Captions for YouTube - A great benefit for the deaf

This just in from Webware: "In a move to make videos easier to understand without volume or for the hard of hearing, YouTube has given users the option of embedding closed captions." This is great news for the deaf and hard of hearing; YouTube has 34% market share according to ComScore, and I'm betting this figure doesn't include much of the deaf population. And this might not change if video makers don't choose to add captions to their videos - I'm guessing not many will, unless they understand the added benefit of captions for those with disabilities, or even non-English speakers.

There are a small handful of content providers already including closed captioning in their videos, including CNET, MIT, and the BBC. It would be great if broadcast networks (ABC, Fox, etc.) would do the same. Do we really need more regulations to make this happen? Just do the right thing!

Now how do we get podcasts to be captioned, too?

Watch your Tongue!

I'm always on the lookout for new devices. This one could revolutionize the field of assistive technology. It's called the Tongue Drive System. It's a tongue control pad, currently in advanced research at Georgia Tech, that could potentially be used to help quadriplegics control more of their equipment, including a computer, a wheelchair and any assistive technology they might use. The tongue is a serious muscle, and is attached to the brain, not the spinal cord, which is why it will work for those disabled from the neck down. TDS works by placing a magnet under the tip of the tongue, and the tongue operates like a virtual mouse, sending data to a receiver worn on the top of the head. The data is processed by software that converts the movement into commands. Researchers also envision moving beyond the tongue to "turn teeth into keyboards and cheeks into computer consoles," according to the Associated Press. Sure, the prototype is ugly, but early prototypes usually are. Design and software gurus will eventually be swept in to make TDS a viable option to the 'sip and puff' system (issuing commands by inhaling and exhaling into a tube). I like the fact that the magnet is removable. I can't imagine it being very comfortable, but I hope I'm proven wrong. (Look closely to see the man's tongue in the photo.) This research is being funded by grants from the NSF and the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, and I'm confident we'll see sprouts of success for this system.

Finding the Right Way To Disclose a Disability

This article that I wrote was published in today's WSJ in the Careers section. Here's an online version: Finding the Right Way To Disclose a Disability. I wrote this article because people often ask me if they should disclose, and I'm a believer that it will do more good than harm, as long as you choose a good company and understand how to approach your boss with the types of accommodations you require. I have a disclosure poll up on this blog that you can vote on - I'd appreciate knowing all your opinions.

What I Have in Common with a Ugandan Boxer

A New York Times Saturday profile, A Blind Boxer Inspires Uganda on Bashir Ramathan, a blind boxer from Uganda, sparked my interest, not just for the awe-factor: "Wow, a blind boxer!" but rather because of a statement he made towards the end of the article. Listing the good fortune that has befallen on him since his newfound fame on the boxing circuit, Mr. Ramathan said to the reporter that he would give it all up for two working eyes.

"They think I’m doing this for attention or for money. But I’m not pretending. I want to see, like them."

This is how a lot of driven people with disabilities really think, including myself. I'm a disability writer, but I'd give up a a graduate degree and professional writing career -- and yes, start over -- if I could have hearing in my two ears. I'm not regretful about my disability, but this kind of passion that I have for writing about disability topics stems from a life of being an outsider.

If I didn't have a disability, I'd still be a writer no doubt. But I have always wondered if I would be a better one. I'd have like to have tried my hand at investigative reporting for the New York Times or Washington Post, the kind that wins Pulitzers. Or I might have enjoyed the newswires, even, with their fast-paced days and tight deadlines. On the other hand I know of a deaf journalist in Chicago who is a Book reviewer (though he's probably not employed anymore, considering the demise of Chicago newspapers these days.) I didn't want to be a book reviewer when I started my career because it's basically an editing job, and I wanted to be a reporter. Two totally different jobs, as any journalist will tell you.

Mr. Ramathan is following his passion, despite his disability. Bravo, bravo. He tells the New York Times that his plan now is to start his own worldwide blind boxing league. I wish him all the best.

Tropic Thunder: Oh, No, Here We Go

Ben Stiller’s new movie Tropic Thunder was written as a parody of actors who will go to any lengths to advance their careers. In one of the subplots, Simple Jack, we hear repeated use of the word "retard." One of the movie's lines is, “Are you a full retard?”

A coalition of disabilities groups believes Stiller went too far with the film’s repeated use of this term, which they're calling the "r-word." Special Olympics chairman Tim Shriver and others have asked the movie’s studio, Dreamworks, to cut references to “retard”, but Dreamworks has refused. Now the coalition wants Tropic Thunder banned from theaters.

