ACCESS TO INFORMATION ON COMPUTER NETWORKS
BY THE DEAF
Communication technology has historically isolated
deaf people from mainstream information in society.
The telephone, radio, television, and film were
all inaccessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing people.
The computer, with its use of text for human communication,
is as accessible to deaf people as it is to others
in society. But the increasing use of audio material,
especially on the Internet, threatens to make a
once totally accessible medium increasingly inaccessible
to millions of people with a heating disability.
A series of laws were enacted to grant people with
a hearing disability access to information technologies
such as the telephone, television, and videotape.
However, the unique nature of the Internet limits
what can be done through the enactment of laws without
violating First Amendment free speech rights. This
study examines the problem of access and recommends
public policy steps to raise public awareness of
this problem among those in the computer industry,
businesses, employers, and the general public using
the lnternet.
[T]he FCC may be the single government agency with
the greatest ability to help people with disabilities
participate in our society because the industries
in our jurisdiction are those that are driving the
transformation of our economy and our society in
the communication revolution.
Reed E. Hundt, Chairman, FCC (Possell, 1996, p.
11)
According to the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services there are around twenty million people
with some type of hearing impairment, approximately
8.6 percent of the total U.S. population three years
and older. Identifying the number of people who
are deaf from this total is difficult. The Center
for Assessment and Demographic Studies (CADS) at
Gallaudet University notes that "since there
is no legal definition of deafness comparable to
the legal definition of blindness, 'deaf and `deafness'
can have a variety of meanings." If deafness
is defined as the inability to hear and understand
any speech, the center concludes that there are
"approximately 550 thousand deaf persons in
the U.S.," about one quarter of one percent
of the total population (Holt & Hotto, 1994).
The size of the deaf population plays a significant
role in their ability to communicate with others
and in their access to communication technology.
Because deaf people are few in number, they often
have had to adapt their communication needs to the
modes of communication and communication technologies
chosen by mainstream society. Mainstream communication
technologies are designed to serve the needs of
hearing people and it is only after adaptive communication
devices are created that deaf people gain access
to the technology. As this study illustrates, for
deaf people access to mainstream communication technology
has had a checkered history, especially when their
access to the technology has been left to market
forces alone. The growing use of audio material
on the Internet poses a new threat to their access
to mainstream information. This study examines some
of the initiatives taken by the government and the
deaf community to gain access to communication technologies.
The unique nature of the Internet presents deaf
people with a new set of problems. In the past,
deaf people gained access to information technology
through adaptive communication devices and by convincing
governmental bodies to enact laws on their behalf.
While this approach remains extremely useful, the
structure of the Internet may limit its effectiveness
in maintaining full access to information on the
network. Of concern is that deaf people have easy
access to audio material as text.[1] This study
argues that adaptive technology should be included
as part of the initial design of all communication
devices. Such a measure will ensure that deaf people
have access to communication technologies as they
evolve. Commercial and business communicators on
the Internet should be required to caption their
products. However, the many millions of individual
Internet users who produce information on the network
are not legally obligated to present audio material
in a format accessible to deaf people. Encouraging
this group of users to caption their audio material
poses a stiff challenge for public policy makers
and people with hearing disabilities.
The lnternet is not subject to the same physical
constraints that previously determined public monopoly
ownership patterns for the telecommunications industry
and allowed the government to mandate services for
people with hearing disabilities. For example, public
ownership of the broadcast spectrum allowed the
government to require the industry to provide a
set of services and access to information. It is
difficult, if not impossible, to impose those same
requirements on millions of individual computer
users who automatically become broadcasters and
publishers when they use the Internet, without running
afoul of the Constitution over issues of free speech.
In other words, the government cannot command that
publications by individuals be intelligible to all
who may encounter them.
It is important to note that the unique nature
and structure of the telecommunications industries
made enactment of legal mandates feasible. The laws
were easy to implement because the number of broadcasters,
programmers, television set manufacturers and telephone
companies are few and because of the exclusive nature
of the technologies involved. The number of broadcasters
is limited by the frequency spectrum, the number
of telephone companies is limited by the size of
the service market, and the cost of entry into the
markets limit the number of vendors. The frequency
spectrum is owned by the public and licensed to
broadcasters, and telephone companies provide services
as publicly-regulated utilities. Congress and the
FCC, therefore, could act to require the industries
to provide service to people with disabilities.
Because so few people can become broadcasters, and
the public cannot use the telephone efficiently
without broad interconnections, government regulation
was necessary to ensure that those with access and
control of the systems operated them in the interest
of the larger public. It is in this context that
government can not only compel the industries to
provide deaf people with access to mainstream communication
technology but also demand that information, communication,
and entertainment be produced in a manner accessible
to them without violating the legal and constitutional
rights of those in the industries.
Finally, the focus of this article is on deaf people,
their access to audio material on the Internet and
their struggles to gain access to mainstream information
technology. However, the reader should bear in mind
that some hard-of-hearing people share in the issues
discussed. As noted, there are approximately twenty
million people with some type of hearing impairment.
