's features in any kind of timely manner. However, I don't see a requirement in the bill for broadband access to be made available in gratis to all people regardless of creed, color, marital status or disability. In fact, providing any form of internet or multimedia access is not a requirement laid out anywhere in our laws. People of all disabilities still have to pay for their computers, pay for their internet access, and pay for everyday items to maintain their quality of life. So yes, money is a very important factor.

      Innovations in multimedia have been made by consumers spending money in that segment (aka Capitalism), not by the government requiring technology companies to make devices to service a minority. If there is a gaping hole in the way information and multimedia is distributed, you would think there would be companies trying to capitalize on providing services to that minority. Because that's the way it has worked in the past. The future is going that way too, on it's own. It does not need help from soon-to-be-outdated government bills.

    5. Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks by trickyD1ck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where demand exists, web sites were made accessible already. Mandating accessibility is like building bridges to nowhere.

    6. Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think Stephen Hawking regularly visits the pub around the corner from me, which is a listed building and had to spend tens of thousands of British Pounds putting in lifts and ramps, plus had multiple compliance inspections and certifications to handle. I don't think Stephen Hawkings regularly visited my old employer either, who had to spend thousands of British Pounds putting in a lift in its brand new office because they deigned to have an upper floor, while never having any employee or visitor who needed wheelchair access in the 8 years I worked there.

      You can quote the exception to me all you want, and Hawking is just that, but the normal every day experience for these laws is a significant burden on certain persons and companies for little gain. At which point does it actually become acceptable to say "Look, you are disabled, you are different, and its not worth the cost of doing this - how about we look at it differently and stop trying to pretend that you have the same advantages in life that we non-disabled enjoy?".

      I'm betting that last comment in the paragraph above is going to get me into hot water in this discussion...

    7. Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks by muridae · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is not the government's job to create laws that enable people to 'be productive' or 'give back to the community'. If that were the case, they should be creating laws that force people to work, and allow our corporate overlords to control 100% of our spending, just to be certain we are being productive with our money. Should you not have access to clean water, simply because you post on /. when you should be working and giving back?* For that matter, someone who is dead can not complain, should the government spend any money on a trial for a murderer; or should the murderer just be allowed to go free, so they can work and give back?

      The government makes laws that, ideally, allow people to start on an equal footing and to prevent discrimination. The ADA has been used to say that a business open to the public can not say 'no wheelchairs', even by simply not providing a ramp, any more than they can say 'no blacks'. Now, we get to net devices. Computers have had the ability to display to braille pads, and make use of other devices, that allow it's user to make use of what senses and abilities they have. New devices are locking everything out, hiding behind the DMCA and 'OMG, piracy, think of the children' to prevent the owner of the device from making use of it if their needs are different. Manufacturers are quite capable of missing something simple, like audio cues for on screen text menus or white on blue text for the same menus. If it takes a law to get that changed, instead of just social pressure and an 'unexploited market', then fine by me. It will be unenforced, same as every other law on the books.

      *: friendly jab at your username.

    8. Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks by demonlapin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let me guess, you're the guy who, when asked if he'd like chicken or steak, says "Yes"? There's no reference - none at all - to the visually deficient.

      As for economic destruction, check out "deadweight loss" and "broken windows fallacy" for reasons why government spending is not a panacea. Increased IT spending based on regulatory requirements necessarily means that the money that would have been spent on something that would build the core business is used to deal with regulation instead. Now, this might have sufficient societal benefit to be worth it, or it might not - but you have to look at costs, too.

    9. Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      As someone who had a sister recently pass away after living with long term disabilities, as well as having several family members with various disabilities, here is the way I always thought it should be: Things where you have to deal with them such as court, government services, utilities, and stores (kinda hard to live if you can't buy food or get in the pharmacy for your meds) should be handicapped accessible. Everything else should be up to the owner. If the owner wants to lose the business (which watching my sis shop she would be much more likely to spend more in a few stores as opposed to going all over the place) they should be allowed to, but for the basics of life like paying your bills and dealing with local-federal government they should be accessible.

