June Kailes
Representative, National Council on Independent Living
Dr. Frank Bowe
Department of Counseling, Research, Special Education, Rehabilitation
Hofstra University
Jackie Brand
Executive Director, Alliance for Technology Access
Dale Brown
Program Manager
President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities
Judy Harkins
Director, Gallaudet Research Institute, Gallaudet University
Oral Miller
Executive Director, American Council of the Blind
Michael Morris
Associate Executive Director, United Cerebral Palsy Associations
Tom Shwoles
Chairperson, Committee on Personal Computers and the Handicapped
Al Sonnenstrahl
Executive Director, Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc.
Max Starkloff
Executive Director, Paraquad, Inc.
Rocky Stone
Executive Director Emeritus, Self-Help for Hard of Hearing People
Sandi Giddings and Janina Sajka for working late and hard to make sure that the regional training sessions are of consistent high quality.
Robert Smith of Issue Dynamics, Inc. for lending his computer skills so that the Statue of Liberty can stay in touch through cellular technology.
Mary Hisley of US WEST, John Schweizer of Pacific Bell, Bonnie White of NYNEX, Ron Hatley of AT&T, Darrell Lauer of Southwestern Bell, Cindy Cox of BellSouth and Peter Lincoln of Ameritech for their work to make sure that the regional training sessions were hosted superbly.
Rachel Wobshall of the Minnesota STAR program, Judy Brewer of the Massachusetts Assistive Technology Program, Dr. Joel Ziev of the New York Society for the Deaf and Colleen Starkloff of Paraquad, Inc. for their extraordinary job, well above the call of duty, of co-sponsoring and coordinating regional training sessions.
Project Staff:
Deborah Kaplan
Sandi Giddings
Janina Sajka
Project Consultants:
Jay Brill
John De Witt
Pam Ransom
Sam Simon
Editors:
Susan Koch
Pam Ransom
Robert Smith
Authors:
Deborah Kaplan
John De Witt
C. Conclusion
B. The Telecommunications Accessibility Enhancement Act of 1988
C. Technology-Related Assistance Act of 1988
D. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended in 1991
E. The Americans with Disabilities Act
a. Auxiliary Aids and Services
b. Removal of Barriers
G. State Telecommunications Equipment Programs
H. Conclusion
A. A Public Policy of Access to Telecommunications
Recommendation 2: Update and Clarify the Telecommunications Implications of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Recommendation 3: Task Force on Telecommunications and Disability
Recommendation 4: FCC Unit on Disability Access
Recommendation 5: NTIA Staff for Disability Access
Recommendation 6: Ensure Access to Federal, State, and Local Government Electronic Services and Networks
Recommendation 7: Industry Should Integrate More People with Disabilities into All Levels of its Work Force
B. Implementing Universal Design Principles
Recommendation 2: Undertake Human Performance Studies of People with Disabilities
Recommendation 3: Extend Accessibility Requirements to Products and Services
Recommendation 4: Extend the Mandate of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board to Include Products and Services
C. Developing Standards that Support Accessibility
Recommendation 2: Consumer-Input Model for Standard-Setting
D. Adaptive Technologies as Transitional Strategies and Supplements to Universal Design
Recommendation 2: Re-Instatement of Hearing Aid Compatibility Requirements
Recommendation 3: N-1-1 Access for Telecommunications Relay Services
Recommendation 4: Baudot and ASCII Compatibility
Recommendation 5: States Must Establish Adaptive Equipment Programs
Recommendation 6: Closed-Captioning and Audio Description for Video Programming
One of the key questions that has yet to be answered is, "Who will participate in the information society?" For citizens with disabilities, the answer to this question is critical. Many of the important strides that we have accomplished through the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act could be nullified, in effect, by the careless or inaccessible design of telecommunications systems. For example, Graphic User Interfaces (GUIs) and touch screens, which are becoming so prevalent, cannot be used by blind, visually-impaired and some mobility-impaired individuals. Or, the emergence of multi-media capabilities in computer-based communications which allows voice messages to be added into text. This will create a new barrier for deaf or hard of hearing people.
Information technologies are already very common in the workplace and will be even more prevalent in the future. Will opportunities to jobs for persons with disabilities be denied because of barriers that have been designed into technology? Even rather commonplace technologies, such as voice mail, are not accessible to all. Most systems cannot be accessed by a TTY user.
The Administration has an opportunity to be a leader on this issue. The recent Report to Congress issued in March of 1993 by the National Council on Disability on Financing Assistive Technology recognized the importance of these issues. Recommendation 16 of that report urged Congress to:
Access to telecommunications is a cross-disability issue that affects everyone in our community. We have a chance to demonstrate our best by working together, just as we did when we succeeded in getting the ADA enacted. We can, through this issue, become used to speaking out for interests of others with disabilities different from our own. You should not have to be blind to be concerned about what Graphic User Interfaces will do to reduce job opportunities for blind people. We need to inform each other about what true accessibility is. We do not want one person's access solution to create a new barrier for someone else.
This report addresses the need for public policy through legislation. That need arises out of the public good of accessible technology. Even though our numbers are vast, with 43 million citizens with disabilities, far more Americans will benefit from such a national policy. When there are more jobs for persons with disabilities, as a result of work-based accessible technology, we can become tax-payers rather than tax-users. Accessible design results in products and services that are truly "user friendly" to everyone.
Implementation of the recommendations in this report will help to fulfill the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I invite all Americans with disabilities to become actively involved in promoting them. I invite all members of Congress to act upon them by enacting legislation to guarantee access to telecommunications for all Americans with disabilities. I urge the Administration to incorporate them into its plans for the National Information Infrastructure.
Justin Dart
Chairman
The President's Committee on Employment of People with Diabilities
January 18, 1994
Chapter 1: Introduction
This report is the final product of the Blue Ribbon Panel on
National Telecommunications Policy.1 The panel was invited
by the World Institute on Disability (WID) to serve as the focal
point of a four-year project that has brought together
national leaders from major disability organizations,
representatives from the telecommunications industry,
policy-makers, and telecommunications experts to learn from
each other and begin to develop a national agenda for the
future of telecommunications. The panel includes twelve
members, most of whom are persons with disabilities,
representing people with specific disabilities (i.e., hearing
loss, blindness and visual impairments, and learning
disabilities) or particular organizations that share our
interest in technology policy (i.e., Gallaudet University
Research Institute, Alliance for Technology Access).
During the initial two years of the project, the panel met semi-annually in Washington, D.C. and in Oakland, California, the location of WID's headquarters. For a full description of the work and agendas of those meetings, please refer to the First-Year Report of the Panel, "Laying the Foundation." During the final two years, the work of the Blue Ribbon Panel Project has focused on the regional level. By the end of the project in June, 1994, WID will have held eight training conferences on telecommunications policy for local disability leaders. Training sites are: Minneapolis, MN (October, 1992); Anaheim, CA (January, 1993); Boston, MA (June, 1993); Holmdel, NJ (September, 1993); St. Louis, MO (November, 1993); Orlando, FL (April, 1994); Chicago, IL (June, 1994); and Northern Virginia (June 1994).
The World Institute on Disability is a research, training, and policy development center that is led by people with disabilities. Its work focuses on significant issues in public policy that have the potential to contribute towards a vision of a world in which all people with disabilities control their own lives. WID was founded ten years ago by leaders from the disability rights and independent living movements; it has grown into an internationally recognized organization that has a reputation for leadership, innovation, and quality work.2
In the Foreword to the First Year Report of the Panel, Rep. Edward J. Markey, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, wrote:
It is unconscionable, however, that for many persons with disabilities, these new technologies offer little of promise. Often at a disadvantage in the use of basic telephone service, people with disabilities have particular needs to which new communications services are insensitive. The telecommunications system of the future will represent a mix of voice, graphic, and videotext services that may not be fully utilized by people who are deaf or hearing-impaired, blind or visually-impaired, or speech-impaired unless steps are taken now to guarantee their full and equal access. Passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 was an important stride forward in this effort. However, with regard to telecommunications access by persons with disabilities, many fundamental issues remain to be addressed.3
The First Blue Ribbon Panel Report, "Laying the Foundation," examined in great detail the demographics of people with disabilities, and how various disabilities affect people's opportunities to take advantage of new and existing telecommunications facilities and services. The report found that telecommunications innovations held great promise to facilitate people with disabilities' involvement in many aspects of everyday life that are now not available to them, or only available at great cost. The report concluded that the key to this promise lies in designing telecommunications services and equipment to be accessible to a wide range of users' capabilities, which is known as "universal design." The Blue Ribbon Panel spent the significant part of the last two years exploring and refining this concept of "universal design." We learned a lot about the design process that engineers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment use, and we looked at recent developments in architectural design to find lessons to guide us in suggesting modifications to that process. We also looked at telecommunications policy-making and standards-setting, because we now see the important impact they will have on whether or not new technologies will incorporate universal design principles. We concluded that the goal of Universal Service, long the basis for public policy-making in telecommunications, must incorporate the concept of universal design if we are ever going to make telecommunications truly accessible to everyone.