The word “retard” is hurtful to many people in America who have a mental disability, just like the “n-word” is insensitive to African Americans. In focusing his anger on a word, Shriver misses an opportunity to stand up for a more positive cause: The advancement of Americans with disabilities, despite their physical or mental limitations.

Starting with the Civil Rights era, America has provided special protection to racial minorities and women; protection that has been extended to the disabled through the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. There are good and bad points to such protective measures. For instance, the ADA has helped curb discrimination in the workplace, made private and public spaces more accessible, encouraged technological advances and created opportunities for the disabled to live more productive lives.

On the other hand, Corporate America, Madison Avenue and Hollywood have smelled the money and cashed in on these measures, giving us Hispanic marketing, women in the boardroom and tear-jerker movies about triumphant disabled folks like Simple Jack.

Tropic Thunder exposes the satire of American idealism, where our government creates protective laws and America uses them to make ads, grow their stock price and win an Oscar. These are not terrible achievements until their roots are exposed by special rights’ groups.

Shriver wants to shut down a movie that jeers at the inherent, capitalistic outcome of disability rights. Instead he should use his public podium to remain focused on how fruitful the ADA has been for the disabled, such as for the Special Olympics and Paralympics, which have been recognized as a chance for athletes to compete against those with similar limitations.

Let's pull off the blinders and talk. We'd all like to be perfect, but some of us need a helping hand, or at least different benchmarks. The Special Olympics cannot exist in a vacuum, nor can we shine only an uber-positive light on the plight of people with disabilities. Just because the Special Olympics and Paralympics are off-limits to criticism doesn’t mean everything else should be, too.

Shriver says he fears that, because of Tropic Thunder, mentally disabled kids will be teased on the playground. Kids don't need movie lines to say cruel things, and Hollywood shouldn’t need permission from disability groups to jeer at the lengths society will go to make a buck.

It's not the “r-word” that's being debated here, but the good things we’re trying to accomplish as a nation while still maintaining our sense of humor.

The Really Difficult Reality of MS

I just finished writing a book proposal for a publishing company that wants me to write a book on Assistive Technology for those suffering with Multiple Sclerosis. The proposal itself really opened my eyes to the myriads of symptoms associated with MS, including numbness, difficulty walking and balancing, fatigue, vision and cognitive limitations, speech slurring, and more. I recently met with an executive at Pepsi who has MS and some of these symptoms. He showed me around his office, and showed me the kind of Assistive Tech that he uses to power his workday, such as Dragon NaturallySpeaking voice recognition with a wireless headset, as well as a power wheelchair. Pepsi is a really "disability-forward" company; they gave him a parking spot next to the loading dock so that he could slip into his office with ease, rather than having to park in the regular employee lot. Like many companies Pepsi does have handicapped parking spaces but few people realize that these spots still expose wheelchair users to potholes and slush and all those factors that can wreck an expensive power chair not to mention put the user in jeopardy of slipping and sliding all over the place.

Nike commercial with Oscar Pistorius

Watching the opening ceremony of the Olympics in Beijing last night, and was stunned by Nike's commercial, titled "Courage." It was an emotionally charged advertisement that celebrated past Olympics winners and other notable athletic accomplishments. I was very, very proud to watch the end of the commercial: South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius running across a field track on his blades.
Click here to see the ad: Nike Courage

According to Nike, "The commercial celebrates courage as the essence of the ‘Just Do It’ spirit," said Joaquin Hidalgo, Nike Vice President of Global Brand Marketing. "The fast paced cut takes viewers on an inspiring journey highlighting obstacles athletes at every level must face and overcome." Go Oscar!

My Wall Street Journal Article

This WSJ article that I wrote, Support Grows for Disabled Workers, appeared on July 22 in WSJ's Career Journal - the lead story. It was intended to be a news story about LimeConnect, a fabulous new organization that links qualified (college educated, driven) disabled candidates with jobs at Fortune 500 companies - mainly companies that are taking a stronger stance at hiring PWDs in order to help diversify their employee base as well as better reflect their changing marketplace. As the article notes: "Corporations are casting a wider net for good reasons. With the labor pool shrinking, U.S. employers will face a shortage of 20 million workers by 2020 as baby boomers retire. What's more, one out of every 10 consumers is a person with a disability, representing $200 billion in annual buying power, according to the National Organization on Disability in Washington."

Please have a read and would love to hear your comments. Another WSJ article coming out soon.

Article on BettyConfidential

So here is one of my first freelance articles that I wrote for a women's site, Bettyconfidential.com. The story is pretty basis, and discusses etiquette to use in the workplace when working alongside people with disabilities.

I'm back

I finally left my Communications job to focus on freelance writing. Working in a Fortune 500 is incredibly difficult with a disability.