The hard-of-hearing constitute the largest segment
of this population. But they generally have historical
and cultural backgrounds distinct from those persons
identified as deaf, and their communication needs
often differ from those of deaf people. The communication
needs of hard-of-hearing people may range from the
simple amplification of sound to the use of acoustical
devices or text display devices. This study is concerned
with that segment of the population unable to hear
and understand speech and who therefore require
communication devices that produce text to understand
aural communication. For the purposes of this article,
hard-of-hearing persons who fall into this category
may be identified as deaf.
Some of the issues discussed here are also of concern
to others with physical disabilities.
For deaf people, the single most pressing issue
is communication. Ellen Groce observed in Everyone
Here Spoke Sign that the fundamental issue of deafness
in the society is communication with others, the
ease of access to information in everyday environments
(1985,p. 4).
[A] deaf person's greatest problem is not simply
that he or she cannot hear but the lack of hearing
is socially isolating. The deaf person's knowledge
and awareness of the larger society are limited
because hearing people find it difficult or impossible
to communicate with him or her. Even if the deaf
person knows sign language, only a very small percentage
of the hearing population can speak it and can communicate
easily with deaf people. The difficulty in communicating,
along with the ignorance and misinformation about
deafness that is pervasive in most of the hearing
world, combine to cause difficulties in all aspects
of life for deaf individuals--in education, employment,
community involvement, and civil rights.
Access to information is vital to full participation
in society and communication technologies which
employ text as a mode of communication give people
with hearing disabilities equal access to the social,
cultural, political, and economic information produced
by society. For example, in 1977, before the FCC
mandated that television emergency broadcast bulletins
be presented in visual as well as oral form, deaf
people were more at risk in emergencies because
they could not hear televised warnings. Without
a visual warning to accompany the audio explanation
of the nature of the emergency, deaf viewers could
not make viable plans for safety. "When fires
ravaged wide sections of California in 1970, officials
used loudspeakers and radio and television broadcasts
to warn residents to evacuate threaten areas. Several
hearing-impaired people burned to death because
they could not hear the loudspeakers or the radio
bulletins and because the television announcements
gave no visual information about the danger"
(DuBow & Greer, 1992, p. 192).
In At Home Among Strangers, Jereome D. Schein notes
that mainstream communication technologies have
often cut deaf people off from sources of market
information. Deaf people suffer great economic and
social disadvantage when the technological means
of access to information is designed solely for
hearing people. Knowledge is required to make intelligent
consumer choices and this knowledge is often gained
from the various telecommunications technologies.
"Deaf people cannot make use of the knowledge
that normally hearing people derive from radio,
both news accounts and advertisements. Since most
advertisements and only a fraction of the programs
on television are captioned, this source of market
data is also of little benefit to the deaf consumer"
(1989,p. 171).
For deaf people to have access to information,
it must be displayed as text or graphics. The computer,
without adaptive technology, is among the few mainstream
communication devices that is as accessible to deaf
people as to the hearing. Because the machine can
easily display information as text or as a graphic,
it has opened up the access deaf people have to
all forms of information generated by society, especially
when the machine is connected to computer networks.
Public policy studies that call for access to computers
and highlight the problems minorities face in gaining
access to computers have grown. However, access
to information via the computer and through the
Internet appears to be taken for granted, once a
physical connection is established or software is
made available. Only on occasion have public discussions
of access to information via computer and the lnternet
focused on more than the hardware needed, the costs
of linking machines, and on the special needs of
those persons held to be disabled. For deaf people,
having access to computers and the lnternet is even
more problematic than it is for the poor and other
minority segments of the population. The CADS reports
that families with incomes of less than $10,000
were twice as likely to have family members with
a hearing impairment as families with incomes of
$50,000 and over.
Based on its 1994 survey, the center reports that
approximately eight million deaf and hard-of-hearing
adults were employed at the time of its survey.
Of those surveyed 29 percent listed their occupation
as professional and managerial, 34 percent listed
sales, services and administrative support, and
37 percent listed other. The center also reports
a change in the demographics of deaf youth. The
number of minority deaf students is increasing while
the number of minority deaf youths is declining.
Thomas Allen of Gallaudet University observes that:
In the switch to a service economy, and the building
of the "information superhighway," it
is evident that jobs and access to important information
will require greater literacy, numeracy, and technical
sophistication. Research has clearly shown that
deaf individuals who are undeserved are more likely
than those who are adequately served to be lacking
in fundamental skills in these areas. Traditionally,
manufacturing jobs have been an option for these
individuals, but these are either declining or requiring
greater and greater levels of academic skill (1994).
Beyond the problem of physical access to computers
and an Internet connection, deaf people face the
problem of access to information with the growing
use of audio material with computers. With the increase
in audio material on the Internet, deaf people find
themselves faced with loss of access to information
on a mainstream mode of communication to which they
once had complete access. A similar circumstance
occurred when sound became available for use in
motion pictures. Silent film with its captions was
just as accessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing people
as it was to normally hearing people. A person with
a hearing disability could follow the on-screen
action with the same understanding as a hearing
member of the audience and deaf people attended
movie theaters with the same frequency as hearing
people. Over the protest of deaf and hard-of-hearing
moviegoers, the film industry dropped its use of
captions. Some theater owners did attempt to lessen
the impact the removal of captions had on hard-of-hearing
moviegoers by installing earphones. However, the
film industry apparently felt little moral obligation
to continue the use of captions for the benefit
of those whose only access to speech was through
captions.