This report describes our findings and sets forth a policy agenda for action. It reviews what we have learned about universal design, and lays out the steps that must be taken to incorporate universal design principles into today's and tomorrow's telecommunications equipment and services. Our recommendations are set forth in the final chapter of this report.
Just as importantly, this report also explains why it is imperative that we achieve the goal of universal design of telecommunications equipment and services. The rights of people with disabilities have finally been recognized by Congress and codified in the American With Disabilities Act. Beyond the nation's legal and moral responsibility to give all people the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, there are also social and economic reasons for implementing universal design principles. To remain competitive internationally, the U.S. cannot continue to create unnecessary barriers to full participation in the economy and society; if competitiveness is the goal, universal design will help us get there. Moreover, the pursuit of universal design will open new markets for telecommunications services and equipment - markets that are international in scope. Finally, the concept of universal design is based upon the realization that we all differ in our abilities to move, see, hear, and think: universal design will enable the greatest number of people to actively participate in society through telecommunications.
Today, however, telecommunications is more than the traditional residential telephone service. It goes beyond the copper wires and networks that connect one telephone to another. Modern telecommunications also travels over fiber optics or cellular and radio transmission systems. Communication through computer modems links users to enormous databases of information, and digital communication ranges from transmission of banking transactions to relaying x-rays between hospitals.
In the 1990s, telecommunications is construed to mean electronically-based communication using land-line networks, radio transmissions, and satellite relays. All telecommunications systems require an originating device, one or more receivers, and a transmission medium: radio waves, fiber optics, copper wire, coaxial cable, satellites, wired or infra-red local area networks, or combinations of these. The term "telecommunications" has become synonymous with any method used to deliver and communicate information electronically.
Today, what we used to see as distinct technologies - telephones, television, radio, and cable - are converging. The key component now is information, which can be represented in digital form.
Regardless of the medium, telecommunications products and services serve as the conduit through which information is acquired, stored, manipulated, managed, moved, controlled, displayed, switched, exchanged, transmitted or received. Telecommunications has become the passageway to knowledge acquisition, from using a bank's audiotext services to get your account balance, to using a database for research, to transferring your X-rays to a medical research center for diagnosis. It is also the means for communicating ideas to others and to participating in the democratic process. Without access to modern telecommunications technologies and services, one cannot participate fully in all aspects of modern life. Policy-makers are beginning to recognize this, and it is our challenge to work with them to update definitions of universal service to include more than "plain old telephone service."
New technology has the capability of "speaking" for people with speech disabilities and "hearing" for people who are deaf. It can bring information and education into homes and workplaces for people who have mobility limitations. It can provide added cues and reminders for people with memory or cognitive loss. Overall, it can help support a web of communication that makes it easier for people with disabilities to stay integrated in society.
Barriers are not only technical; they are also economic. With an unemployment rate that exceeds 60%, people with disabilities are one of the lowest-income groups in the country, yet the cost of equipment and services that people with disabilities must bear is often much higher than for the general population. For example, a residential telephone for an individual without a disability can be purchased for under $50 including advanced communications features. An individual who cannot speak or is deaf must spend $200 or more for a TTY, without advanced features. On the extreme end of the scale, a deaf-blind individual needs a unique device, TeleBraille 2, costing several thousand dollars, just for very basic telephone communication. For an individual with very limited arm and hand mobility, alternative control devices, such as a "sip and puff" mouth control, are used as an interface to the telephone. These devices work on an "on-and-off" basis only, so that although their cost is nearly $400, they can only connect the user to dialtone or to the operator, who must then do the dialing.
For an individual needing access to information, such as most daily newspapers provide, but who cannot read print or hold the paper, electronic databases typically charge up to $15 per hour or more for access to newspaper databases. Of course, the individual first must have a personal computer, modem, and access software for converting the screen display into speech or an alternative output method. In short, whether it's the equipment needed to communicate or the enhanced service required to access information in an alternative manner, telecommunications for individuals with disabilities is costly.
However, recent changes in public policy and programs have shifted some of the burden of paying for inaccessibility from people with disabilities and their families to larger institutions and the population as a whole. To alleviate the inequities in access, two types of programs have been established:
These programs are still fairly new. California's programs, which were among the first in the country, were established in the late 1980s. The consumer demand for their services is rapidly increasing; it is not possible to predict when usage, and costs will level out. In California alone, the annual cost of these two programs is $32 million; these costs recur each year, and the future budgets project increased costs. In California, the costs are paid through a trust fund that is created by a charge to telephone ratepayers. In New York, the telephone companies fund these programs out of their rate base. In other states, the costs come out of the general fund. In every state, though, one thing is true. Everyone pays a great deal for the lack of access in the voice based telephone system.
The Federal government has also begun to take responsibility for making technology accessible and usable by their employees who have disabilities. The Federal government has historically employed significant numbers of people with disabilities under an Affirmative Action Plan6. That law requires that the government make "reasonable accommodations" to enhance the efficiency and productivity of these employees, including purchasing adaptive equipment and technology.
To promote further "reasonable accommodations" for government employees, Congress passed Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires GSA (the agency that purchases and leases electronic office equipment and services) to ensure that technology that is purchased by the government will be accessible to employees with disabilities. This purchasing policy reflects a recognition by the government that it makes economic sense to purchase electronic office equipment and telecommunications services that are accessible to employees with disabilities, or capable of interfacing with existing adaptive equipment, rather than to make accommodations through expensive re-designs or retrofits.
These advances will benefit people who work for the Federal government, and will begin to promote a market for accessible equipment. However, they also demonstrate that market forces alone will not open up the world of telecommunications to all people with disabilities. We need to develop a national policy to build a telecommunications infrastructure that will be accessible by all Americans.
At present, there is no Federal legislation that mandates accessible design of telecommunications and electronic equipment. However, it is hoped that the Americans with Disabilities Act, through its requirements of "reasonable accommodation" for people with disabilities, and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, will promote the marketing and sale of accessible equipment and services.
For example, under Title I of the ADA, nearly all employers in the U.S. must take steps that are similar to Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, including the obligation to make "reasonable accommodations" for applicants and employees with disabilities. In addition, it is hoped that the internal purchasing practices of all employers will begin to resemble the required purchasing practices of the Federal government as mandated in Section 508, as the cost savings of purchasing accessible equipment and services become manifest.
However, this is just a beginning. We must apply the lessons which we have learned in making the physical environment more accessible in order to obtain accessible telecommunications equipment and services:
However, unless dramatic, comprehensive and coordinated action is taken at the Federal, state and local level, and within private industry, individuals with disabilities will continue to be locked out of full participation in our society. This report addresses three aspects of this challenge:
Footnotes:
2 For more information about WID, see the Appendix to this report.
3 From the Foreword in Telecommunications and Persons with Disabilities: Laying the Foundation - A Report of the First Year of The Blue Ribbon Panel on National Telecommunications Policy. World Institute on Disability. 1991. p. iii.
4 Operator-based services which allow a TDD or TTY user to communicate with a voice caller, relay programs serve as a text-to-voice and voice-to-text translator.
5 The range of equipment provided varies greatly from state to state.
6 Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended in 1992, requires the Federal government to serve as a "model employer" of qualified individuals with disabilities and to engage in affirmative practices of outreach and institutional accommodations for that purpose.
Chapter 2: Universal Design
This section discusses universal design as a critical
component of Universal
Service. Universal design is a new approach to designing
products and
services that will enable "usability" by the greatest number
of people and
at the same time decrease costs that are the direct result of
inaccessibility.
This section focuses public policy attention on:
As new telecommunications equipment and services have evolved, especially with the explosion in computers and digitization, most policy-makers have become concerned that our definition of basic telephone service may need revision. Now, people are beginning to say that "Universal Service" should refer not just to universal basic telephone service, but to universal telecommunications service, which might include access to electronic networks, broadband telecommunications facilities, advanced information services, etc. While the Blue Ribbon Task Force applauds the recognition that "Universal Service" should be extended to include access to new telecommunications technologies, we believe that it is equally important to recognize that "access" can no longer be defined as merely having a telecommunications wire going by one's door. For people with disabilities, this connection is of little use if they cannot use a standard telephone or see the messages on a computer screen. Just as the ADA has taught us all that public buildings must be made accessible to people with disabilities, it is time to make the telecommunications revolution accessible to people with disabilities. To achieve true Universal Service, we need universal design of telecommunications equipment and services.