For the hearing impaired, workplace options are expensive and cumbersome, such as video-conferencing, real-time captioning and oral/sign interpreters. All cost about $100-$200 an hour, which can add up. Employers can cite that the accommodation causes "undue hardship" on the company. It's a tricky solution, that "reasonable accommodation" law in the ADA. An employer would probably oblige to the cost if it were truly necessary, but it would cause logistical nightmares every time there was a conference call or meeting. There really needs to be a better infrastructure in place for the disabled in the workplace. In-house interpreters, for instance.

Response to NYT article on ADA

In the New York Times Sunday Magazine's "Unintended Consequences" (Jan. 20, 2008), authors Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt pose the argument that some “special-interest” laws, such as the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), may hurt the very people it intended to benefit.

Dubner and Levitt, who are also the authors of the best-selling book “Freakonomics” and a blog of the same name, give a qualitative and quantitative example supporting their case. First up: A Deaf patient from Los Angeles sought medical advice and treatment for her knee from Dr. Andrew Brooks. She asked the doctor to hire and pay for a sign language interpreter, and told him that she was well within her rights to do so under the ADA.

Brooks agreed to pay, but surmised that he'd lose money by treating the patient: "As it turned out, an interpreter would cost $120 an hour, with a two-hour minimum, and the expense wasn’t covered by insurance...That would mean laying out $240 to conduct an exam for which the woman’s insurance company would pay him $58 — a loss of more than $180 even before accounting for taxes and overhead."

I am also Deaf. Like the Deaf patient, I value my independence. During undergraduate and graduate school I asked for and got an interpreter for my larger classes and the college paid for it. Universities must do so under Section 504 of the ADA because nearly all post-secondary institutions receive federal funds. But Section 504 explicity says: "Although the student must request necessary accommodations, the institution must demonstrate that the accommodations it provides are effective."

In other words, a student may request a number of accommodations, but the institution only need provide accommodations that result in effective participation. So, for my smaller classes I chose to read lips. I even finangled a way for a classmate to receive extra credit for taking notes for me. And I used technology as much as I could to help me get through the every day.

My advice to the Deaf patient would have been to meet the doctor halfway. She might have helped to pay for an interpreter, or used an interpreter for the first couple of sessions. She might have had him write notes on his pad (Brooks did suggest this solution, but she refused.) She might have brought a hearing friend or relative with her. Even better, she might have used technology such as Instant Messaging (a universally accepted form of communication for both deaf and hearing people.) The good doctor on his Blackberry and she on her Sidekick. Fun, no?

There is one solution that would have worked perfectly, if the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would consider funding it. It's called Video Remote Interpreting (VRI). On this type of call, both the deaf and hearing parties can be in the same room and a sign-language interpreter will sign/translate from a remote location on a Videophone. It's currently offered as a paid service by Sorenson Communications, but it's cheaper than hiring an interpreter on site.

Sorenson does offer a free, FCC-funded solution called Video Relay Service (VRS). In this scenario, the doctor dials 888-FAST-VRS and connects to a sign-language operator who calls the patient on a Videophone. The doctor speaks to the operator, who in turn signs to the patient....the patient signs back to the interpreter....and the interpreter speaks her words to the doctor.

Several years ago I met the CEO, Jim Sorenson, when I was an Assistive Technology reporter at BusinessWeek. He's a smart and well-intentioned guy. I tried out the Videophone at the Lexington School for the Deaf in Queens, New York. I also sat in one of their new Videophone booths that is designed for public spaces, like universities and airports. The Videophone booth looks like one of those $3 photo booths at Coney Island -- sparse, but private.



At the end of the day, the Deaf patient's attempt to get her needs fulfilled (her way and only her way) is at odds with the spirit of the ADA and its "reasonable accommodation" premise. These types of situations could backfire and hurt others who are disabled, which is the argument that Levitt and Dubner make.

In the end, the Deaf patient didn't need the knee surgery. But I can't help but wonder if the doctor felt ambushed. Would he ever accept a Deaf (or disabled) patient again?

***

Dubner and Levitt’s next example from their article cites findings from two economists who say the ADA has had a negative effect on the employment of the disabled. “Employers, concerned that they wouldn’t be able to discipline or fire disabled workers who happened to be incompetent, apparently avoided hiring them in the first place,” Dubner and Levitt said.

I think Dubner and Levitt make a good case, but I am going to need to do some of my own research. I believe that employers are not as concerned about incompetence (a complete inability to function) as they are about the disabled employee’s ability to consistently perform a job to par.