      In the end it is all about balance, and allowing those folks with handicaps to live as close to a normal life as possible without having to burden the rest of society. people like my sis really don't want anything fancy, just a way to get around the store in their wheelchair, one bathroom in the store they can get the chair in and out of, just a way to get through their day just like the rest of us do. while I support having government websites being accessible (after all we pay for it and most of us know a friend or family member we wouldn't want excluded) but viral videos? Okay that is going a little too far and if my sis was still here she'd roll her eyes and say "Yeah, because God forbid I don't get to see some jackass nut himself. Now THAT would be a tragedy"

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    10. Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks by dlcarrol · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Not really.

      His argument was pretty straightforward, and can be restated this way: every cost that is not intrinsic to the core business (especially, as was noted, in a time of general economic distress) necessarily reduces the overall viability of the business. If catering to those with disabilities were profitable to companies, they would already be doing it. Since they are not already doing it, we must conclude that either (a) it is not profitable and is, therefore, economic destruction or (b) an unrealized gold mine.

      For some company C, I'm sure that it will be (b) after they do some extensive capital improvements (just like the development of most real gold mines); for most companies, this will be a sinkhole.

      And yes, the same logic applies to the ADA. Yes, I think it is neat-o that ramps, door widths, and the like allow those with reduced mobility to access pretty much any place they want. Perhaps the blossoming of such is a sign of a moral and considerate society. But bringing it about via coercion and then pretending that kindness and brotherly love are overflowing at the city gates is a bit rich.

    11. Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How many disabled customers do you need through that door in order for it to make financial sense?

      Maybe fewer than you'd think. When I was a student, the choral society would go out for a few drinks after rehearsal each week. There were usually 10-20 of us, including one or two in wheelchairs. One of the local pubs didn't have wheelchair access, so we'd avoid it. They were only excluding one customer, but they were losing the business of 10-20 others. The same thing happens with restaurants that don't have a vegetarian option. They might only be excluding one member of a group, but it means that the entire group will eat somewhere else.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks by couchslug · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Out of interest, has anyone ever done a study on whether the effort and money put into firstly creating the laws, secondly enforcing the laws, and thirdly coming into compliance with the laws has ever come anywhere near break even with regard to increased ability of the disabled back into the community? "

      That was never the objective. The objective is to make everyone else pay to support disabled access no matter what the cost or actual situational necessity.

      The classic example I've seen was the Handicapped parking spaces next to a fighter squadron Ops building. There are no handicapped F-16 fighter pilots.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    13. Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is a big difference between demanding equal rights and demanding that everyone who isn't blind or deaf dumb their webpages down to the lowest common denominator because you have a shitty browser and/or a shitty reader. The more they push these laws, the more they go beyond simple things like "Include alt tags for images" or even "Include closed captioning for videos" and the more they get into "Make this page text-only and very plain, or ELSE!" Equal in the sense of Harrison Bergeron, isn't being equal, it's just oppressing another group (i.e., those who CAN see and hear).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    14. Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks by AltairDusk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sometimes it's not workable even if they might get the money spent back eventually. There is a small cafe near me that has no tables inside, not because they don't want them but because if they put in tables they would be legally required to convert the cafe to be handicap-accessible. It's not that they don't want to make it accessible, they simply cannot afford the initial cost to do so. Substantial work would have to be done and while their revenue is enough to support the cafe it can't support the needed work.

    15. Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At which point does it actually become acceptable to say "Look, you are disabled, you are different, and its not worth the cost of doing this - how about we look at it differently and stop trying to pretend that you have the same advantages in life that we non-disabled enjoy?".

