Gary Shapiro Claims Universal Design Principles Are Impossible

Submitted by Rosaline.Crawford [1] on Tue, 06/15/2010 - 18:05

Last week, Gary Shapiro, president and chief executive officer of the Consumer Electronics Association, objected strongly to any requirement to make telecommunications products and services accessible to and useable by people with disabilities.  How did he do that?  He appealed to the American public, through fear, half-truths, and exaggeration in print [2] and before Congress [3].

Gary Shapiro criticized Congress for considering legislation – the Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (H.R. 3101).  Congress represents us, over 36 million individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, more than 25 million individuals who are blind or who have vision loss, over 70,000 persons who are both deaf and blind, and millions of other individuals with disabilities.  We are asking Congress to pass H.R. 3101.  Why?  We want to buy and use cell phones, smart phones, and other advanced communications equipment just like everyone else.  We want to buy and use devices that display television news and entertainment programs just like everyone else. The concept of universal design also benefits the general public, in the same way as curb-cuts are in widespread use.

Are we asking manufacturers to make all of their Internet-enabled devices accessible to individuals with every type of disability?  No.  Will the iPhone look different?  No.  So, what are we asking for?  We are asking industry to be innovative and to take actions – actions that are not significantly difficult or expensive – to make more products and services accessible to and usable by all Americans.  This is why H.R. 3101 requires a clearinghouse of information about accessible products and services – so people with different abilities can find the products and services that work for them.

Gary Shapiro thinks this will make affordable products more expensive and complex by adding features that most people will not use or do not need.  Are these the features that most people “need and use” that are already available on their remote controls with 50 different buttons?  No.  These are features that enable most people to use their cell phones and smart phones without looking at them, to watch a TV program on a handheld device in noisy or quiet environments without headphones, or to be alerted by a vibration rather than a ring tone.  These are features that will be used by many people, in addition to providing accessibility to people who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind, or have low vision.

Are we telling manufacturers what buttons they must include and what they should do?  You got us there.  We do want one button – a button, key, or icon on remote controls that operate television equipment – to turn the closed captions on/off in one step.  Why?  Closed caption control is the equivalent of volume control, but industry has made closed captions almost impossible to find.  For example, did you know that we must turn the power off and then press “menu” twice to reach the closed caption controls on some cable TV set-top boxes?  How intuitive is that?  In some hotels we need the engineer to come to our room with the “master” remote control to turn the closed captions on.  Convenient, isn’t it?  In addition, when captions block information on the screen that we want to see, like the name of the person speaking or the instant replay, we want to be able to turn the captions off and on quickly.  This is like having a “mute” button to turn the sound on/off when you want to listen to something else for a second.

Individuals with disabilities need and deserve access to the newest communications technologies.  We agree.  Gary Shapiro’s example of how free-market competition makes this happen – remote controls with a closed caption button available for purchase through Amazon – is fascinating.  According to this example, accessibility happens because products are manufactured – also without significant difficulty or expense – which people with disabilities must buy to make other companies’ products accessible.  Charming.

Yes, Gary, we have been down this road before.  The same newspaper that published your article last week also published an article in 1990 that condemned Congress for passing the Television Decoder Circuitry Act, which required closed caption decoder chips in all new televisions 13” or larger.¹ The article said the law would “force every American family to pay for an internal decoder when only a tiny fraction of them will ever use it.”  It called the law “government-mandated waste on a truly sickening scale.”  It called the premise that “every citizen has an inalienable right of ‘full and equal access’ to television” dubious.  It proposed that the government should pay for external decoders at $160-$200 each instead of making new television sets accessible for about $20.  The actual cost turned out to be pennies per set.  Congress made the right choice in 1990 and it will make the right choice in 2010.

Does H.R. 3101 empower the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as Gary Shapiro claims, to confiscate products that are not accessible?  Don’t be ludicrous.  The FCC doesn’t want your products; it wants your products to be made accessible.  As for giving manufacturers little recourse for appeal, H.R. 3101 gives manufacturers and consumers the same recourse to appeal FCC decisions.  If that recourse is too little, how about giving all of us the right to bring and settle our disputes in court?

We take these issues very seriously.  We are tired of being left behind as technology advances forward at lightning speed.  We are tired of continually being overlooked and our needs minimized.  We are glad that industry groups are finally working on developing a new standard for Internet closed captioning.  We understand that standards make the process of providing accessibility easier and less expensive.  The development of these and other standards must include meaningful participation and intensive testing and evaluation by consumers. 

Consumers have spoken.  We have been saying the same thing for decades.  We want accessible telecommunications products and services, just like everyone else.  This is the goal that the government is setting with H.R. 3101.  All stakeholders will have ample opportunity to provide input about how and when these goals can and will be reached.  We do not need another advisory committee.  Let’s pass the ball from the advocates and lobbyists to the engineers who are eager to innovate and produce the most flexible, effective, and efficient technical solutions to meet the needs of all Americans.

Rosaline Crawford is the director of the National Association of the Deaf Law and Advocacy Center, and co-chair of the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology.
 

 1 Dr. Ted J. Smith III, “Cheaper to pass out TV decoders?,” Washington Times, October 8, 1990, G3.