Movie Theaters Face Caption Lawsuit

A group of Washington state residents have filed a lawsuit to force movie theaters to make closed-captioned movies available more frequently to the deaf and hard-of-hearing, according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The Washington State Communication Access Project, who filed the suit, says more accessible entertainment should be available under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Movie theater oweners disagree, saying that they only need to provide access to the theater, and not to the films. This is a diplomatic way of saying they don't want to spend the money. I know because I wrote about this issue in 2001 for BusinessWeek; not much has changed eight years later. Movie theaters, backed by the Motion Picture Association of America, are reluctant to spend money to burn open captions onto films, which they say they could "drive away" hearing viewers. The current solution, rear-window captioning, requires a piece of Plexiglass that sticks into the soda cup and projects open captions onto the device from a special projector in the back of the theater. It is one of the silliest technologies I've ever used. Read about my experience at Jurassic Park 3 here: Read Any Good Movies Lately? As recently as six months ago, I tried to attend a rare, captioned movie at an AMC theater in New York City and waited patiently on line at the customer service center for the free Plexiglass piece. Nobody could find it. It took 15 minutes until someone figured out where the device was stored. I had to turn in my driver's license as collateral. Needless to say I was late to my seat and had to sit in the front row, where the captions didn't work at such an awkward angle. So I got a refund and left. Ironically, when I spoke to General Cinema spokesperson Brian Callahan back in 2001 he said this: "No one is in a position to spend $10,000 on a technology [rear-window captioning] that might be obsolete in a few years." Well, it has been eight years, Mr. Callahan, and we're still using them. It's time for an upgrade.

A New Dawn for Assistive Technology

Before I start blogging about the gadgets and devices that I discovered at the Assistive Technology Industry Association (ATIA) conference in Orlando, I wanted to write about something I have been chewing on for the last 24 hours, which has ultimately altered the way I am going to approach my upcoming book, The Illustrated Guide to Assistive Technology (due out in late 2009). While there were lots of cool, new technologies exhibited at ATIA, I also had the chance to attend a half-dozen seminars that, when tied all together, painted a fantastic yet mostly under-reported picture of the future of assistive technology and the driving forces that will allow people with disabilities -- whether they are born with one, have been injured during a war, or are experiencing the effects of aging -- to live longer and more fruitful lives. Here are five trends that today are shaping the assistive technology environment:

1. Globalization of access. A young boy in an African village uses an old cell phone, which provides the majority of Internet use among poorer people in Africa, to download books to teach himself to read and learn English. He also uses a global commodity trading site to benchmark daily prices of chickens and goats to sell and trade in his village. Whether this boy has a disability matters not, because he is still able to educate and employ himself using the power of the Internet that began in wealthy nations and is trickling down to the third world. Globalizing information to make it available and accessible to everyone, with or without a disability, regardless of whether they have a computer, is a philosophy that has recently been coined among a group of researchers as "Raising the Floor." This team is working to develop a free, open-source model among researchers and developers by which users anywhere in the world can log in to their profile, which has been customized for their Internet accessibility needs. The concept is similar to Google Language, but for accessibility and disability. With enough resources and dedication, its impact across the world will be astounding.

2. Universal design is the next green. Universal Design is a framework, in particular, for technology that is created to be usable by the widest range of people operating in the widest range of situations without special or separate design. For instance, a computer or mobile phone that has built-in access features for anyone with a sight, hearing or mobility disability, which can easily be turned on or off (similar to Microsoft OS Accessibility Options, which have improved substantially in Windows 7.) The Institute for Human Centered Design compares universal design to green design, saying that green design focuses on environmental sustainability, while universal design focuses on social sustainability. Universal design MUST be how companies design -- and consumers interact with -- technology in the future. Having assistive technology built into the process, not just the product, will effectively eliminate the need to distinguish between disabilities -- which is a cornerstone of global disability classifications -- and will also add more sustainability to products as users age or develop a disability.

3. Web-savvy grandmas. When our grandparents were senior citizens, they spent most of their time doing the typical activities: cutting coupons, traveling, finding the early bird specials, enjoying time with family, taking care of health matters, and so on. This hasn't changed, but the computer age has changed how we -- and the next generation of older Americans -- are doing it. The examples mentioned above all can be conducted online now, on websites like Redplum,com, Expedia.com, Yelp.com, WebMD.com. Meanwhile, programs like e-mail, instant messaging, Facebook, Twitter and Skype help us keep tabs on our family and friends. With 78.2 million baby boomers, there's a real need to make high technology accessible. Not only will this generation demand it, they will require it in order to continue their livelihoods. The aging population gives another dimension to the disability technology issue; this group will crack open the market for high-tech assistive technology, and create incredible opportunities for companies like Dell, RIM, Nokia, Google, and others to design technology without accessibility limitations.