Deafness is viewed as a handicap by most everyone
in mainstream society, and historically people held
to be handicapped have not been seen as whole people
with the same claims to the resources of society.
The relatively small size of the deaf population
gave them little economic power in communications
markets to compel the industry to address their
needs. For these reason, the designers and manufactures
of communication devices took little account of
the deaf person's needs for access to the technologies.
The initial design of communication technologies
rarely reflected their needs and legal action was
needed to force the industry to provide the services
and access to information that would minimally approach
those enjoyed by normally hearing people.
Joseph Stubbins observes that the status of disabled
individuals in the nineteenth century was regarded
as a moral problem, but that in today's world disability
has increasingly been transformed into "technical
issues to be resolved by scientists and technocrats"
(1988,p. 29). He believes that medical advances
have transformed the meaning of disability from
an issue of physical survival to a "search
for meaning when one is socially isolated, unemployed
or underemployed, and lacking essential environmental
accommodations" (1988,p. 24). For Stubbins
a disability may be viewed as a particular type
of relationship between impaired persons and the
social and physical environment. The impaired person
is part of a relationship that is built into the
structure of our institutions and society. It is
a relationship in which the able-bodied have power
over those with impairments. This power is played
out in the ability of the able-bodied to define
a disability from their perspective. For the able-bodied,
a disability is in the person rather than in the
relationship. "The relationship is characterized
by the able-bodied person's asserting the right
to determine what kinds of rehabilitation services
disabled people need" (1988,p. 25). In short,
Stubbins argues that a disability is essentially
the social and environmental consequences a person
experiences as a result of being different from
the majority.
The World Health Organization maintains that what
constitutes an impairment, a disability, or a handicap
can differ from one culture to another. The organization
found it useful to draw sharp distinctions among
these terms. A disability resulting from disease,
birth defects, or an accident is placed on a continuum
ranging from impairment to handicap. An impairment
is "any loss of or abnormality of psychological,
physiological, or anatomical structure or function"
(Groce, 1985: 127). A disability then reflects the
inability of a person to perform an activity, or
it is the constraints a person experiences when
performing an activity in the manner or within the
range considered normal for non-impaired persons.
The disadvantages that result from an impairment
or disability which limit or prevent a person from
achieving his or her full potential in society are
considered to be a handicap. The social consequences
of a disability determine what is a "handicap"
rather than a person's physical capabilities.
In spite of the obstacles, since the early 1970s,
deaf people have made great strides in gaining access
to mainstream information technologies. Deaf individuals
have designed communications devices which have
given them access to information technologies. They
have also enlisted the aid of hearing family members,
friends, and members of the community to gain access
to information technologies, and lobbied before
local and national legislative bodies for laws to
ensure their access to information technologies.
The activism has forced the passage of laws which
have removed barriers to information. These laws
were enacted over the objections of telecommunications
industry officials who argued, after years of failing
to address the needs of millions of deaf and hard-of-hearing
people, that lawmakers should refrain from issuing
mandates and allow market forces to solve the problem.
But as Reed E. Hundt, Chairman of the FCC, observed,
"The marketplace does not always generate a
necessary and appropriate amount of the sort of
benefits from the communications revolution that
help preserve our unity as a nation, as a society,
as a complex group of mutually involved citizens,
as a fantastically varied and extended family of
Americans" (FCC Report and Order, MM Docket
No. 95-176, August 27, 1997).
It took federal money and public broadcasting to
begin the captioning of television programs and
federal legislation to force the regular use of
captions on commercial television. Access was gained
only through "... determined advocacy by underserved
consumers combined with a constant and reliable
stream of Federal dollars, a unique and intrusive
act of Congress, and activist regulation by the
FCC to finally wake industry up to the needs of
a niche numbering 20 million people or more"
(NCAM, Electronic Curbcuts, 1996).
The 1993 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
is often heralded as the civil rights act for people
with disabilities. Among other things, the act grants
deaf people equal access to public accommodations.
The ADA requires that a text telephone, a TTY, must
be provided "upon request when such facilities
offer a customer, client, patient, or participant
the opportunity to make outgoing telephone calls
on more than a incidental convenience basis"
(DuBow & Greer, 1992, pp. 33-34). The act also
requires that telephone companies provide relay
services for local and long distance telecommunications.
Relay services employ telephone operators who act
as go betweens for deaf callers using text telephones
and hearing people using regular telephones. From
1964, when a deaf physicist, Robert H. Weitbrecht,
invented an acoustic coupler for converting or receiving
signals from a teletype machine (TTY), it would
be twenty nine years before Congress would extend
universal access to telephone service by mandating
relay services for deaf and hard-of-hearing people.
What is important to understand is that during those
twenty nine years the telecommunications companies
could simply have assigned relay operators to handle
TTY calls.
Under the 1993 act, hospitals and places of public
lodging have to provide closed captioning devices
upon request, although the measure does not require
the film industry to caption movies. Open captioning
of television dialog has always been possible. However,
people with hearing disabilities had to wait until
the dialog could be hidden from the view of hearing
people to gain full access to commercial television
programming. The courts ruled against petitions
from the Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness,
Inc. to require public and commercial stations to
provide open captions with their programs (Broadcasting,
1983). The courts held that broadcasters were under
no legal obligations to provide captioning to the
hearing impaired population.