That's because more of Corporate America has adopted Six Sigma, performance management systems and merit-based pool bonus structures. The result is that one person's performance is intrinsically tied to his or her team's output. Much like nobody wanted the handicapped kid on their Dodge Ball team, it has become harder for the disabled to be given a chance to prove themselves because the stakes are higher for everyone involved. Simply put, it's a trust issue.

That's why it is so pressing that people with disabilities go above and beyond to educate themselves and their employers about their disability. They must also capitalize on technological advances, such as video relay, text readers and speech applications, that will help them dispel notions that they can't pull their own weight for the team. What might look like incompetence is really just ineffectiveness -- because the person with a disability hasn't asked for or been given the right tools.

All in all, getting to par is possible and doable. But it takes chutzpah on behalf of the disabled employee, and education and understanding from the able-bodied boss that given the right accommodations, his employee can succeed.

The economists’ results were published in the Journal of Political Economy in 2001 -- nine years after the ADA was enacted -- but the data could be older than 2001. Advances in technology today and tomorrow will continue to help build the bridge between the able-bodied and people with disabilities in the workplace.

In summary, everyone should rise to meet the "reasonable accommodations" of the disabled. But the disabled should also take responsibility for ensuring their requests will be effective, are mutually accommodating and don't overstep the boundaries of the law's good intentions.

The Great Deaf Pepsi Super Bowl Ad

Welcome to Profoundly Yours. This is my very first post, so exciting! If you haven't read my profile already, here's a little about me. My name is Suzanne and I am a former journalist. I am also profoundly deaf. Hence, this blog is called Profoundly Yours.

I've accomplished much despite my hearing loss. Got an undergraduate degree (in Communications), a Master's (in Journalism), and then worked at BusinessWeek (you may have seen my column, Assistive Technology?) and the Wall Street Journal. I went on to write speeches at American Express and direct business communications for MasterCard.

Along the way (exactly six years ago) I received a cochlear implant. For the first time, I could use the telephone, tune into music, hear the rain tap-dancing on the street, the microwave's beep, the subway's windy whirl, and so much more. And while silence surely is golden, there's something to say for living life in surround sound. Plus, my eyes welcomed the rest. ;)

My implant has changed my life. For starters, it has made me "better, faster, stronger" (Theme from the Bionic Man!) as far as hearing goes. But more importantly, and to the point of why I'm writing today, it is an excellent example of how technology can help to bridge, or even eradicate, the inequity endured by people with disabilities in both the lifespace and workspace.

Today I'm returning to my roots as a writer and advocate for persons with disabilities. In reality, we are all ABLE -- some of us just differently so. There's a lot to be learned in this space, and I'm a big believer that technology (powered by human ingenuity and will) can take us further, faster -- just like it did for Bionic Man (and Woman.) So please tune in to Profoundly Yours for regular news and commentary.

***

It is the day of the Super Bowl game and I just read that there will be a Super Bowl Pepsi ad called Bob's House featuring deaf fans.

I think it's about time that people with disabilities are represented more thoughtfully in sports or other mainstream activities - whether as players or spectators/fans.

This is a good ad for many reasons: One of the characters in the ad actually works at Pepsico in New York, and they run a support network for people with disabilities called Enable. (I wish we had that at my company, which is just down the street from Pepsico.)

Also, in the ad the deaf characters are buddies who are trying to find their friend Bob's house on a dark street, but they forget which house is his. They banter (er, spat) with each other using sign language. This kind of candidness shows that Deaf people are like everyone else. The ad doesn't really even depend on their deafness for its humor; it would have been a funny ad if the two grown men, fighting over who lost the directions to Bob's House, were deaf or not.

But all is not lost, because the buddies use what I like to call "the pure ingenuity and innovation of the disabled." They honked their horn on Bob's street until everyone came outside to see what all the commotion was about -- except Bob. By process of elimination, they found their friend and were off to the games.

Even if you weren't deaf you could view the ad and understand the sign language because the ad used open captions. I wish all the Super Bowl ads had been captioned. Why is it that not all Super Bowl commercials are captioned? Here we are at the Oscars of advertising, in the final stretches of football history, and advertisers aren't putting out all the stops. Pepsi took a great leap tonight and I commend them for it.

Others couldn't even bother to CAP their commercials. (It costs extra, and the Federal Communications Commission doesn't require captions until Prime Time: 8pm to 11pm). I wonder it its because the game took place in Phoenix, which means the game started at 4pm, so they essentially found a loophole.

Not good business, my friends. Besides, even hearing people who were watching the game at a bar would have benefitted from the CAPS!! I am going to research this. Stay tuned.

PS: Did you know a Deaf football player at Galludet University in Washington invented the huddle? He didn't want the other team to see his "signing" as he delegated plays. The huddle turned out to be a solution that is used throughout the NFL today.