4. iPhones of the future. As devices and gadgets become more sophisticated, technology will be more of a harbinger of productivity than ever before. Apple's iPhone, for example, allows you to be a multi-tasking savant: Find the cheapest gas station and a recipe for risotto while learning Spanish and booking a golfing trip? No problemo. (One of the newest iPhone apps is iSpectrum's Color Blind Assistant.) The only way to make these cool gadgets more accessible is to push for and utilize advancements in technology that are still in their pioneering stage, especially for mobile devices, like tactile multi-touch, alternative mouse formats (eye-controlled iPhone, anyone? Apple already put out a speech-enabled one), speech recognition, text to speech, closed captions, screen magnification, and the list goes on. New technologies work best when they're built in from the start, not retro-fitted.

5. America's disability agenda. Barack Obama is the biggest disability celebrity since Casey Martin, who successfully challenged the Supreme Court to use a golf cart on the PGA Tour. President Obama knows the facts: Under his watch he has 54 million Americans with disabilities, two million American children ages five to fifteen with special needs, and 60,000 U.S. service members who have been wounded or become mentally ill from battlefield experience. He has already laid out his agenda for helping people with disabilities succeed, which can be read here, and it includes boosting education and employment opportunities by providing resources such as assistive technologies. What's more, President Bush in September 2008 signed an amendment to the Americans with Disabilities Act that more strongly ties the ADA to Section 504, the civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities and requires schools and companies to provide equal access through accommodations and modifications, such as -- you guessed it, assistive technology.

Assistive technology is the hope on which the future hinges for large sections of American society as well as those in developing nations. Assistive technology, it can be argued, is as important to humankind as the protections we are putting in place for the environment as it protects people's creativity, productivity and intelligence from diminishing under artificial barriers. Assistive technology will level the playing field, raise the floor and open the doors. Millions of people will be knocking, and assistive technology will let them in.

NYT Features Two Disability Articles

Over the weekend I read two really interesting articles in the New York Times on disability topics. One was in a special report called Education Life, about a group of MIT students who created a video game for the blind. I had read about this game, called AudiOdyssey, when I was doing research a few weeks ago for a recent article. Most video games for the blind are designed just for the blind; AudiOdyssey is unique because it's the first game that allows blind and seeing users to compete against each other equally, without giving the seeing person an advantage. Using music as its central theme, the game follows a disc jockey whose objective is to get people in his nightclub onto the dance floor by pumping out great music that players mimic by matching his beat. AudiOdyssey can be downloaded here and played on a keyboard or with a Wii remote.

The other story I read was in the New York Times Sunday Magazine, about the coming-of-age of service animals for the disabled. Everyone knows about seeing eye dogs for the blind, but foals (small horses), for example, are also being trained to guide blind people and are considered less aggressive. The article takes an interesting turn when the writer introduces several people with disabilities who own exotic pets, such as a man with bipolar disorder who uses a parrot to calm him down when he has an episode. The article suggests that some animal owners with disabilities are going too far in trying to get special privileges for their pets. I don't believe that the ADA should be changed to allow all exotic animals like parrots and monkeys into restaurants and stores -- it's just too risky for the general population. But I do believe that there's room to thoroughly train and certify certain species so that they can continue to provide benefits to the disabled.

1/7/09 update: The author of the NYT magazine story, Rebecca Skloot, has issued an update on the Department of Justice's consideration of allowing animals other than dogs to be deemed 'service animals.' On her blog, Skloot writes that she received a leaked version of the DOJ ruling; it will ban all animals except dogs, though the regulation will include a special provision for miniature horses.

Palin's Disability Disappointment

A few hours ago I read about Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s first policy speech detailing how a McCain-Palin administration would help children with disabilities.

In Pittsburgh on Friday, Palin dotted her speech with references to her six-month old son, Trig, who has Down syndrome. Oftentimes, these are the most powerful moments in her speeches, where mothers of special-needs children come to her rallies desperate for a remedy to the educational and health-care failures that have plagued them over and over again. Special-needs children are “especially close to my heart,” she tells the crowds.

But Palin isn’t the answer. I repeat, she ain’t the quick fixin’ we’re all needin’ in the disability space.

Many months ago, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama published on his website a detailed plan to support disabled Americans. The four-point plan is designed to improve educational opportunities, end discrimination, increase employment rates, and support independent living for Americans with disabilities, plus any soldiers who might be disabled upon their return home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

GOP presidential candiate John McCain never published such a plan. Through his personal anecdotes, however, we know that he has a soft spot for veterans and that his running mate understands special needs. So what will McCain-Palin do for the 54 million Americans with disabilities?

• Palin said Friday she’d fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Obama has already pledged to do this.