The development of closed captioning began at PBS
in 1972 with the aid of the Department of Education.
In 1979, Congress created the National Captioning
Institute (NCI), a nonprofit corporation, to provide
closed captioning services to the broadcast industry.
But access to television by people with a hearing
disability was still limited because of the expense
of the decoder device necessary for viewing closed
captions and the small number of programs with captions.
The authors of Legal Rights: The Guide for Deaf
and Hard of Hearing People believe that the small
number of decoders sold by June, 1990, and the expense
of captioning programs for the broadcast industry
hampered expansion of the service (DuBow & Greer,
1992, p. 195):
Because there is no market incentive, a great number
of television programs, as well as movies on videocassette
(both current and classic), are not being closed-captioned.
In addition, commercial cable TV channels rarely
caption any of their programs. In 1990, few network
daytime and late night shows were closed-captioned.
Moreover, in 1991, only 150 out of 1450 broadcast
affiliates closed-captioned local news programs.
With no widespread use of closed captioning devices,
broadcasters were reluctant to pay for captioning.
Industry representatives told the Commission on
Education of the Deaf (C.O.E.D.) that decoder usage
must be increased to ensure a self-sustaining captioning
service. The NCI held that in order to maintain
its current level of closed captioned programming
500,000 homes had to receive closed captioned broadcasts
(DuBow & Greer, 1992, p. 197). Clearly the size
of the closed captioned market had to be enlarged
to provide the necessary incentives to the broadcast
industry. To increase the potential audience, the
C.O.E.D. recommended that new televisions have built-in
decoder circuitry.
The Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990 mandates
that all televisions manufactured with screens 13
inches and larger include a decoder chip for display
of closed-captioned programming. Today, with few
exceptions, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires
captioning of video programming. Section 713, Video
Programming Accessibility, was added to Section
305 of the 1996 telecommunications act to mandate
closed captioning of video programming. Beginning
January 1, 1998, 95 percent of all new, none-exempt
programming must be closed captioned. The law applies
to over-the-air broadcast television (both commercial
and noncommercial), cable television, satellite
services and wireless cable systems. Seventy-five
percent of video programming published prior to
the 1998 implementation date must contain closed
captions after a ten year transition period.
Providers or owners of video programming are exempt
from the law when the requirement for closed captioning
is "economically burdensome." "These
include non-English language programming, primarily
textual programming, programming distributed between
2 AM and 6 AM, interstitial announcements, promotional
programming and public service announcements, advertising,
certain locally-produced and distributed programming,
non-vocal musical programming, ITFS programming
and programming on new networks" (FCC Report
and Order, MM Docket No. 95-176, August 27, 1997).
The provision also exempts video programming providers
who have annual gross revenues of less than three
million dollars. Video programming providers and
owners will not be required to spend more than two
percent of their annual gross revenues on closed
captioning. The law will also exempt programming
subject to contractual agreements in effect on February
8, 1996, when compliance with Section 713 would
constitute a breach of contract.
People with disabilities have experienced less
resistance from the computer industry in providing
access to the technology. Computer manufacturers
and software companies have voluntarily created
devices and software to give people with disabilities
access to the technology. The computer industry,
therefore, has not been subject to legislative battles
to gain access to the technology. While the industry
has voluntarily provided some accessibility to computers,
the most significant influence on the industry's
response to the needs of people with disabilities
was Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which
required that:
(1) The Secretary, through the director of the
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
research and the Administrator of General Services,
and in consultation with the electronics industry,
shall develop and establish guidelines for electronic
equipment accessibility designed to insure that
individuals with handicaps may use electronic office
equipment with or without special peripherals. (2)
The guidelines established pursuant to paragraph
(1) shall be applicable with respect to electronic
equipment, whether purchased or leased.
The act made clear that the government would give
preference to buying computer systems with accessibility
features built in. A 1984 meeting at the White House
with representatives of the major computer companies,
representatives of government agencies and representatives
of organizations serving people with disabilities
focused on ways of making computers and operating
systems more accessible to people with disabilities,
and further emphasized the government's commitment
to purchasing accessible computers. Follow up meetings
among the parties produced a set of specific design
guidelines which were included in the internal design
documents of computer manufactures.
Both Apple and IBM, for example, made changes in
hardware design to provide better accessibility.
At Apple, keyboard encoder chips were changed to
make the keyboard more accessible. Key repeat adjustments
and a flashing menu bar to indicate sound events
were built into the operating system. Screen brightness
buttons were also modified to make them easier to
operate with different physical impairment devices
such as headsticks. Apple also included in the operating
system StickyKeys and MouseKeys for people with
physical disabilities and CloseView, a screen enlargement
feature to aid people with visual impairments.
IBM moved power switches to the front of the computer
and modified floppy disk drives so disks are ejected
further out of the drive and are more easily grasped.
Push buttons are now concave to accommodate mouthsticks.
A ShowSounds feature was developed to give a visual
indication of speaker sounds. The feature is available
from both IBM and Microsoft. It works with any program
that uses the computer speaker. However, as with
the Apple sound signal, the program only notifies
the user that a sound is being made; it does not
give information about the type of sound or what
information is being conveyed. In addition, IBM,
Apple and Microsoft support captioning audio material.