Universal design produces products, services and environments that accommodate the broadest range of users possible. Universal design might more properly be expressed as "accessible" or "inclusive" design. The underlying goal of the principle is to design for the fullest range of human function. In doing so, design concepts must be developed with an understanding of how individuals function in using a product, service or physical environment. Striving to increase ease of use and convenience for the broadest possible range of individuals will expand the potential pool of users, multiply marketability, and decrease the expenditures for assistive technology. Profitability is enhanced, and cost is contained.
This is not to say that one size can fit all. Clearly even with universal design some specialized devices and narrowly tailored adaptations to the "built environment" will probably always be needed as an accommodation to enhance independence and accessibility. However, by designing for the fullest range of human functioning this need will decrease to a very narrow base of users.
Universal design positively impacts people with disabilities. As products, services and environments are designed to accommodate the greatest range of users, there will be less need to make adaptations for people who function differently, for example because of age, physical size, or physical, sensory, and cognitive ability. The goal is to design products and services that enable everyone, as much as possible, to use them.
Example: Volume Amplification in Telephones
Telephones with amplified volume controls are useful not only for individuals who are hard of hearing, but also for anyone using a telephone in a noisy environment, for example, airports, hotels, or offices. Telecommunication design that keeps the needs of the greatest number of people in mind (including people who are hard of hearing), becomes an attractive feature for all users.
Study of universal design has shown us that there are three areas within which the concept must be applied to ensure accessibility for the greatest number of users:
We will begin with "building exteriors and interiors" because that sector has made the most progress in considering and implementing universal design principles. The focus of this report, and of the Blue Ribbon Panel, is telecommunications, we will therefore look at universal design principles as they relate to telecommunications in all three categories.
"Improved design standards, better information, new products, and lower costs have made it possible for design professionals to begin designing all buildings, interiors and products to be usable by everyone. Instead of responding only to the minimum demands of laws which require a few special features for disabled people, it is possible to design most manufactured items and building elements to be usable by a broader range of human beings including children, elderly people, people with disabilities, and people of different sizes. This concept is called universal design. It is a concept that is now entirely possible and one that makes economic and social sense."
Encyclopedia of Architecture, Design, Engineering and Construction, 1989, p.754.
The Blue Ribbon Panel found that some of the most exciting advances in universal design are being made in the "built environment" industry: architecture, interior design, etc. Their progress is important to us for two reasons. First, it gives us a model for applying universal design concepts to telecommunications equipment and services (to be discussed in the next section). We can learn a great deal from the discussions taking place in the "built environment" industry.
Second, the accessibility of the built environment affects people's access to telecommunications equipment. The nature of the exterior and interior of buildings affects, among other things, a person's ability to access a telephone. For example, placement of a public pay telephone at the top of a flight of stairs is not accessible to a person using a wheelchair. With the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, architects and engineers have begun to look at designing and renovating buildings so that they are accessible to people with disabilities.
a. Access Board Examining Universal Design
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) issued its proposed Technical Assistance and Research Plan for Fiscal Years 1993-1997; Focus Issues and Americans with Disabilities Act Research Agenda on May 5, 1992. One of the first things on the Access Board's agenda was to examine the concept of universal design. Projects are focusing on the design of buildings and facilities that can be used by people throughout their lives. The Access Board in its Request for Comments, had the following to say about universal design:
For example, accessible entrances are needed by the 10% of the adult population that has difficulty with stairs, but they also benefit virtually everyone. While an entrance to a building can be made accessible in many ways, some are more consistent with the building form than others. Access standards permit ramps, lifts, or walks which meet the specifications set out in the standards. Ramps, which are perhaps most commonly used, are not ideal for many people, and lifts may malfunction, leaving many people with disabilities unable to enter or exit. In most situations, proper siting and adjustment of footings can produce level entrances. When site or design constraints conflict, level entrances can be provided through the creative use of bridges to high ground, overhead walks, or exterior elevator towers which can be shared by more than one building."
b. Advantages of Universal Design
The Access Board has identified three key advantages to universal design. Each of them can be generalized to our goal of telecommunications accessibility.
c. Challenges of Universal Design
While considering the move toward universal design, the Access Board identified challenges associated with the scope of the changes needed:
As indicated by the Access Board, increased attention must be given to changing the way we conceive of design. We must from the onset design a product or service from the perspective of making it accessible to the greatest range of users. This approach will minimize the cost of retrofitting and duplication. At the same time, the inevitable connection between structural elements within a building and the technology and services found both inside and outside the building must not be overlooked.
2. End User Products and Services
To understand how products and services end up looking like they do, we have to go back to their origins. Almost all products and services are produced by for-profit corporations. Their product/service managers, designers and engineers are concerned with their product's appearance and marketability. They want to sell to the widest possible audience.
So far, so good; that sounds a lot like universal design. What has happened, however, is that developers have aimed for that wide market by designing for the so-called "normal" human profile - not too tall or short, not too slim or stout, always with average vision, hearing, speech and mental capacity, not to mention ability to move about, walk and manipulate the environment. Furthermore, what counted as "normal" has come to be defined as the characteristics of the average white American male of European descent. The science of "ergonomics" adopted these characteristics as the basic specifications for design (see box). More recently, designers have begun to use wider sets of specifications (to include women's stature, for example). And since the ADA, more designers have begun to understand the value of considering individuals with functional limitations in developing effective designs. Increasingly, designers and engineers are eager to incorporate universal design principles, but are still faced with a lack of useful performance specifications around which to design and fabricate.
Where Do Design Specifications Come From?
Engineers involved with ergonomics deal with the fundamental issue of physical design and the human interface. In theory, if a product's design can be made easy, comfortable and convenient to use, it will attract a broad spectrum of buyers and satisfied users.
One of the primary sources used by the human factor engineers is the Human Factors Handbook, by W. E. Woodson (McGraw-Hill, 1981). This handbook is a vast accumulation of data on human size and performance variables. However, the basic source for the data were young males in military service of the United States. One can imagine the variables that never were captured: shortness in stature, limited mobility, extra large torso, vision and hearing outside standard military ranges, etc. Although this concept of "average" human factors may seem outdated this handbook is still commonly used.
A second human factor resource is Human Scales (Henry Dreyfus & Company, 1990). It contains a compendium of tables that can be matched to female and male percentiles. In theory, many engineers design products to meet the needs of the 5th-percentile female to the 95th-percentile male. For example, a designer might look at the height of a 95th-percentile male and 5th-percentile female when seated in order to know how much tilt-angle is required on a PC monitor so both can see the screen from a specified distance without moving their head.
However in practice, the "mean" is frequently used. A "typical" 5'10" male and 5'4" female produce a "mean" person who is 5'7". It is possible that a design for the "mean" will not serve the greatest range of individuals very effectively.
The boundaries of human size and performance variables must be expanded to include the greatest number of users. Although the book, Human Scales includes people who use wheelchairs in its data tables, a broad range of data detailing how people really function is far from comprehensive. For example, if the concept of universal design is to be incorporated into products and services, advanced engineers will need data to include the reach ranges of 95th percentile male, and 5th percentile female sitting in a variety of wheelchairs with specified limitations of reach.
Progress is slowly being made in studies that focus on a brooader range of human performance. For example, one such study was conducted in Boston, where a group of males were measured for their ability to hear. A curve was developed showing "hearing thresholds" across a range of adult males, by age for both frequency and amplitude. It is this kind of data which is critical information for engineers when designing telephone products or public address systems so as to make the products usable by the broadest range of consumers..i.7;7 Information from these kinds of studies will provide engineers with data which will assist them in designing "user friendly" equipment and services. The goal is to develop technology, e.g., computer monitor, to accommodate the broadest possible range of individual preferences so that you can use it standing up and looking down, seated and looking straight ahead, or lying on your back and looking up!
3. Environments Through Which One Travels (Way-finding)
Traditionally, way-finding has concentrated on moving people through spaces by the creative application of visual signage, symbols and color. For many individuals however, because of visual, auditory, cognitive or language differences, alternative ways of moving people through space are increasingly important. It is no longer effective for designers, architects and engineers to base their design of environments on the "standard" of a young male adult, 5'10", 170 pounds, 20/20 vision, normal hearing, and full mental capacity, who happens to speak English. Universal design embraces a much broader range of individual differences making our environment more accessible. In addition, landscapes need to remain as uncluttered as possible while allowing people to easily find their way through them. No longer can we permit individuals to feel loss of independence due to artificial environmental barriers, i.e., such a clutter of signs that the needed information is impossible to discern.