      The point at which society is willing to pay all disabled individuals a disability payment at least equivalent to median salary while being perfectly content to letting the disabled not work a day in their life. You do realize that that's a major reason for the law to allow accessibility is precisely to allow disabled individuals the opportunity to work, right? Without such laws, most places end up being unwilling to spend "thousands of pounds" or whatever just to hire one new individual. Hence, the employer pool drives down wages for all disabled, regardless of how little their disability effects their actual work. It also drives down employment opportunities, resulting in massive unemployment for the disabled (it was around 50% before the ADA was passed in the US and now is around 13% today; I presume figures in the UK are similar or perhaps worse).

      I wonder, do you bemoan having to subsidize public transportation as well?

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    16. Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They might only be excluding one member of a group, but it means that the entire group will eat somewhere else.

      And so your point is that these business owners are simply too stupid to understand this? That it has never occurred to them that this might be an issue? And that only the wise Nanny State has the smarts to point this out?

      Will the Wise Nanny State also help them with their business plan and accounting, and show them how they're better off losing a year's services of a couple of their staff so they can afford all of the legal, contractual, and business-interruption costs of remaking their establishment to accommodate a once-in-a-while customer that they'll have to now make sit around longer because they can't afford to pay as many staff for the year?

      Here's an idea: If a business wants the public relations and warm-and-fuzzy benefits of giving up floor space, a second floor, and all sorts of other utility so that they can woo clients with wheelchairs, or movie-goers who are blind, etc., then let them decide it makes sense to do so. If you're right, and dozens of people will regularly skip a venue in favor of one that had re-made itself as friendly to every possible disability or lifestyle, and the lost revenue from losing that business actually matters to them and would pay for the added expenses ... why would you care? They'll take care of it themselves. And if all of that is true, and they can't be bothered, then ... why would you care? They'll lose business to someone else, right?

      Your vegetable-eating example is especially spurious. There are all sorts of establishments that either cater exclusively to, or gladly make offerings to people who don't eat meat (or certain kinds of meat, or meat handled in certain ways, etc). This wasn't true decades ago. And ... look! No government intrusion required! The market addressed the issue, and did so creatively and competitively. There have neve been so many choices, in that way. If enough people convincinly show a business owner that the math is in favor of expensively re-tooling around a very small, infrequent demographic, then they'll act. If the math doesn't work, so be it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  3. How accessible is sufficient? by Psaakyrn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just an off-thought: how do you make a web device (or anything else for that matter) accessible to a mute, blind, deaf, quadriplegic?

    1. Re:How accessible is sufficient? by cappp · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well the House Bill states

      SEC. 104. ACCESS TO INTERNET-BASED SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT. (a) Title VII Amendment- Title VII of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by section 103, is further amended by adding at the end the following new sections:

      The Communications Act of 1934 (pdf) includes a section on catering to the disabled, which in turn specifically includes (Sec 713 on page 329)

      (3) a provider of video programming or program owner may petition the Commission for an exemption from the requirements of this section, and the Commission may grant such petition upon a showing that the requirements contained in this section would result in an undue burden.

      (e) UNDUE BURDEN.--The term ''undue burden'' means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether the closed captions necessary to comply with the requirements of this paragraph would result in an undue economic burden, the factors to be considered include-- (1) the nature and cost of the closed captions for the programming; (2) the impact on the operation of the provider or program owner; (3) the financial resources of the provider or program owner; and (4) the type of operations of the provider or program owner.

      So it's probably a similar standard here - companies will have to make reasonable attempts to cater to as broad a population as possible. They can look to prior precedent to determine how far exactly that is.

    2. Re:How accessible is sufficient? by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They can look to prior precedent to determine how far exactly that is.

      Sounds like a great deal for accessibility consultants and lawyers!

      Pay us to help make you compliant, or pay your lawyers to try to prove your innocence. Or, most likely, do both...