But captions are available only if the sound is
accompanied by text files. While captioning facilities
are built into each company's operating system or
base platform, the captions must be added by the
person creating the presentation.
The early acceptance of accessibility features
by the computer industry did not mean that the features
were quickly included in company products. The fast
pace of product development in the industry and
a fear of falling behind competitors slowed the
addition of some features. However, the government's
preference for buying computers with accessibility
features and the fear of losing large contracts
did influence development. Apple's early push to
develop accessible computers demonstrated that accessibility
features could be built into the operating system
without inconveniencing other computer users and
without requiring a major rebuilding of the operating
system. Most significant, however, is the fact that
the features incorporated into the operating systems
were first implemented and demonstrated to the industry
through federally funded research groups. Actual
code and design features from the research were
used as templates by computer makers. It was government
initiatives that spurred the development of accessible
computers and software (Vamderheiden & Kaine-Krolak,
1995).
THE INTERNET
The Internet celebrated its 25th anniversary in
1996, and with approximately 150 countries and forty
million people using the network, the Internet has
grown well beyond its initial conception thirty
years ago by Paul Baran of the Rand Corporation
as a way for military authorities to maintain communication
after a nuclear attack. Baran's idea called for
a network arrangement radically different from the
familiar point-to-point pattern--he proposed a network
without a centralized broadcast point. This network,
patterned much like a fishnet, would allow transmitted
information to find its own path through the network
even after part of it was destroyed. From its early
implementation in 1969 by the Department of Defense
which connected researchers at four universities,
the Internet has become a public network that has
grown into a communication medium that touches almost
every aspect of society today.
As designed by the Defense Department, the network
was to allow scientists to share data and to have
access to remote research computers, but as the
Internet grew, electronic mail quickly became the
most used application, turning the network into
a high-speed digital post office in which people
not only collaborated on research but also discussed
every conceivable topic of human interest. The Internet
became a repository of academic and other information
that far exceeded its original purpose, and the
network had another wholly unexpected benefit--deaf
people could converse easily with hearing people.
Much of the information and communication over the
network is in text and is therefore as accessible
to deaf people as to others. This characteristic
placed the Internet among the few communication
technologies which, at their inception, have been
as accessible to deaf people as to the rest of society.
Networked computers give deaf people the same access
to the rich variety of information that shapes and
defines the society--and without a need for the
special services or adaptive devices which are necessary
to make most mainstream communication technologies
accessible. However, unless audio information on
the Internet is displayed as text, the growing use
of sound on the network threatens to make large
amounts of the medium's content inaccessible to
deaf people.
The value of computers and computer networks to
deaf people was recognized early by the government.
In 1978 the U.S. Department of Education contracted
with SRI International in Menlo Park, California,
to design a demonstration system of networked computers
that would allow deaf people to communicate with
other deaf people using currently available technology.
The system was designed give them dial-up access
to a computer while using either a TTY or standard
computer terminal (Middleton, 1993, p. 615). The
system allowed deaf people to send, receive, and
store electronic messages, post and read messages
on an electronic bulletin board, or to connect with
other users in real-time chat sessions. The DEAFNET
bulletin board was designed to contain local news,
weather reports, and just about anything of interest
to its users.
For two years local leaders in deaf communities
from twenty of the nation's largest cities were
approached about the project. The leaders were given
information, training, and technical assistance
for implementing DEAFNET. Fifty terminals were distributed
to deaf families, deaf clubs, and service organizations
for assessment. From this study, a model for a national
network was established and the Deaf Communications
Institute was formed. Through work with the National
Association of the Deaf and with support from the
U.S. Department of Education, the project's developers
hoped to establish the foundations on which the
system would become self-supporting. The goal was
to place the operation of the DEAFNET system entirely
in the hands of local deaf people.
Today the growing presence of deaf people on the
Internet indicate that computer technology is both
accepted and used by deaf people. However, the goal
of DEAFNET was not realized. One possible reason
for the program's failure is that it was implemented
too soon for acceptance in the deaf community. In
the 1970s, few people outside of computer specialists
and academic personnel had experience using a computer
or electronic mail. It was not until the early 1980s
that the personal computer was introduced to the
general public. Indications are that some deaf people
expected the computer network to function much like
older communications technologies such as the telenhone
or mail services--for example, that the system would
automatically alert them when electronic mail arrived.
Another explanation for the project's failure was
its initial cost. The deaf communities in each of
the targeted cities were expected to purchase a
minicomputer as a node on DEAFNET (Middleton, 1983,
p. 617). Deaf communities, no doubt, found the price
of a minicomputer prohibitive, even with government
financial assistance, especially when compared to
more familiar communications technologies.
Finally, deaf people were already actively working
to establish relay telephone services. The TTY and
relay services gave deaf people telephone access
to the same public and private institutions to which
hearing people had access. DEAFNET was envisioned
and promoted as a technology for connecting deaf
people to a closed network of other deaf people
and organizations that served deaf people. This
network would not give deaf people easy access to
mainstream institutions in society. In other words,
DEAFNET's technology offered deaf people much the
same functionality as a TTY but at a higher cost,
and it provided no practical way for them to communicate
with the larger society.