In talking about the new information infrastructure, experts already describe the need for "navigational tools" such as help menus, touch-screen and voice-recognition interfaces, graphics, and "know-bots" that help users find the information they want. Wide recognition of the need for navigational tools reinforces our conviction that way-finding assistance is for everyone - not just people with disabilities. Software and interface designers must turn their attention to creating navigational tools that can be used by all people, both to achieve accessibility and to make products more marketable.
The explosion of technology, undreamed of even ten years ago, and a universal approach to design can provide exciting new ways to solve way-finding challenges. The design of internal and external environments should envision:
Footnotes:
Chapter 3: Laws Affecting Telecommunications access for People with Disabilities
As we discussed in the last chapter, access to
telecommunications facilities is essential to participating
fully in modern society. Since the Communications Act of
1934, legislators have recognized the importance of telephone
service, and policy-makers since then have continued to
stress
the importance of our universal service goal. As computers
and telecommunications become more intrinsic to our daily
lives, we now realize that we need to expand our vision of
universal service to include access to new telecommunications
services and facilities; policy-makers are re-working the
definition of Universal Service to fit today's reality.
However, presently, people with disabilities have, at best, a very incomplete and piecemeal guarantee of access even to basic telephone service, much less to advanced services. A review of existing legislation at the Federal level reveals that even with respect to voice-based services, there is no universal right to telecommunications access for people with disabilities. For telecommunications applications that are related to data transmission, video displays and multi-media applications, there is no policy framework for ensuring that people with disabilities will be able to take advantage of them.
This chapter analyzes existing laws that have an impact on access to telecommunications for people with disabilities. Following this analysis, a set of legislative and policy recommendations are put forward in Chapter 4. These recommendations, if adopted, would provide a basic guarantee to access to all forms of telecommunications for people with disabilities.
In an attempt to remedy this problem, Congress passed the Telecommunications for the Disabled Act (TDA) of 1982. The TDA required that all "essential telephones" be hearing aid compatible. The TDA established three specific requirements for the purpose of attaining hearing aid compatibility. The Act required the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to: (1) Establish regulations for uniform technical standards for hearing aid compatibility; (2) Require telephones in certain locations, designated as essential phones, to be equipped for use with hearing aids; and (3) Establish specific requirements for informational labeling on telephone equipment to denote its compatibility with hearing aids.
The FCC's rulemaking activity with respect to this issue can be characterized as movement taking two steps forward, one step back. There have been numerous FCC proceedings over the past decade that have attempted to resolve implementation of these requirements, wherein the FCC has been pushed back and forth by advocates for hearing aid users, on the one hand, and the affected companies, on the other.
In 1983 the FCC issued a Rule requiring that every telephone sold to the public on or after June 1, 1984, contain on the surface of its package a statement noting if it was hearing aid compatible.
In the legislation, Congress had defined "essential phones" to include coin-operated telephones, telephones provided for emergency use, and telephones frequently needed by individuals with hearing disabilities. In 1984, the FCC clarified these categories. First, the Commission defined coin-operated telephones to include those telephones found in public or semi-public locations, such as drugstores, gas stations, or private clubs. Second, the FCC divided "telephones provided for emergency use" into three categories: (1) telephones in isolated locations such as elevators, tunnels, and highways, (2) telephones with direct lines to emergency authorities such as the police and fire departments, and (3) telephones needed to signal life-threatening or emergency situations in confined settings such as hospitals or prisons.
Under the 1984 rules, the FCC defined "essential phones" as: (1) telephones for use with credit cards only (unless a hearing aid compatible coin operated telephone is located nearby), (2) telephones in the workplace which are necessary for the performance of the employee's duties, (3) telephones found in buildings in which visits by the public are reasonably expected, e.g., lobbies of hotels and apartment buildings, stores, and public transportation terminals, (4) telephones available in a minimum of ten percent of the rooms in any given hotel, and (5) telephones in locations, such as hospitals and prisons, where an individual may be confined, but which are not needed to signal the presence of a life-threatening situation. The FCC required that all essential telephones installed on or after January 1, 1985 be hearing aid compatible. Moreover, the new rules mandated that essential phones that are either coin-operated or used for emergency use be retrofitted or replaced for the purpose of making them hearing aid compatible by January 1, 1985.
The Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988 expanded the requirement for the provision of hearing aid compatible phones to all telephones manufactured in the U.S. or imported for use within the U.S. after August 16, 1989. In combination, these two statutes resulted in a number of telephones that would need to be retrofitted in order to be hearing aid compatible. Those manufactured or imported after 1989 are hearing aid compatible, but all telephones covered by the TDA that were put into place before 1989 would need to be retrofitted unless they happened to be compatible already. How to handle the retrofitting of phones has been a source of controversy for the FCC since then.
In 1988, the FCC proposed to expand the definition of "essential telephones" to include workplace telephones located in common areas and all credit card telephones. In 1989, the Commission decided not to implement the expanded definition. It reasoned that these telephones need not be made hearing aid compatible, in light of the 1988 Act, because they would eventually be replaced over time with compatible telephones.
In 1990, responding to a request for reconsideration by a coalition of agencies representing people with hearing disabilities, the FCC reversed the 1989 rule. It agreed with the consumer groups that it had a statutory duty to enforce the 1982 law and found that the costs of retrofitting non-compatible phones would probably be low and that the benefits of these retrofits would be high, permitting a large group of people to respond to emergencies and function more effectively. The Commission set May 1, 1991 as the deadline for the retrofits to telephones in common areas of the workplace and all credit card pay telephones. In the 1990 order, the Commission also proposed an additional expansion to the definition of "essential telephones" to include all workplace telephones, and all telephones in hotel and motel rooms, and all telephones in rooms in hospitals, residential health care facilities for senior citizens, convalescent homes and prisons by May 1, 1992. In a 1991 order, the Commission reaffirmed its 1990 order.
In June 1992, the FCC required telephones in all workplace areas, hospitals, hotels and motels, and the other facilities as proposed to be hearing aid compatible. However, in response to concerns raised by many parties, the FCC pushed back the deadline for complying with this order to May 1, 1993 for establishments with 20 or more employees and to May 1, 1994 for all establishments with 20 or fewer employees.
On May 5, 1993, without prior notice, the Commission indefinitely suspended the 1990 and 1992 rules. It based this decision on an Emergency Request for a Stay submitted by the Tele-Communications Association, which contended that the FCC had underestimated the costs of the rules and had overstated the safety concerns. A coalition of organizations including the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, the National Association for the Deaf, the National Center for Law and Deafness, Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, Telecommunications for the Deaf, and the World Institute on Disability have filed an Emergency Request to Reinstate Enforcement of the prior rules. As this report goes to press, this issue is still pending with the FCC.
Under provisions of this Act, the GSA was also required, in conjunction with the FCC, to promote research to reduce the costs and improve the capabilities of equipment for providing telecommunications accessibility for those with hearing and speech disabilities. Little has been done to implement, through regulation, those provisions.
The Technology-Related Assistance Act provides Federal grants to states to develop programs to respond to the needs of persons with disabilities for information, technical assistance, direct services and public awareness regarding assistive technology. Managed by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, this part of the Act has been implemented through the provision of grants to most of the states. The Act also mandated a study from the National Council on Disability on financing of assistive technology, which was presented to Congress in 1993. In addition, it created other projects on establishment of a referral network, training and public awareness, and demonstration and innovation.
Implementation of Section 508 is overseen by the Clearinghouse on Computer Accommodation (COCA), in the Information Resources Management Service of GSA. In December, 1991, COCA published a handbook for IRM managers in GSA and program managers in the Federal government on integrating accessibility into the information management process, called Managing Information Resources for Accessibility8. This handbook includes much detailed information on making computer-based technology accessible to people with disabilities.
In 1992, Congress amended Section 508. The new title for Section 508 was "Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility" (emphasis added). In its original form, enacted in 1986, Section 508 was entitled "Electronic Equipment Accessibility." The amended Section 508 now clearly covers information technologies, such as electronic databases, information services, electronic mail systems, and other related technologies.
Private businesses that provide these electronic services will now need to take disability access into account in doing business with the Federal government. Any contract bids will be evaluated on accessibility for people with disabilities, among other criteria. These amendments will most likely require new guidelines, in addition to those already developed, to further define accessibility to information technologies.
