Legislation To Make Web Devices Accessible To Disabled Users

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?"

Comments

Eat your own dogfood, jerks

[DNS-and-BIND]

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?

Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks

[Kreigaffe]

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...

Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks

[FrameRotBlues]

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.

Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks

[Richard_at_work]

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...

Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks

[muridae]

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.

Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks

[dlcarrol]

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.

Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks

[TheRaven64]

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.

Re:Eat your own dogfood, jerks

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:Lameness filter

[Haedrian]

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

How accessible is sufficient?

[Psaakyrn]

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

This sort of inanity...

[chaboud]

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.

Lots of problems...

[AlecC]

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.

Great!

[damienl451]

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.

Re:Lameness filter

[PatrickThomson]

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.

This is why egalitarianism is the enemy of freedom

[MikeRT]

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."

Re:Oh, providers are going to "love" this one

[natehoy]

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.

Re:This is why egalitarianism is the enemy of free

[SirGarlon]

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.

Re:As a volunteer helping visually impaired people

[Idiomatick]

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.

Nice way to squelch freedom of expression...

[russotto]

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?

Other similar legislation

[beetle496]

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