Although deaf people never embraced DEAFNET in
large numbers, their acceptance of the Internet
and the World Wide Web in particular appears strong.
Determining the number of deaf computer users using
the Internet is as difficult as identifying the
size of the deaf population. Deaf people came to
the Internet in much the same fashion as other computer
users--through the use of computers in the workplace,
at educational institutions, and in the home. The
World Wide Web, with its text, graphics, and ease
of access to information on the Internet attracted
deaf people as strongly as it has other computer
users. Organizations such as The National Association
for the Deaf, Telecommunication for the Deaf, Inc.
and deaf individuals established Web sites on the
Internet. The sites host a wide variety of information,
entertainment, and other resources of special interest
to the deaf community. Web sites offer information
on parenting deaf children, electronic magazines,
schools for the deaf, cultural entertainment, health,
adaptive communication software, and entertainment
and education sites created especially for deaf
children.
Beyond the Web sites of particular interest to
deaf people, the World Wide Web with its abundant
resources, information, and entertainment, holds
the same attractions for deaf computer users as
for most users of the network. However, with the
increased use of audio material and the threatened
loss of full access to information on the Internet,
deaf organizations and individuals are responding
much as they have to past problems of access to
information and communication technologies. They
are urging private businesses, government institutions,
and other organizations to have information presented
on the network made accessible and to make available
technologies which allow access to the audio content.
The implementing technology which would allow access
to World Wide Web audio material, however, must
be made part of Web authoring applications and browers.
In the fast-paced competitive environment that characterizes
the World Wide Web, adaptive devices cannot easily
keep pace. Adaptive technology usually lags behind
changes in mainstream technology and adaptive technology
users often lose access to a technology when a newer
version is marketed. Users of adaptive technology
often must wait until after a mainstream technology
has reached the marketplace before upgrades are
produced which allow people with disabilities to
regain access. The status of a disabled employee
can be seriously impacted when an employer upgrades
a system. Because of incompatibilities between old
and new technology, disabled employees may find
they can no longer perform certain jobs or are increasingly
marginalized within the workplace as upgrades in
adaptive technology fall behind the pace of newer
technology entering the workplace. It is far more
practical and cost effective to have adaptive features
included in the initial design of the technology.
Such a step would eliminate the need for upgrading
adaptive hardware and software for use with new
technology and ensure that new technology is accessible
to people with disabilities when it is introduced.
The CPB/WGBH National Center for Accessible Media
(NCAM) is leading an effort to ensure that most
or all Internet content remain accessible to everyone
with a disability. The NCAM is a research and development
facility established by the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting and WGBH to make media accessible to
the nation's estimated 85 million people with some
type of vision, hearing or language disability.
In partnership with the World Institute on Disability
and the Trace Research and Development Center at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the NCAM, with
a grant from the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration of the Department of
Commerce, is working to assure universal access
to information systems and the Internet. The Center's
Universal Access Project is working to provide captions
on Web sites, and a text track for captions is being
added to audio-video software along side audio and
visual tracks. The Center has also created a Web
access symbol, reminiscent of the closed-captioning
symbol used with captioned film, to indicate Web
sites where audio content is accessible to persons
with disabilities.
The Center's stated goal is universal access to
media. To accomplish this goal, the Center proposes
designing communication systems which allow the
broadest possible range of users, regardless of
the disability. Achieving this goal requires that
access technology be made part of a system's initial
design. "Universal design calls for access
features to be built into the basic product from
the blueprint stage, resulting in a product that
is easier to use for everyone" (NCAM, Media
Access, 1995, p. 1). Including adaptive technology
at the manufacturing stage is cheaper than adding
the technology later. Closed-caption decoder circuitry
which is built into television sets is an excellent
example of universal design. Before decoder circuitry
was made part of the television set manufacturing
process, the price of closed-captioning devices
averaged around two hundred dollars, while television
decoder circuitry cost about a dollar.
Supporters of universal design believe this approach
benefits everyone in society and point to the example
of curbcuts. Curbcuts at the end of sidewalks were
initially seen as only benefiting people in wheelchairs,
but it was soon discovered the change in sidewalk
design helped everyone. Delivery people, parents
with strollers, bicycle riders, skaters all found
the change created a better sidewalk. Today captions
are seen to have wider benefit than just for deaf
and hard-of-hearing people--people learning English,
students learning a foreign language, people watching
television in noisy places all benefit from captioning.
Technology created under universal design principles
also aids able bodied people who are temporarily
unable to use a device as they had because of an
injury.
A compatible effort to the NCAM's Universal Access
Project is The Web Accessibility Initiative, which
was implemented in April, 1997, by the World Wide
Web Consortium. The Consortium is leading an initiative
to create technologies that will give people with
disabilities easy access to the Web and increase
awareness of access issues among Web developers.
Descriptive video and captioning enhancements to
HTML and XML are being developed by the consortium.
The program has support from private industry and
the Department of Education and the National Science
Foundation have pledged $800,000.
A goal of the initiative is to get software makers
to integrate accessibility aids into their applications.