Although the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a very broad and far-reaching law, its discussion of telecommunications issues is limited in scope. Telecommunications issues are peripherally addressed in Titles I, II, and III. Title IV specifically addresses telephone access for people who have severe hearing and/or speech disabilities and who thus cannot use conventional voice telephones. Title IV mandates the availability of both intrastate and interstate relay services.
The ADA does not mandate access for all people with disabilities to basic telephone equipment and services, data transmission, multi-media applications, or information services. Perhaps most limiting is ADA's not including accessibility requirements for telecommunications equipment. While the Title I, II, and III provisions of the ADA will provide access so that people can physically get to telephones, a multitude of barriers still exist for people with disabilities because the telephone equipment and services have not been designed to be accessible.
1. EMPLOYMENT: Title I
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission implemented the ADA with a series of regulations governing employment practices of employers with 25 or more employees after July 25, 1992, and with 15 or more employees after July 25, 1994. Generally, discrimination against a qualified individual with a disability is prohibited, covering areas of employment such as recruitment and application procedures, hiring, promotion, transfer, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, job assignments, lines of progression, seniority lists, sick or other leave, fringe benefits, training opportunities, and employer-sponsored social activities.
Most relevant to the issue of telecommunications, the regulations require an employer to make a reasonable accommodation to a known physical or mental limitation of an otherwise qualified applicant or employee with a disability. This requirement is excused only if it can be demonstrated that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of the employer.
The term "reasonable accommodation" is defined to include:
Examples of reasonable telecommunications accommodations are:
In most workplaces, access to telecommunications is an important aspect of performing the job. For many jobs, it is essential. The ADA requires employers to evaluate their telecommunications systems and equipment for accessibility and usability for existing and future disabled employees. Access to basic telephone service is just the beginning of this inquiry. How do deaf or hard of hearing employees gain access to a company's voice mail system? Is the electronic mail system compatible with voice synthesis equipment for employees with visual disabilities? Can a blind employee identify which line of a multiple-line telephone system to pick up? Can a computer terminal be fitted with a special keyboard to meet the needs of employees with limited dexterity or vision?
Employers will most likely find that in the long run, it is less expensive to implement systems, such as voice mail, that all employees can use - including those with disabilities. Another option is to hire support staff to perform assistive functions such as reading, interpreting, and transporting.
2. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: Title II
State and local public entities are required to take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with applicants, participants, and members of the public with disabilities are as effective as communications with others. Public entities are required to furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary. In determining what type of auxiliary aid and service is necessary, the public entity is directed to give primary consideration to the requests of the individuals with disabilities. Where a public entity communicates by telephone with applicants and beneficiaries, TTYs or equally effective telecommunication systems are required to communicate with individuals with impaired hearing or speech.
Title II states that a public entity may use relay services to meet the requirement of effective communication, but should "not rely heavily on them." Relay services are not sufficient to provide access to all telephone services because they do not provide effective access to the increasingly popular automated systems that require the caller to respond by pushing a button on a touch tone phone. Also, relay systems cannot operate fast enough to convey messages on answering machines, or to permit a TTY user to leave a recorded message.
The regulations encourage those entities that have extensive telephone contact with the public such as city halls, public libraries, and public aid offices, to have TTYs to insure more immediate access. Where the provision of telephone service is a major function of the entity, TTYs should be available.
Telephone emergency services, including 911 services, are required to provide direct access to individuals who use TTYs. TTY access to telephone emergency services should be equivalent to the service for voice telephone users. If voice callers can access 911, then TTY users should also be able to directly contact 911. If the general public still uses a seven-digit number, then TTY users should also have a seven-digit number. The regulations require public entities to take appropriate steps, including equipping their emergency systems with modern technology, that may be necessary to promptly receive and respond to a call from users of TTYs. Initial legislation required that telephone emergency services be accessible to TTY and computer modem users. The Department of Justice has since amended the rules to require only TTY (Baudot code) access because of technical difficulties in identifying and making a connection with ASCII protocols (used by some TTYs and almost all computer modems). Entities are allowed the flexibility to determine the appropriate technology for their particular needs.
3. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS: Title III
Generally, the ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in "the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation." To meet this goal, public places are required to provide "auxiliary aids and services, and to remove barriers in the built environment."
a. Auxiliary Aids and Services
A public accommodation (i.e., hotels, restaurants, and stores) is required to use auxiliary aids and services in order to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals, unless the public accommodation can demonstrate that taking those steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations being offered or would result in an undue burden, i.e., significant difficulty or expense. "Auxiliary aids and services" are defined very broadly. Among the examples provided in the regulations are some that pertain to telecommunications:
For example, a public accommodation that offers non-employees the opportunity to make outgoing telephone calls on more than an incidental convenience basis is required to make a TTY available, if requested. However, a public accommodation is not required to use a TTY for receiving or making telephone calls incident to its operations; the availability of relay services is sufficient.
Implicit in this duty to provide auxiliary aids and services is the underlying obligation of a public accommodation to communicate effectively with the public, including people who have disabilities affecting hearing, vision, or speech. Recognizing that auxiliary aids and services include a wide range of services and devices for ensuring effective communication, the use of the most advanced technology is not required so long as effective communication is ensured. Since it is not possible to make an exhaustive list of all possible types of auxiliary aids and services, the ADA regulations acknowledge that more possibilities exist and new devices will become available with emerging technology.
b. Removal of Barriers
The ADA rules require public accommodations to remove architectural barriers in existing facilities, including communication barriers that are structural in nature, where such removal is readily achievable, i.e., easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. Examples of such steps to remove barriers to telecommunications that are cited in the regulations include, among other things: installation of pay TTY telephones, repositioning of telephones, and installation of signage identifying locations of accessible telephones.
The regulations do not specifically address access to new technologies, but the commentary preceding the regulations acknowledges the importance of emerging technologies. The ADA is a flexible law, and will remain relevant to new services and technical innovations as they change the way that commerce in the U.S. is conducted.
The Architectural & Transportation Barriers Compliance Board has issued regulations that set the technical standards for the accessibility requirements of the parts of the ADA relating to public accommodations and public entities. Included in these regulations are standards for access to public telephones and availability of accessible telephones for hotel patrons. Public telephone access issues that are addressed include hearing aid compatibility, volume controls, TTYs (or text telephones, the phrase used by the Board), public phones, and wheelchair access. Hotels are required to have visual alert systems for incoming phone calls, and permanently installed telephones are required to have volume controls and to be located near an electric outlet to allow operation of a TTY. These requirements affect a percentage of rooms in hotels.
4. TELECOMMUNICATIONS - RELAY SERVICES: Title IV
The ADA mandates that common carriers make intrastate and interstate telecommunication relay services available. Relay services, which provide a way for TTY users to communicate over the phone with voice callers, and vice versa, are required to be available 24 hours a day, at no extra charge to users.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued rules implementing this requirement.9 Most of these rules cover operating standards for relay systems, including issues such as confidentiality of calls and prohibition from intentionally altering a relayed conversation. The technical standards cover issues such as transmission protocols (ASCII vs. Baudot), speed of answer, equal access to interexchange carriers, relay facilities, and introduction of new technologies. Functional standards cover issues such as complaint and enforcement procedures, public access to relay service information, rates, and cost recovery.
The issue of access to answering machines, voice mail and other services requiring the interactive use of a touch tone phone was resolved by the FCC in a general way by requiring relay services to handle any type of call normally handled by the common carrier. Carriers are required to prove it is unfeasible to handle a particular type of call, and the FCC will consider these situations on a case-by-case basis. As voice processing systems become more common for answering the phone, providing information, and getting to a particular extension, complaints about the adequacy of access will increase. When the Department of Justice deferred on this point to the FCC, it implicitly determined that the solution to this problem should lie with the relay system, rather than the voice processing user.
One problem which remains however is the different "1-800" telephone numbers for telecommunications relay services (TRS) across the country. Many states have two numbers for TRS, one number for calls initiated by voice callers and one number for calls initiated by TTY callers.
The "1-800" numbers can not only require up to twenty-two numbers to be dialed before reaching the called party, but when traveling from state to state remembering or accessing the TRS numbers is at best a real challenge.
To solve this problem a coalition of national and local organizations, spearheaded by the National Center for Law and Deafness and Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc., have submitted an emergency petition to the FCC, in November of 1993. The petition requests that the FCC assign two 3-digit numbers (7-1-1 for TTY and 5-1-1 for voice) for nationwide TRS access. As of the date of this report the FCC has not released its order.
