The Senate version, S 3304, is not as strong as HR 3101. Neither version requires captioning for web-only content, but HR 3101 requires reporting on captioning of content generated for the web. This opens the door to possible regulatory action in the future to mandate Internet captions. Advocates, including Marlee Matlin, want to see the Senate adopting HR 3101, the stronger bill, to pave the way to better captioning for online content.

I’m writing today to ask those of you in the United States to write your Senators and ask them to support Senate adoption and passage of HR 3101. If your Senator is on the Committee for Commerce, Science, and Transportation, so much the better! The Senate could be voting as early as this week, so consider this  a time-sensitive issue.

You can follow the push for better Internet captions at Caption Action 2, which also has a Facebook community you can join.

Below the fold, a draft letter you can send to your Senator. I highly encourage you to personalise it a bit if you can, because personalised letters are weighted more heavily.

Dear Senator,

My name is [name] and I am a disabled resident of [State]. I am writing to ask you to support the adoption and passage of HR 3101, The Twenty First Century Video and Telecommunications Accessibility Act. As a person with disabilities in the United States, I am very concerned about accessibility issues, and this bill will improve accessibility for many of your constituents.

HR 3101 has stronger provisions for web-only content, which is why I am writing to encourage you to adopt it rather than passing the Senate version of this bill. Internet-only content is on the rise and many people with disabilities rely heavily on the Internet to access entertainment, information, and educational materials. Making this content more accessible would make a significant different in the lives of people like myself and my friends. Current barriers to access are a source of frustration for many people with disabilities.

[If you are personalising, it helps to add a note about your Senator's record and your history of support, as in:

I know that you have been a strong advocate for disability rights issues in the past, as evidenced by your support of [some other initiative]. It is one of the reasons I and other people with disabilities are proud to consider ourselves among your supporters.

Or:

Your record does not show a strong history of support for disability rights issues. Please help turn that around by taking action on video and telecommunications accessibility for people with disabilities!]

Thank you for your consideration,

[Name]

©2012 FWD/Forward. All Rights Reserved.

Feel free to reprint/distribute these transcripts with a link back to the original source.

President Obama’s remarks made on 26 July:

Transcript:

Video opens on President Barack Obama at the White House, making a speech.

President Obama: Today I am announcing one of the most important updates to the ADA since its original enactment in 1990. Today, the Department of Justice is publishing two new rules protecting disability-based discrimination, prohibiting disability-based discrimination, by more than 80,000 state and local government entities.

Camera cuts to crowd on stage next to him, applauding.

President Obama: And seven million private businesses.

Camera cuts back to the President.

President Obama: And beginning 18 months from now, all new buildings must be constructed in a way that’s compliant with the new 2010 standards for the design of doors and windows and elevators and bathrooms. Buildings like stores and restaurants and schools and stadiums and hospitals and hotels and theatres.

Camera cuts to seated crowd, applauding, and then back to the President.

President Obama: My predecessor’s administration proposed these rules six years ago and in those six years, they have been improved upon with more than 4,000 comments from the public. We’ve heard from all sides. That’s allowed us to do this in a way that makes sense economically, and allows appropriate flexibility, while ensuring Americans with disabilities full participation in our society. Equal access. Equal opportunity. The freedom to make of our lives what we will. These aren’t principles that belong to any one group, or any one political party. They are common principles. They are American principles. No matter who we are, young, old, rich, poor, Black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled, or not, these are the principles we cherish as citizens of the United States of America.

Video feature done by Kyra Phillips:

Transcript:

Video opens with archival footage of President H. W. Bush signing the Americans with Disabilities Act on 26 July, 1990.

Voiceover: With the stroke of a pen, it was done. The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Cut to a shot of a grocery store, taken from a low angle. A handicapped parking sign is just visible, along with a curb cut. As the voiceover continues, each of the features discussed is shown on camera.

Voiceover: You’ve seen the results. Curb cuts and ramps. Wider doors. And braille on elevators and ATMs for the blind. Enough?

Cut to a closeup of a person wearing glasses. The shot widens to show the person seated at a desk covered in paperwork.

Voiceover: Former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, who helped push the ADA through, says no.

Cut to Thornburgh sitting in front of a bookshelf, wearing a suit. As he speaks, the camera cuts back and forth between archival footage, Thornburgh, and people with disabilities going about daily activities.

Thornburgh: Well, I am gratified but impatient. Gratified that we’ve expressed in a formal way through legislative action the importance of the civil rights of people with disabilities and their rights to participate in the mainstream of our lives without being discriminated against, and disappointed in a way because we haven’t reached the promised land yet.

Cut to people with disabilities seated in a library, and then to a framed picture of a smiling young person in a formal portrait.

Voiceover: By promised land, Thornburgh means economic opportunity for the disabled¹, so people like Ryan Cole can compete on a level playing field.

Cut to Cole and his mother, Andrea Cole, in his bedroom. She is showing him a photo album.

Andrea Cole (pointing at album): Was this the day you were born?

Voiceover: Ryan represents the second generation of the ADA.

A photo montage of Ryan plays while Ryan’s mother speaks.

Andrea Cole: Ryan was diagnosed when I was about 18 weeks pregnant with a Dandy Walker maformation, which is a brain malformation, which affects the cerebellum, and, in his case, he is missing a portion of his cerebellum.

A shot of Ryan and his father walking up the stairs, with his father saying ‘let’s go to your room.’ His father, Eric Cole, speaks now, while the camera shows photographs of Ryan as a young and clearly very ill baby and then cuts to Eric Cole in the kitchen.