In addition to integrating accessibility features
into the software, users of the applications must
be made aware of their presence and urged to use
them when creating Web content. Software makers
can accomplish this goal by actually having the
software prompt users while they are creating content
to include the necessary material and instruct them
in the proper methods for making their content accessible.
NEW LEGAL CONCERNS
As previously discussed, the Internet and computer-based
communication is far different from previous communication
technologies. The digital nature of the technology
gives the medium all the characteristics of prior
technologies while establishing a wholly new means
of communication. Text, broadcasting, video, and
telephone communication are all possible over the
Internet, and the technology allows anyone with
a personal computer to use each mode of communication
when linked with millions of other computer users.
These possibilities raise questions that go beyond
the design of the technology and the telecommunications
laws which were created to govern broadcasting,
print, and the telephone industry to Internet communications.
How much of current telecommunications law should
or can be applied to the Internet? Should communications
on the Internet be given the same legal privileges
as print or should more restrictive rules be adopted?
In particular, can telecommunications laws which
require broadcasters to caption information and
entertainment be extended to the Internet?
The broadcast industry, which is legally required
to include captioning with its programming, has
little presence on the Internet, and is mostly confined
to Web sites that are mainly used to display information
and advertisements. The Internet is composed of
private networks and therefore is not subject to
the same government controls that apply to broadcasting.
However, the law that mandates captioning television
programming could ensure that broadcast material
presented on the Web is also captioned--material
produced for use on both media may be governed by
broadcast regulations. The FCC or the courts may
hold that the factors which require broadcasters
to caption programming extend to the Internet especially
when that material is used for broadcast television.
A large number of corporations have established
a presence on the Internet. Most use the network
to advertise products, to provide consumer information,
and to exchange information among corporate offices
and other companies. For the most part, firms with
a presence on the Internet are under no legal obligation
to provide captions or other accessibility aids
to their Web sites.
However, company information on computer networks
made accessible to workers with a disability may
find its way onto the Internet. The ADA mandates
that employers make "reasonable accommodation"
for persons with disabilities in the workplace.
Reasonable accommodation means employers must make
work facilities readily accessible and usable to
people with disabilities. "It also means providing
a disabled employee equal access to the benefits
and privileges of employment" (DuBow &
Greer, 1992, p. 17).[2] Intranets, private computer
networks inside of companies, are used as a means
of sharing company information and data among employees
and with customers. Intranets use the same communication
technology as that found on the Internet and the
World Wide Web. Information placed on Intranets
may have to comply with the ADA to give employees
with a disability equal access to company information
and in order to perform work-related tasks. Because
company Intranets are often linked to the Internet
and the World Wide Web, information made accessible
to company employees may be allowed on the Internet.
Removing accessible material from information used
both inside and outside the company is wasted effort.
With public and government urging, most companies
may make the material they place on the Internet
accessible to almost everyone with a disability
without legal action. The government can and should
require that companies make commercial information
accessible. There is ample evidence that the government
can regulate commercial speech without violating
the freedom of speech. All commercial speech is
not protected by the First Amendment. Commercial
speech is often regulated by the government for
public benefit and this may serve as a rationale
for directing that such speech be made available
to people with disabilities on the Web. The Securities
and Exchange Commission, for example, restricts
what people may say when financial instruments are
sold. The Federal Trade Commission controls unfair
and deceptive trade practices which often involve
speech. The National Labor Relations Board restricts
what employees, union officials and employers may
say. The Food and Drug Administration controls the
labeling and speech practices of people who sell
foods and drugs. The FCC regulates some speech under
a "public interest" standard and it is
under that standard that the agency has promoted
access to information for people with disabilities.
The First Amendment applies only to government
action--stating clearly that it may not abridge
the freedom of speech or of press. It does not apply
to private citizens. The Internet is composed of
private networks and therefore does not offer the
government the same legal authority over speech
on the network that it has with speech carried over
public airwaves. If individual users of the Internet
are seen to have the same publication rights as
publishers of print material, then government control
over speech on the network becomes even less. In
other words, government control of speech and print
material on the Internet that does not fall outside
established areas of protected speech is impossible.
Under these circumstances, private citizens who
publish and speak on the Web cannot be legally compelled
to make their speech acts accessible to people with
disabilities. Consequently the FCC has no authority
to require private users of the Internet to caption
audio material--that is, to make their speech acts
intelligible to others. If such actions were attempted,
it would raise grave Constitutional questions. For
example, if a government agency could control individual
speech acts so as to command that they be intelligible
to all who may encounter them, then might not the
government have the same authority to require that
all newspapers be published in a manner that is
intelligible to all--in English only? Even if a
law were possible, it is doubtful that it would
be enforceable on such a large scale. Indeed, the
law may actually hamper the intended goal--having
private Internet users make their communications
accessible to people with disabilities.
Given the limitations on legal actions by the government,
another approach is needed to gain the compliance
of individual Internet users for making their speech
acts accessible on the World Wide Web. Convincing
private individuals to include captions with their
content will require a different approach from that
used when dealing with government agencies and corporations.