• Palin would boost funding for special-needs children from birth to age three, marking a split from McCain’s pledge to freeze spending for most educational programs. So will they or won't they? Obama wants $18 billion in new funds each year to revamp education, including $10 billion directed towards kids zero to five years old.


• Palin pledged more funding to help parents identify a child’s disability earlier. Obama seeks universal screening for newborns and wants to set a national goal for re-screening two-year olds.


• Palin promised funds to find cures for disorders such as autism. Obama’s got that covered in his plan, too, and has a track record for doing so -- unlike Palin.

Here’s where Palin switches to politics. “Our opponent has an ideological commitment to higher taxes,” she says, adding that an Obama plan would tax special-needs trusts that families have set up to cover medical and other costs. There’s no mention of all the ways in which Obama would help the American disabled population thrive.

I understand how the GOP's lower taxes proposition can promote growth by spurring spending and job creation. But a huge benefit of helping the disabled is that it lifts most of disadvantaged America, too, through improved education more affordable college, expanded health care, and reducing the national workforce shortage.

I have a hunch that, under different circumstances, Palin would have made a fine appointee to the National Commission on People with Disabilities, Employment and Social Security. What's that? Oh, it's in Obama's plan. Check it out.

ADA Bill Passes with Flying Colors

President Bush on Thursday signed the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, a little more than 18 years after his father signed the original ADA. Bush's father stood by his side as his son signed the bill into law. Barack Obama, one of the bill's co-sponsor's, made a statement saying "it must be a priority for our government to do everything it can to protect and respect the needs of these Americans....Eighteen years ago, enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act was a historic milestone for millions of Americans when it was signed into law. It gave Americans with disabilities better access, more opportunities, and increased independence...While we still have much more to do, this law is an important affirmation of our commitment to Americans with disabilities."

For the record, McCain is a supporter of the 1990 law. Palin, who has a son with Down Syndrome, says she will work to "speed research" up. But it is unlikely that this will include more NIH funding and a reversal of the prohibition of stem-cell research if they make it to the White House. We also need health care plans that won't allow coverage to be leveraged merely for corporate profit.

Obama is the right person to jumpstart the conversation with businesses who can hire PWDs and with technology companies that can make simple adaptions in order for their products to be used universally. I also believe Obama understands from life experience what it's like to be marginalized, but also recognizes that American is a place of tremendous opportunity when you're given the tools to succeed.

And the debate is on again!!

ADA Amendment Strikes the Right Balance

Last August, the US Chamber of Commerce, an association of three million businesses, sent a letter to Congress opposing a bill that would amend the Americans with Disabilities Act. Calling it an essential "re-writing" of the Act, the Chamber said it believed such changes would open the floodgates for litigation by "virtually all of the entire working population in the United States " who believed they may have been discriminated against due to disability. "The bill would change the definition of 'disability' so that any individual with an impairment -- such as poor eyesight correctible by wearing glasses -- would be considered disabled and would trigger the employer's duty to accommodate them."

I wrote about disability discrimination litigation for BusinessWeek Online. In a famous 2002 case, Toyota v. Williams, the Supreme Court sided with Toyota Motor Manufacturing, which refused to tailor a job for an assembly-line worker who claimed she developed carpal-tunnel syndrome on the job. In its unanimous decision, the court held that Ella Williams' condition did not meet the ADA's definition of a disability because it had not "substantially limit[ed]" any "major life [activity]."

I agreed with the decision because I believe the ADA is designed to encourage employers to hire the disabled, who may have abilities that are perceived as not being on par as their able-bodied counterparts. (One leg missing is mostly irrelevant when you're smart and educated, but using it as a ploy to get hired is a problem.) In this case, a ruling in Ella Williams' favor might have enticed other U.S. workers to make specious claims, such as passing off an out-of-workplace injury as a disabilities case. There's a place for workplace injury claims. It's the federal Occupational Safety & Health Administration.

Today, one year -- and several Chamber-esque tweaks to the bill later -- the ADA Amendments Act passed Congress and will be sent to President Bush to sign. (His father signed the original ADA in 1990.) The revised bill offers better balance between protections for individuals with disabilities and the obligations and requirements of employers.

Under the ADA Amendments Act, the definition of a disability is still a physical or mental impairment that "substantially limits one or more major life activities." However, the legislation would expand coverage by making changes to the meaning of major life activity under that definition to include caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, working, and most importantly -- any "major bodily function". OK, so basically anything you do while you're alive, but Congress is hoping employees heed the spirit of the law.

I applaud Congress for expanding the ADA to include more life activities. The bill will give protections to those whose disablity is eposodic or may go into remission, such as someone with epilepsy, diabetes or cancer. However, we still needed strong architecture around the ADA or else it risked cancelling itself out. It's a law designed to protect those who need it in the workplace and lifespace. Which brings me back to Toyota v. Williams. I wonder if Ella Williams could win her case under the new parameters.

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.

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.