  4. Of course it's possible by Bogtha · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Disability Discrimination Act has been in effect here in the UK for years. Whenever I do work for a big company, there's usually an accessibility requirement in the brief somewhere. They started appearing not long after the DDA came into effect, and from talking to the clients, it's usually specifically due to this law.

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    1. Re:Of course it's possible by VJ42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Disability Discrimination Act has been in effect here in the UK for years. Whenever I do work for a big company, there's usually an accessibility requirement in the brief somewhere. They started appearing not long after the DDA came into effect, and from talking to the clients, it's usually specifically due to this law.

      Yep, it's worth pointing out that the DDA requires businesses to make "reasonable adjustments" to allow disabled people access to anything their able-bodied counterparts can access - websites included. So ramps for wheelchairs, WCAG compliant websites etc. but there is no universal service obligation - if it's going to cost too much relative to size of business, or if it's plain impractical you don't have to do it. Having said that, many businesses totally forget their website should be accessible.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  5. This sort of inanity... by chaboud · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This sort of inanity is comical, pointless, impossible, and laughable.

    This is akin to mandating braille on the Mona Lisa.

    The more nefarious thing is that such actions (like requiring closed-captioning on new shows online) can serve as an impediment to the publication of creative works (for fear of ADA-style lawsuits). Restrictions on presentation could also lead to limitations on new online presentation techniques.

    It's not like these things (like alt text) weren't already considered. Force all government agencies (as means of public access) to adopt these rules for their websites, but major search providers (and places like YouTube) are *way* ahead of the government on this one. Unlike quite a few other places that needed a nudge from the government, the private sector has already recognized the market value of serving impaired users.

    Specific restrictions are almost always going to lead to undesired side-effects. Chevy Volt drivers can't use HOV2 lanes solo but Toyota Prius drivers can? Whoops. Corn subsidies lead to a fatter nation? Sorry about that. HMO-friendly regs? Yeah, about that...

    Legislators are notoriously bad at actually knowing the details of the problem. Letting them call for specific remedies to perceived problems is perilous. Start small, with government sites, and see if we can merely catch up to the accessibility practices of leading internet companies.

    1. Re:This sort of inanity... by chaboud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm honestly quite for accessibility measures (US paper currency should be illegal), but mandatory measures (like closed-captioning restrictions) on web presentation are too specific. There's a huge difference between government measures (and physical access requirements) and forced requirements on private websites.

      I'm typically the first to say that we need to be more considerate of impaired users (I'm generally the first coder in my group to give a damn), but I see great risk in legislating accessibility remedies.

      And, yes, the US could learn more than a few lessons from Europe when it comes to accommodation of impaired users.

  6. Lots of problems... by AlecC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The wish behind this is excellent, but the law had better be carefully drafted. For example, you could mandate that all videos should have subtitles or closed captions. Which, with respect to major broadcasters, would be reasonable. But are you going to force this onto everybody who posts a home video? Obviously not (I think). But now how do you draw the line between home videos, small semi-professional videos, and full-blown broadcasters? And is this likely to produce a de-facto censorship of overseas broadcasters.

    Why do you have to make all devices accessible? Does, for example, a waterproof phone designed for surfers/canoeists have to have features for the blind? While not saying the blind cannot surf, the population of blind surfers is pretty small, and they do not really need access to what seems at first glance a trivial gadget. The blind must not be locked off the Web - but they don't need it while canoeing.

    Put it the other way, do you have to make all web devices available to the non-disabled? Am I required to make a braille web-interpreter (a device) accessible to the sighted but braille-impaired?

    Will this effectively ban ultra-low-power long battery life devices which, for example, don't have speaker-phones and use e-paper without back lights, which are harder for this with impaired vision to use?

    So, while I applaud the idea, I fear the detail.