In the past, organizations and individuals concerned
with gaining media access for deaf people and others
with disabilities have pressed their case in committee
hearings and corporate boardrooms. However, to educate
millions of individuals to the needs of deaf and
hard of hearing people and to persuade them to caption
audio material intended for the general public will
require a highly visible public campaign. Even with
the laws that are now in place mandating public
access to information, most people are unaware of
the problems deaf people face within the mainstream
communications environment or of the solutions that
are available. Although hotels are required by law
to make TTYs and closed-caption television available
to deaf guest, hotels belonging to large national
chains are still found without them. Television
sets in public places such as bars, hotel lobbies,
and airports do not routinely display captions to
accommodate deaf and hard-of-hearing patrons even
though many of the sets now have this capability
built into them. Some popular first-run movies are
now open captioned for viewing by deaf people and
movies on videocassette are captioned, but the airlines
continue to show in-flight movies that are accessible
only to hearing travelers. Museums often provide
hearing visitors with audio equipment for tours
of exhibits but fail to provide transcripts of the
tours for visitors unable to hear the audio. Special
tours with sign language interpreters are arranged
by museum, but not all deaf and hard of hearing
people know sign language, nor do sign language
tours allow deaf visitors to choose freely the day
and time to view a museum exhibit.
The oversights described above can be attributed
to a lack of public awareness and familiarity with
the needs of deaf people, to the size of the deaf
population (they are not encountered daily by most
people), to the visibility of the disability itself
(deaf people are not easily distinguished from hearing
people by their appearance), to an unwillingness
to pay for the need changes to bring facilities
into compliance and to lax law enforcement. The
display of deaf access symbols alone is not enough
to raise general public awareness to the needs of
deaf people. A long, sustained public awareness
program is needed and, fortunately, no new legislation
or funding is needed. The Technology-Related Assistance
for Individuals With Disabilities Act of 1988 provides
funds for such a campaign. The program gives grants
to the States to promote assistive technology. Section
222 of the act allows for funding public awareness
projects. Funds are provided for the development
of a "national media campaign (including public
service time slots on radio and television),"
and to "develop and maintain recognition programs
that are designed to promote public credit to entities
that demonstrate an aggressive effort for a sustained
time to provide or promote the use of technology-related
assistance or the development of assistive technology
devices" (Lazzaro, 1996, pp. 280-281). Providing
the tools for access to audio material on the lnternet
and other public forums is only part of what is
needed--hearing people must be made aware of and
educated to use captioning tools as they become
available. It is only then that deaf people will
continue to enjoy broad access to speech acts on
the Web.
Finally, telephone, television, and computer services
providers have operated in separate markets. The
1996 telecommunications act allows service providers
to compete in the same markets and firms from each
of the service areas are now present on the Internet.
As the presence of telecommunications firms on the
Internet grows, and given the convergence of telecommunications
services and equipment, the FCC will gain broader
authority over Internet activity. FCC rulings and
regulatory authority will impact everyone using
the network. Congress has given the FCC exclusive
jurisdiction over complaints concerning access to
and availability of telecommunication services for
people with disabilities.
With the convergence of telecommunications firms,
services and equipment, the FCC is confronted with
a number of policy issues. Among FCC considerations
is whether it should limit application of accessibility
laws to case-by-case complaints. Should the agency
try to establish incentives that encourage service
providers and equipment manufactures to consider
accessibility issues in the early stages of the
design and development of new offerings? Should
the agency try to facilitate consultation between
persons with disabilities and the communications
industry to arrive at voluntary solutions and compliance
with the law? How can or should the Commission adapt
and interpret the terms "accessible" and
"readily achievable" to telecommunications
services and equipment used on the Internet so that
the terms are meaningful? What impact will its rulings
have on companies and individuals on the network
who are not subject to FCC regulations? With the
wide variety of equipment and service providers,
how can accessibility and compatibility standards
be applied to service providers and equipment manufacturers
with different service and equipment product lines?
Along with the convergence of service and equipment,
there is also segmentation in the development, manufacture,
design, and assembly of devices. Which entities
should be responsible for ensuring compliance with
accessibility laws? What considerations should be
given to costs in compliance with the law? Should
the Commission weigh the varying financial resources
of firms so accessibility requirements do not distort
or destroy competition? Can market development and
technological innovation be maintained while firms
comply with the law?
Each of these policy issues must be addressed if
people with disabilities are to have full access
to telecommunications equipment and services. Without
access to communication services and devices, people
with disabilities are isolated from mainstream society.
Lack of access can be life-threatening in emergency
situations; it can limit educational and employment
opportunities, and it can prevent participation
in the economic, social, political, and recreational
activities of society.
Requiring firms to give people with disabilities
equal access to commercial and consumer information
on the Web would merely extend existing law. Far
more problematic is raising the awareness level
of individual users of the Internet to the communication
needs of people with disabilities and motivating
them to use the tools available with communications
software to give broader access to their speech
acts. A leading role should be taken by government
agencies in raising awareness and in assuring the
cooperation of telecommunications firms.
As this article has shown, government leadership
and funding for research was needed at every stage
in giving people with disabilities access to information
technology. Computer manufacturers and software
developers have worked with government agencies
and other organizations concerned with giving people
with disabilities access to computers and the information
produced with them. But government involvement remains
essential to maintaining and expanding access. Existing
laws must be enforced. Industry actions proceed
quickly when the government becomes involved in
assuring access to the technologies.