Eric Cole: Ryan’s had two brain surgeries. He’s had abdominal surgery to place a G-tube, he’s had hernia surgeries. He’s had seizures, ah, that were brought under control, and some mobility issues.

Cut to Ryan Cole riding a tricycle.

Voiceover: Ryan’s parents want their son to grow up to be self sufficient, and advocates say society can do its part to make that happen.

Cut to Andrew Imparato, representing the American Association of People with Disabilities. As he speaks, the camera shows a powerchair user entering an accessible building.

Imparato: I think one of our challenges as we move into the next decade is how can we create more economic opportunities so that more people with disabilities are working, more people are in the middle class, own their own homes, and are able to participate fully in the mainstream of the economy.

Cut to Andrea and Eric Cole sitting at the kitchen table. The camera shows them interacting with their son while the interview and voiceover continue.

Eric Cole: I think individuals with disabilities, you know, what everybody wants, is they want a hand up, not a handout.

Voiceover: And for Ryan’s father and many others, it’s about common decency.

Eric Cole: I think there are many stereotypes that we still battle today. I think there are some derogatory terms out there that are still used for individuals with cognitive and intellectual disabilities. And understand that individuals like Ryan have hopes and dreams and aspirations, just like the rest of us.

Voiceover: Kyra Phillips, CNN.

©2012 FWD/Forward. All Rights Reserved.

Many news outlets covered the event, including CNN. ‘Obama marks 20th anniversary of landmark disabled rights law‘ features not one, but two videos.

Guess how many of them are captioned.

You know what’s a really bad idea? Not captioning stories about the Americans With Disabilities Act. You know what’s an even worse idea? Not captioning stories about events attended by Marlee Matlin. Matlin’s on the case on Twitter:

@CNN – ironic that your coverage of ADA ceremony with @barackobama at @whitehouse ISN’T CAPTIONED!http://tinyurl.com/326npmy

Feel free to Tweet @CNN and ask why their story about the ADAhttp://tinyurl.com/326npmy WASN’T captioned! FAIL!

@KyraCNN your story on ADA & its future WASN’T captioned on CNN on line. http://tinyurl.com/326npmy

Still no word from @CNN about lack of captions on their internet story about accomplishments of the Americans with Disability Act.

The points Matlin is raising are important. Especially given that a bill improving media accessibility just cleared the House of Representatives, this is more important now than ever, because the government is actually starting to think seriously about these issues and it’s taking steps to improve media accessibility. As Matlin points out, that bill doesn’t mandate captioning for web-only content. If content hits the airwaves, it has to be captioned, and when it is displayed online, those captions have to be made available. But if content is developed specifically for a website? No captions needed, under the bill’s terms.

We need Internet captions. We need them now.

CNN has a feedback form and they say they welcome comments. Internet, you know what to do.

ETA: I posted full transcripts of CNN’s content, for those who wanted to access it and couldn’t. And to make a point. Accessible content: Not that hard to provide, CNN.

©2012 FWD/Forward. All Rights Reserved.

FWD reader codeman38 pointed out that iTunes doesn’t provide captioning for its television shows. Way to go, iTunes.

Captioning of online content is an ongoing problem. iTunes isn’t the only content provider that provides captions indifferently, if at all. Hulu captions some things and not others. Amazon Unbox does the same. And so forth. codeman38 pointed me to a recent post grading various online services on how well they provide captioning and it’s an illuminating read.

‘…it’s a blame game. Apple blames studios. Studios blame Apple. Nothing gets done,’ codeman38 says, and the same holds true for broadcast. While the networks and cable providers have captioning available, individual stations decide whether or not to offer it in their markets. That’s why, for example, some of my readers at this ain’t livin’ report that Glee airs without captioning while others say it is captioned.

Deaf and hard of hearing folks have been campaigning hard for captions for a long time. Marlee Matlin is a major champion of captioning for online content specifically. Captioning is a huge accessibility issue, especially online, where sites routinely provide video that is not captioned or described. This isn’t just a problem for folks who are Deaf and hard of hearing. It’s a problem when content is only accessible in certain countries; if I post a Hulu video, for example, only people in the United States can view it. It’s a problem for people with visual impairments, for people who have difficulty watching and processing video, for people with bandwidth restrictions, for people who are at work and don’t want to disturb people. There are all kinds of compelling reasons to make captions and descriptions of video content universal.

Apple claims to be ‘committed to accessibility.’ Yet, like a lot of companies and websites that talk a pretty talk about accessibility, Apple falls short of actually living up to the claims.

The Internet is an accessibility nightmare, and very few people seem concerned about it, unless they have disabilities that make interacting with digital content challenging. When Marlee Matlin can’t convince Apple to commit to captioning all of its content, how can unknown disability rights activists hope to accomplish it? When numerous campaigns pleading for accessible content get ignored, when captioning is considered a ‘special feature,’ it sends a very clear message. That message is: We don’t care about you. We don’t care if you can access our content. You are not someone we are interested in having as a viewer, reader, or customer.

What can we do about this? Well, we could start by sending a clear message to companies that don’t care about accessibility issues. How would Apple like it if customers boycotted content that wasn’t captioned? How would Hulu like it if people refused to watch or link to videos that were provided without captions? How would the networks like it if people canceled their television service until local affiliates started using captions? If folks who don’t need captioning still identified it as an important feature or even a dealbreaker, companies that aren’t providing it would start to take notice and do something.

Putting the onus for accessibility on the people who need accommodation is unreasonable. And it makes the problem seem like one that only applies to ‘those people.’ The toleration of the attitude that it’s ok to routinely deny access to a group of people is what leads to widespread inaccessibility.

©2012 FWD/Forward. All Rights Reserved.