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  7. Great! by damienl451 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wonderful! Now Markey can show that he cares by spending other people's money and imposing time-consuming, expensive regulations on all of us.
    What's the point of requiring *all* VoIP phones to be hearing-aid compatible? It'll just make all phones more expensive for everyone, including those of us who don't need have hearing aids! It's not insensitive, it's just common sense; we don't mandate that all books be written in 20pt, we just allow publishers to sell both regular-print and large-print books! There are currently cheap VoIP phones that are not compatible with hearing aids and slightly more expensive VoIP phones that are. And it works just fine this way, the deaf can just use some of the $10 million that Markey wants to give them to purchase fancier phones!

    The same applies to screen readers for mobile devices. Some are already available, what about the radical notion that those who benefit from them should purchase them with their own money? Not everyone who is blind is poor and helpless and so destitute as to not be able to afford the spend $300 on software that, according to Markey, is indispensable to live a fulfilling life. And if these politicians feel generous, they should just donate a portion of their income to organizations that help the blind. They're wealthy enough that don't have to stick taxpayers with the bill when they're feeling generous.

  8. Reality by jandersen · · Score: 2

    But due to the size of the web, and the large number of different devices that access it, is it even possible to legislate something of this nature? Or should we rely on education and peer pressure on the various manufacturers?

    It is always possible to pass legislation; some seem to pass it like they pass wind. Whether it is going to have any effect, let alone the intended effect, is always the big question.

    Education will have to be the way forward, but one has to be realistic - the web is to a great extent a visual medium, and much as one may sympathise with the plight of blind people, no amount of good intentions will make them see, and they are never going to experience the world exactly as a fully sighted person. And I don't think these exercises in "accessibility" are meant that way - the goal must be to make the resources on the web accessible enough that blind people are not unfairly excluded from the potential benefits, especially when it comes to public services (libraries, health care, etc)

  9. This is why egalitarianism is the enemy of freedom by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The natural progression of egalitarianism will lead to this and then to people being punished for publishing content that is not accessible. Your little blog or mom and pop online store will get raked over the coals because it's a "public accommodation," and the argument will be that "sure, you have every right to speak your mind online, but you better make sure the blind and deaf can participate too."

    The DoJ recently shut down a trial program--a trial program--that let students use Kindles at several universities instead of buying text books. Their logic was that since Kindles have mediocre accessibility that prevents the blind from fully using them, the mere fact of offering the program is ipso facto discrimination.

    That logic didn't come out of nowhere. It is it the end state of egalitarianism: if we ALL can't do it, then no one can. It brings us down to the lowest common denominator. Instead of providing subsidies to Amazon or giving them the legal stink eye so they'd hurry up and make it happen, the DoJ simply shut it down under the pain of loss of liberty. That is the tyranny that awaits us if we give in in the name of "equality."

  10. As a volunteer helping visually impaired people.. by blind+biker · · Score: 2, Informative

    ..I have put myself in their "shoes" many times, to understand the difficulties they have in using various household electronics and gadgets, and of course, software and websites. My experience has been that all those devices that are usable by blind/visually impaired people, are also more pleasant and easier to use for able-bodied people. I have never met an exception to this rule. Hideous flash-encumbered websites are the direct opposite of accessible, and we all hate them.

    A website does not have to be specifically made for a blind person - it just has to be text-readable instead of being a big blob of graphics, un-parsable by the various reader softwares available to blind people, be it voice or Braille.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  11. Re:Oh, providers are going to "love" this one by natehoy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Go to the link where the esteemed Senator is pontificating at length about the lack of subtitles (4th link in the summary, I believe).

    First, you'll note that he did not upload subtitles to the videos on his site. Interesting, no? In a long pontification about the lack of accessibility on his own web site, he puts up video without subtitles. He did, at least, put up a transcript of the video on the site itself, but if you go to YouTube to find that video, it won't have the transcript. So he's seemingly in violation of his own principles (actually not at all unusual for a Congresscritter, but it's important to point these things out).