The majority of individuals with disabilities are not eligible for many of these programs, either because their disability is not specifically included in the eligibility criteria or because the type of equipment that would be useful is not provided. The states with the most comprehensive programs are California, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Montana. Additionally, most of these programs provide no specific funding for the research and development of new technologies in specialized customer equipment.
Given the rapid rate of advancement and change in this field, we cannot permit legislative change to move ahead slowly or too narrowly. Many different changes must take place, but they should be made within the context of a broad mandate for accessibility to the emerging telecommunications infrastructure. Action is required at the federal and state levels. Leadership is needed from the President, the Congress, and from state policy-makers.
Footnotes:
9 The FCC's rules use the term "Text Telephone" to replace the term "Telecommunications Device for the Deaf". The FCC reasons that terms such as TDD, TDD Relay Service, TDD Service and Dual Party Relay Service are inappropriate because they suggest that TTYs are only "for" people who are deaf; actually, they are used by a much broader population. This is also the term used by the Architectural & Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
10 Ordinarily, such activities are subject to tariffs established by state regulators, which govern how the telephone companies must behave. By de-tariffing an activity, the state regulator is allowing the telephone company to treat customers with disabilities differently from others.
11 TACIP Board, State of Minnesota November 1992 Equipment Distribution Program National Survey
12 These types of equipment and services are provided by California's Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program.
Chapter 4: Standards
Whether accessibility is mandated by legislation or
voluntarily adopted as an industry-wide goal, standards will
need to be developed that define telecommunications
accessibility in measurable terms. Before the adoption of
uniform standards regarding the elimination of architectural
barriers, some well-meaning designers and architects employed
access features that were not useful to the broadest spectrum
of people, including people with disabilities. In the worst
cases, access solutions actually caused new barriers for
persons with some disabilities or were potentially dangerous.
Without standards that specify what accessibility means with respect to a particular product or service, the industry has no guidelines to follow. The absence of standards brings risk and uncertainty to any well-meaning endeavor to make a telecommunications product or service accessible. In 1992 the Blue Ribbon Panel identified the development of standards as a key step toward achieving the goal of accessible and usable telecommunications equipment and services.
Standards covering access to telecommunications will need to address issues such as the position and size of equipment, the availability and nature of visual and tactile prompts, and compatibility with existing equipment. The first year report of the Blue Ribbon panel, especially the section titled "Functional Limitations and the Use of Telecommunications," discusses these issues in detail.
In this chapter, we begin with a discussion of performance-based standards, which we think are the most desirable in defining access to telecommunications for people with disabilities. We then review the processes for setting both voluntary and mandatory standards. In both cases, we find that involvement by people with disabilities is critical to the process, however, at present there are barriers to this involvement. We discuss those barriers here, and offer two recommendations in Chapter 5 to address them.
Our commitment to performance-based standards dovetails with our universal design philosophy. The nation cannot reach its goal of universal design by having Congress spell out every feature of telecommunications networks and services in advance. Instead, we must articulate the telecommunications activities that we want every individual to be able to perform, and leave the specifications to engineers and designers. Performance-based standards have the following benefits:
The process for achieving a final standard is very time and labor consuming. For example, it took years, actually decades, to develop the first version of the ANSI standards on accessibility to buildings and facilities and then to update them. The process involved at least 53 companies, government agencies and nonprofit organizations. Activities took place under the authority of a Committee, which responded to recommendations of five task forces that reviewed its work.
The biggest problem for the disability community with respect to the development of such voluntary standards is finding the resources for effective, meaningful, and consistent involvement in the process. The problem is two-fold:
In order to adequately represent the diversity of the disability community, several people representing different key disability interests need to be involved in the process. At a minimum, participation is a demanding task requiring ongoing research, communication with the relevant constituencies for feedback and approval, as well as extensive travel associated with attendance at meetings. Advocates can easily end up devoting all or most of their time to this process.
Considering the breadth and scope of ongoing standards development activities, this creates a demand for advocates of people with disabilities that far exceeds the supply. Most disability organizations do not now have the financial resources nor a sufficient number of technically trained staff to meaningfully participate in extensive technical meetings related to telecommunications network or product design. In Chapter 5, we recommend ways to bring more advocates into the standards-setting process, and to find new ways to fund their participation. We also encourage industry to incorporate the experience and understanding of disability issues into their engineering and design by hiring more people with disabilities in those departments.
While the regulatory process for setting standards affords the greatest opportunity for involvement, there are two potential draw-backs to administrative agencies setting standards:
Both of these bring up the importance of having people with disabilities involved in the standards-setting process. We need a public hearing and comment process that will support that involvement. The participation of the disability community in this process will provide administrative agency staff with critical input that will assist them in developing appropriate standards and regulations.
In addition, because the disability community and telecommunications industry have very different experiences and approaches to telecommunications issues, it is important to have an opportunity for informal conversation when discussing standards. This type of communication can take place during the voluntary standard development process, but the regulatory process is much more formal. Comments are usually provided in writing, and there is less opportunity for interactive communication. The regulatory process, based on written and conflicting comments, can lead to compromises determined by the administrative agency and not the parties. This can ultimately fail to meet the needs of either group.
To respond to the concerns of insufficient consumer input during the regulatory process, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has implemented a process that is noteworthy. It integrates critical consumer input into the administrative decision making process.
The FDA process is an example worthy of emulation because it adds two critical components to the usual agency practice in developing regulations and standards. Consumer involvement is critical because the perspectives and expertise of consumers and professionals who are disabled must be integrated into the decision making process to insure that accessibility is achieved.
Consumer training is critical because a group of educated consumers will in the end benefit the disability community and the public at large. Providing training about telecommunications technologies and capabilities, and network development and deployment, will promote knowledgeable consumer involvement in the development of standards making the telecommunications system more usable for all consumers.
Chapter 2 explained the advantages of an alternative approach: universal design. To implement that approach successfully, we cannot simply graft it on to our old reliance on market forces. Only mandatory standards will force manufacturers and providers to make the fundamental changes in philosophy, design, and hiring that will make universal design a reality. Mandated standards have the advantage of certainty, allowing both industry and consumers to stop arguing over "if" and start talking about "how."
At present, although there are some drawbacks which must be overcome, the regulatory process affords the greatest opportunity, through public comment, for disability community input into telecommunications standard setting. The public comment process overcomes the financial barriers encountered by the disability community when trying to participate in the voluntary standards setting process.
The best approach would result in a mandated standard that is developed by a specific agency using a process that involves the disability community and the industry in a series of meetings and negotiations over the specific provisions of the regulation. Such a process would result in a draft regulation, authored by a well informed staff, that could then be issued following the Administrative Procedures Act.
The FDA: A Model Process for Consumer Involvement
In September 1979 the FDA Office of Consumer Affairs contracted with the Community Nutrition Institute to create a structured process for assuring that the most qualified consumers provided the most effective input into FDA decision-making proceedings, through advisory committees. This process included:
To facilitate that input, we need to address the barriers that currently inhibit it: lack of funds to cover the expenses of participation; lack of preparation and training for advocates of people with disabilities; small numbers of people with disabilities in the design and engineering departments of telecommunications manufacturers and providers, and on the regulatory staffs that oversee the standard-setting process; and aspects of the regulatory process that discourage communication among industry and disability advocates.
Chapter 5: Recommendations
This report has raised several issues that require the
attention of the telecommunications industry and of
policy-makers at the federal and state levels. The Blue
Ribbon Panel has formulated the following recommendations
that address each of the issues raised: our nation's
commitment to people with disabilities - access to
telecommunications; universal design; standards; and interim
telecommunications access solutions. We believe that
industry and policy-makers must take a decisive and
coordinated step forward to realize the opportunities posed
by telecommunications for people with disabilities and for
the nation as a whole.
Federal and state legislatures, in conjunction with their regulatory agencies, should develop comprehensive, coordinated public telecommunications policies that guarantee basic communications accessibility to people with disabilities.
Recommendation 1: Update the Communications Act of 1934
The Communication Act of 1934's reference to Universal
Service should include people with disabilities, to read:
History has demonstrated that the rights of people with disabilities have not been protected under the Communications Act of 1934 "all people of the United States" language. We therefore recommend explicit inclusion of "people with disabilities" in the language. This change is essential because it constitutes recognition of people with disabilities' rights to access to telecommunications facilities and services. While the Americans with Disabilities Act protects the general rights of people with disabilities, it has not been interpreted to cover access to telecommunications equipment and services. Without such explicit protections, people with disabilities will continue to face huge barriers to participation in modern society.
Recommendation 2: Update and Clarify the Telecommunications Implications of the Americans with
Disabilities Act
In the Americans with Disabilities Act, commercial facilities are required to be accessible to people with disabilities. We recomend that "commercial facility" include those goods and services offered through telecommunications. An increasing proportion of commerce in this country is conducted by phone or through personal computers and modems connected to databases by agencies, organizations, and firms that quite literally maintain no facility or premises where they meet with their customers. For them, an electronic or printed catalog is their showroom, and the telephone is their sales office. By its emphasis on places of public accommodation, Congress did not mean to exclude these fast-growing sectors of our economy, whose activities manifestly constitute commerce, from coverage under the ADA. If the newly adopted regulations are not redrawn more broadly and clearly, such commercial facilities may be inadvertently excluded from coverage under Titles II and III.
Also in the Americans with Disabilities Act, Congress explicitly included automatic teller machines (ATMs) as an example of equipment that must be made accessible to individuals with disabilities. The transactional services conducted between the ATM and a bank, using telecommunications links, are very similar to information kiosks operated by cities, shopping malls, and museums for use by constituents and patrons. Nevertheless, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board and the Department of Justice did not address these similarities when drawing up their accessibility guidelines or regulations. Thus, it is unclear whether information kiosks are covered by the ADA and what accessibility standards, if any, govern their installation.
Recommendation 3: Task Force on Telecommunications and
Disability
The Task Force should include appropriately high-level personnel from every Federal agency with a substantial interest in national telecommunications policy and disability policy. Individuals with disabilities who have expertise in a variety of disability and telecommunications issues should be consulted to assist the Task Force in its deliberations. The goal of the Task Force would be to identify current policies and practices, future trends, and proposed legislation/regulations that will help ensure that the telecommunications infrastructure, and the Federal services that employ that infrastructure, are designed to be used by the widest range of citizens and Federal employees.
Recommendation 4: FCC Unit on Disability Access
Recommendation 5: NTIA Staff for Disability Access
For example, the NTIA should examine its role in spectrum allocation so as to ensure that services with particular application for individuals with disabilities are protected, such as the need for a standard set of frequencies for FM assistive listening systems.
Recommendation 6: Ensure Access to Federal, State, and
Local Government Electronic Services and Networks
For example, the Telecommunications Accessibility Enhancement Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-542) directs the Federal telecommunications system (FTS) to be fully accessible to individuals who are hearing and speech impaired, including Federal employees. Now that the FTS is being used by agencies as a means of communicating with constituents and clients, the Act should be re-written to guarantee access to all individuals using the system, not just Federal employees and not just those people with speech and hearing disabilities. This should include individuals using any medium to connect to the FTS - voice, data, video, or a combination of media. In addition the GSA must fully implement section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act with amendments.
Recommendation 7: Industry Should Integrate More People
with Disabilities into All Levels of its Work Force
Two examples of working together with people with disabilities are AT&T and Pacific Bell. Both corporations have established consumer committees composed of people with disabilities to meet with product and design managers.
The benefits of universal design are for everyone:
Federal and state policy-makers must recognize universal design as an essential element of Universal Service.
Recommendation 1: Incorporate Universal Design into
Telecommunications Legislation
An example of a current opportunity for legislating universal design is the "model language" that has been negotiated between the Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities (a national coalition of leading disability organizations) and the seven Regional Bell Operating Companies. HR 3626 (103rd Congress, 1st session) would allow the RBOCs to manufacture telecommunications equipment, provided that the equipment and network services they provide are accessible to people with disabilities unless doing so would create an undue burden or put the companies at a competitive disadvantage.*
"(1) MANUFACTURING. "The Commission shall, within 1 year after enactment of this section, prescribe such regulations as are necessary to ensure that telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment designed, developed, and fabricated pursuant to the authority granted in this section shall be accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals with functional limitations of hearing, vision, movement, manipulation, speech, and interpretation of information, unless the costs of making the equipment accessible and usable would result in an undue burden or an adverse competitive impact.
"(2) NETWORK SERVICES. "The Commission shall, within 1 year after enactment of this section, prescribe such regulations as are necessary to ensure that advances in network services deployed by a Bell Telephone Company shall be accessible and usable by individuals whose access might otherwise be impeded by a disability or functional limitation, unless the costs of making such services accessible and usable would result in an undue burden or adverse competitive impact. Such regulations shall seek to permit the use of both standard and special equipment and seek to minimize the need of individuals to acquire additional devices beyond those used by the general public to obtain such access.
"(3) COMPATIBILITY. "The regulations prescribed under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall require that whenever an undue burden or adverse competitive impact would result from the manufacturing or network services requirements in such paragraphs, the manufacturing affiliate that designs, develops, or fabricates the equipment or the Bell Telephone Company that deploys the network service shall ensure that the equipment or network service in question is compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by persons with disabilities to achieve access, unless doing so would result in an undue burden or adverse competitive impact.
Recommendation 2: Undertake Human Performance Studies of
People with Disabilities
The study should be conducted by a consortium of public and private entities and funded jointly. Since the study will benefit all industries which produce or develop a wide variety of products and services, no single industry or firm should maintain proprietary control over the project. Individuals and organizations knowledgeable in ergonomics, functionally-related disability statistics and product/service design should be directly involved in formulation of the study team and development of its scope, methodology, data collection, analysis and report generation. Individuals with each of the functional limitations mentioned above, who also have knowledge of one or more study elements, should be brought in as contributors to the study team.
Every attempt should be made to build upon the existing body of knowledge, expanded and refined to incorporate the limits of performance suitable to individuals with functional limitations. Team members should draw upon any existing models (Woodson or Dreyfus, for example) and upon other sources (Acoustical Society, Japanese study, World Institute on Disability's Blue Ribbon Panel First Year Report, Laying the Foundation, etc.).
Recommendation 3: Extend Accessibility Requirements to
Products and Services
Much of the current body of Federal law incorporates the concept of accessibility to programs, services, facilities and some products for individuals with disabilities. However, virtually all of them envision the use of assistive and adaptive technology devices and services as a means to achieving the goal of accessibility. Almost nothing in the Technology-Related Assistance Act or the Rehabilitation Act addresses the need for applying universal design principles.
For example, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires access to electronic office equipment by individuals with disabilities, but its implementation focuses almost entirely upon finding ways to help Federal agencies learn about and purchase peripheral products that will enable an individual with a disability to use what would otherwise be inaccessible. Emphasis should be placed upon encouraging, or requiring, equipment design that demands as few assistive technology peripherals as practicable.
Similar examples can be cited in state-mandated telecommunications equipment distribution programs. States should be encouraged to fund any telephone product, specialized or not, that serves an individual's need.
Recommendation 4: Extend the Mandate of the Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board to Include Products
and Services
In conjunction with both public and private entities, the Board should engage in a process to define appropriate methods for measuring how human performance, as reported by the ergonomic-demographic study team, can be effectively translated into design guidelines. However, the guidelines, rather than being prescriptive, should foster creative approaches to universal design principles.
Simultaneously, publicly-funded and industry-funded R&D should be mandated to foster projects that apply principles of universal design. Private industry should be encouraged, and in some instances mandated, to consider how new goods and services can be easily used by as broad a range of individuals as possible. For example, the fields of telecommunications and computing, consumer electronics, educational technologies, information services, to mention but a few, can no longer be permitted to engage in research, design and manufacture of products and services that exclude individuals with functional limitations because no consideration was given to their inclusion.
Recommendation 1: Development of Performance-Based Standards
Performance-based standards should be developed that address the variety of characteristics of people with disabilities in the context of the basic functions of telecommunications usage. These standards should be detailed enough to provide the industry with adequate guidance for incorporating accessibility features and considerations into all products and services. In addition, access-oriented considerations should be incorporated into product- or feature-specific standards, where appropriate.
Recommendation 2: Consumer-Input Model for Standard-Setting
People with disabilities and their organizations must be fully involved in the standards development process. This will require both modifications in the processes by which standards are set, and new forms of consumer training to empower people with disabilities to be involved. This participation should be funded by a source other than the disability organizations themselves, whether private or public.
Until the concept of universal design has been more fully implemented, and to address those access needs that cannot pratically be met through universal design, Federal and state policy-makers must continue to support programs that promote access to the telephone.