    Second, you'll note that subtitles are available for that video. Since it was uploaded to YouTube, Google makes "audio transcription" available. While imperfect ("your personal courage" gets translated to "your personal carl", for example), it does get the gist of the video across.

    So, if Markey is proposing that Closed Captions be available on all YouTube videos, then YouTube has already met the law to the standards Markey himself has demonstrated he wants.

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  12. Captioning vs. Subtitling by beetle496 · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is a way to add captions that is non-invasive and which will soon be required. The legislation that is focus of this article is invisible but quite important.

    --
    I paid the going retail price for a Windows screen reader and got a free Unix computer!
  13. Re:This is why egalitarianism is the enemy of free by jodio · · Score: 2, Informative

    Kurt Vonnegut wrote an excellent short story, "Harrison Bergeron", where this sort of legislation has been taken to an extreme. It can be found in his short story collection "Welcome to the Monkey House". Well worth the read, like most of Vonnegut's work.

  14. Re:This is why egalitarianism is the enemy of free by SirGarlon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    By contrast, an all-digital world is a dream for blind people who want to consume books. How much of a pain in the ass is it to have a home reader where you have to align pages of a physical book, turn them, etc. vs. having an iPod-form-factor device that can download most any book from Amazon?

    Well first of all text-to-speech is a lousy substitute for text, and if you don't believe that why don't you try it for a day.

    But that point aside, let's imagine there's a device that can read text and display Braille. Then let's imagine that all the publishers decide to publish their e-books in a format that no Braille display can read (say for DRM purposes, or to make them unreadable on a competitor's device, or because their layout people are too damned lazy to learn and apply open standards).

    That's the issue of accessibility.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  15. Re:As a volunteer helping visually impaired people by Idiomatick · · Score: 3, Informative

    Weirdly enough meeting coding standards set out in HTML is almost always good enough. Keep style separate from content. Have alt text for images. Braille readers will be able to ignore the css and make all that html goodness meaningful.

  16. This may already be de facto law in business by davidwr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The ADA and other workplace protections say that you can't be discriminated against if you can do the essential functions of your job.

    I'm waiting for the first appellate-level case where judges have to decide if it's okay to discriminate against someone if they can't use the corporate-standard handheld device but they can use a different, possibly much more expensive device, that is not the company standard.

    Also, I'm waiting to see if any judge will dare tell any company "if you insist on using method A for corporate communications and it effectively discriminates against the disabled, I'll order you to allow disabled people to use method B and I'll order you to make sure method B is functionally equivalent to method A or I'll order you to stop using method A unless you can show that method A is essential to your business."

    In other words, if a company either deliberately or tacitly uses non-accessible communication methods not because those particular methods are essential compared to accessible methods, but either as a smokescreen to discriminate or simply as a way to save money without caring about the impact on the disabled, I expect judges to rule against them.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  17. Re:This is why egalitarianism is the enemy of free by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK, fine, I don't know which has a higher data rate, but if you say it's Braille, that's good enough for me. The input to a Braille reader or a text-to-speech reader is the same, letters (hrm, what do the blind do in iconographic locales?).

    So, defeating DRM is sufficient in both cases to make a commercial product. DRM can only exist when Government threatens violent action against those who would circumvent it. Remove the threat and DRM-defeats appear on the market.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  18. Nice way to squelch freedom of expression... by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Require that all forms of public expression be accessible to the blind, deaf, and otherwise impaired, and you raise the cost of entry of doing such to the point that most people won't find it practical any more. How many youtube videos would disappear if their creator had to caption them? How many web pages would go away if they had to be accessible to the blind?

  19. Other similar legislation by beetle496 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The FCC has a call for public comment on this topic.

    --
    I paid the going retail price for a Windows screen reader and got a free Unix computer!
  20. Re:Zero sum game by beetle496 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's fine if it is truly by choice. But would you like to go back to a system where, for example, black could only work for blacks?

    --
    I paid the going retail price for a Windows screen reader and got a free Unix computer!