Recommendation 1: State Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies
Should
Fund Assistive Technology for Employment and Training
Application
Recommendation 2: Re-Instatement of Hearing Aid Compatibility
.....Requirements
While the FCC first issued its hearing aid compatibility requirements back in the1980s, it has continued to bow to the interests of industry by delaying and cancelling those requirements. This has forced the disability community to spend precious time and resources pressuring the FCC to re-instate and enforce the requirements, which are clearly the will of Congress and the American people. It is time for policy-makers to give the FCC a clear and immediate mandate to re-instate the hearing aid compatibility requirements.
Recommendation 3: N-1-1 Access for Telecommunications Relay
Services
Recommendation 4: Baudot and ASCII Compatibility
To incorporate both Baudot and ASCII equipment users into the telecommunications mainstream, the FCC must develop a standard protocol to ensure access to 911 emergency telephone services [and for other auto-answering services, for both Baudot and ASCII users.]
Recommendation 5: States Must Establish Adaptive Equipment
Programs
We recommend that the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) work with the disability community to develop model guidelines for the implementation and administration of telecommunications equipment access programs. These should include specialized customer premises equipment programs.
Recommendation 6: Closed-Captioning and Audio Description
for Video Programming
The National Center for Law and Deafness has convened a coalition of key national disability organizations to develop draft legislative language focusing on access to cable programming. The following is an initial outline of the language that could be considered:
Captioning and Audio Description Mandates:
Appendix A: The World Institute on Disability
The World Institute on Disability (WID) is a research,
policy,
and training center founded ten years ago to work towards
independence and equity of opportunity for all people with
disabilities, their friends, and families.
In the area of technology policy, WID has a goal of empowering people with disabilities to determine where research and development efforts should be directed, what product design criteria should be followed, what needs should be met, and how best to get useful technology into their own lives. A variety of types of technology are needed in order for people with disabilities to have more control over their lives, as evidenced by more life choices. WID is concerned with policy issues such as financing, information discrimination, accessibility of systems and products, research and development priorities, and consumer involvement in policy processes. WID is also committed to creating opportunities for people with disabilities to become more involved in technology policy, in overseeing technology-related programs, and to be well represented in the national debate about the National Information Infrastructure.
Working in areas that include personal assistance services, AIDS and disability, telecommunications policy, national and international disability policy, and much more, WID goes directly to the disability community in its research to define and gather information about cutting edge issues affecting people with disabilities. WID's philosophy is rooted in the Independent Living Movement for people with disabilities, which believes that people with disabilities know their own needs best and can live independently with appropriate assistance. WID also believes in the strengths and power of peer support -- in which people with disabilities come together to share information and to improve the quality of their lives. The innovating approaches and solutions WID develops through its research are all designed to maximize independence for people with disabilities.
WID works with a variety of constituencies: people with disabilities, parents of disabled children, disability organizations, government and private policy-makers, corporations, foundations, academia, and the media. Because of its extensive collection of information on Personal Assistance Services, WID is contacted by people from around the world for information and ideas.
Personal Assistance Services (PAS). Personal assistants help disabled people with their daily activities -- from dressing and household chores to balancing a checkbook. Through research and education, WID is working with a grassroots coalition of non-profits and policy-makers to design more effective publicly-funded PAS programs. The coalition's goal is to redirect public dollars to create a system that supplies personal assistants to more people who need them. WID has just begun to operate a Research and Training Center on Personal Assistance Services, which researches a variety of approaches to PAS, how to fund them, and explore new ways that people with disabilities can benefit from using the service.
AIDS and Disability. WID is helping the AIDS and disability communities to view AIDS as a disability and help people with AIDS improve their quality of life. By accessing the disability service system, people with HIV and AIDS can gain services and benefits that improve the quality of life. WID is developing model peer support groups for people with AIDS and training AIDS and disability organizations about AIDS-and-disability.
Telecommunications. WID's Division on Technology Policy is working with the Blue Ribbon Panel, composed of disability and telecommunications industry leaders, to create a public policy agenda that will give people with disabilities access to the information age. The Division has also launched WIDNet, a unique international electric communications system that focuses on disability policy.
International Training and Education. WID hosts foreign visitors and sends staff and outside representatives to other countries to work with disability organizations worldwide on issues, training, and information exchange.
International Disability Exchange and Studies (IDEAS). With funding from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, WID and Rehabilitation International award grants to individuals who visit other countries to study disability-related policies and programs. The information is published and made available to policy-makers to use in addressing similar groups and programs in the U.S.
Russia Project. WID is working with the 1.3 million member All Russia Society for the Disabled to bring Russia's 28 million people with disabilities into the mainstream of Russian society.
Research and Training Center on Public Policy in Independent Living. Funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, the Center researches and analyzes personal assistance services, independent living, leadership development, and community integration with the goal of creating dynamic new programs that maximize self-sufficiency for people with disabilities.
Appendix B: Model Accessibility Language from H.R. 3626
(103rd Congress, 1st session)*
"(g) ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.--
"(1) MANUFACTURING. -- The Commission shall, within 1 year after enactment of this section, prescribe such regulations as are necessary to ensure that telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment designed, developed, and fabricated pursuant to the authority granted in this section shall be accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals with functional limitations of hearing, vision, movement, manipulation, speech, and interpretation of information, unless the costs of making the equipment accessible and usable would result in an undue burden or an adverse competitive impact.
"(2) Network Services. -- The Commission shall, within 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, prescribe such regulations as are necessary to ensure that advances in network services deployed by a Bell Telephone Company shall be accessible and usable by individuals whose access might otherwise be impeded by a disability or functional limitation, unless the costs of making the services accessible and usable would result in an undue burden or adverse competitive impact. Such regulations shall seek to permit the use of both standard and special equipment and seek to minimize the need of individuals to acquire additional devices beyond those used by the general public to obtain such access.
"(3) Compatibility. -- The regulations prescribed under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall require that whenever an undue burden or adverse competitive impact would result from the manufacturing or network services requirements in such paragraphs, the manufacturing affiliate that designs, develops, or fabricates the equipment or the Bell Telephone Company that deploys the network service shall ensure that the equipment or network service in question is compatible with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer premises equipment commonly used by persons with disabilities to achieve access, unless doing so would result in an undue burden or adverse competitive impact.
"(4) Definitions. -- As used in this subsection:
"(A) Undue Burden. -- The term 'undue burden' means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether an activity would result in an undue burden, factors to be considered include --
"(i) the nature and cost of the activity; "(ii) the impact on the operation of the facility involved in the manufacturing of the equipment or deployment of the network service; "(iii) the financial resources of the manufacturing affiliate in the case of manufacturing of equipment, for as long as applicable regulatory rules prohibit cross-subsidization of equipment manufacturing with revenues from regulated telecommunications service or when the manufacturing activities are conducted in a separate subsidiary; "(iv) the financial resources of the Bell Telephone Company in the case of network services, or in the case of manufacturing of equipment if applicable regulatory rules permit cross-subsidization of equipment manufacturing with revenues from regulated telecommunications services and the manufacturing activities are not conducted in a separate subsidiary; and "(v) the type of operation or operations of the manufacturing affiliate or Bell Telephone Company as applicable.
"(B) Adverse Competitive Impact. -- In determining whether the activity would result in an adverse competitive impact, the following factors will be considered:
(i) whether such activity would raise the cost of the equipment or network service in question beyond the level at which there would be sufficient consumer demand by the general population to make the equipment or network service profitable; and (ii) whether such activity would, with respect to the equipment or network service in question, put the manufacturing affiliate or Bell Telephone Company, as applicable, at a competitive disadvantage in comparison with one or more providers of one or more competing products and services. This factor may only be considered so long as competing manufacturers and network service providers are not held to the same obligation with respect to access by persons with disabilities.
"(C) Activity. -- For these purposes, the term "activity" includes:
(i) the research, design, development, deployment, and fabrication activities necessary to comply with the requirements of this section; and (ii) the acquisition of the related materials and equipment components.
"(5) Effective Date. -- The regulations required by this subsection shall become effective 18 months after the date of enactment of this section.
"(6) Impact of ADA. -- Nothing in this section will be interpreted to limit or otherwise affect the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act or its implementing regulations.
"(h) Public Network Enhancement. -- A Bell Telephone Company manufacturing affiliate shall, as a part of its overall research and development effort, establish a permanent program for the manufacturing research and development of products and applications for the enhancement of the public switched telephone network and to promote public access to advanced telecommunications services. Such program shall focus its work substantially on developing technological advancements in public telephone network applications, telecommunication equipment and products, and access solutions to new services and technology, including access by (1) public institutions, including educational and health care institutions; and (2) people with disabilities and functional limitations . . ."
World Institute on Disability
510 16th Street, Suite 100 l Oakland, California 94612
(510) 763-4100 (V/TTY)