Showing posts with label update. Show all posts
Showing posts with label update. Show all posts

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Americans With Disabilities Act: Gov't Wants To Update ADA For Cyberspace

CHICAGO — Emergency call centers could be equipped to communicate by text message. Websites might need to be programmed to speak to blind users. Movie theaters might have to install technology to allow the deaf to read captions on small screens mounted at their seats.

These and other proposals will be on the agenda this week as federal officials begin seeking ideas for expanding the Americans with Disabilities Act. Twenty years after the law was adopted, the government wants to move the regulations beyond wheelchair ramps and accessible elevators into cyberspace and personal technology.

The updated regulations could mean sweeping changes across many industries and cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

An estimated 40 million blind and deaf Americans stand to reap the biggest benefits, including 43-year-old Peter Berg, who lost his vision to diabetes in his 20s. Using software that reads content to him, he can surf websites for work, check Facebook and pay his bills online.

But he hit a wall while trying to set up an account on a popular website that allows electronic money transfers.

"You needed to click on something, and it wasn't identifiable to the screen reader," said Berg, who provides technical assistance about the ADA.

The effort to update the law begins Thursday with a Justice Department hearing in Chicago. Additional hearings are scheduled for Dec. 16 in Washington and Jan. 10 in San Francisco.

The meetings are designed to gather input from the disabled and from industries that may be affected.

"We think it's important as a way to generate interest," said John Wodatch, chief of the department's disability rights section.

New rules could take effect as soon as 2012.

For more than a decade, the Justice Department has interpreted the ADA to apply to websites that offer goods and services. But now that idea could be clarified, and timetables for compliance could be set.

Judy Brewer, director of the Web Accessibility Initiative at the World Wide Web Consortium, said the government is mainly addressing "parts of the Web in the U.S. that are involved in accommodating the public, which includes people with disabilities."

The cost for each site depends on its size, the type of content it offers and whether it's already designed using Web standards, said Brewer, whose agency is the Internet's international standards organization.

Website operators should be asking themselves what they could be losing in market share because they are "unwittingly putting up barriers," Brewer said.

A 2003 study commissioned by Microsoft found that 1 in 4 working-age adults has eyesight trouble, 1 in 4 has a dexterity impairment and 1 in 5 has difficulty hearing.

Websites are becoming increasingly accessible, in part because of lawsuits. In 2008, Target Corp. agreed in a California class-action settlement to pay $6 million to blind plaintiffs who were unable to use its site.

But what about personal photos on Facebook? Does Facebook have to make sure the photo content can be read aloud to a blind user?

Perhaps not. The Justice Department is considering making it clear that some personal, noncommercial content would not be affected.

Will some website operators resist the changes?

Disability attorney Lainey Feingold hopes not.

"Web accessibility should not be a new concept to any company with a website," said Feingold, who is based in Berkeley, Calif. And the ADA has an "undue burden" defense, which means that no company will have to make changes if doing so would require significant difficulty or expense.

"Fortunately for the millions of Americans with disabilities, making accessibility improvements does not cost a lot of money," she said.

The Justice Department also is considering rules requiring more accessible medical equipment in hospitals, nursing homes and clinics. That might include mammography equipment for women who cannot stand up, adjustable exam tables and mechanical lifts.

"We've got the ramps to get into the facilities now, but you can't get the exams," said Judy Panko Reis, a health care access policy analyst at the advocacy group Access Living in Chicago.

Some of the changes are likely to trigger a detailed cost-benefit analysis, which is required when the impact on the economy is likely to surpass $100 million. That figure is likely to be reached for the movie industry if theaters have to install accessible devices for the blind and deaf.

About 1 percent of U.S. theater screens already have that type of equipment. But expanding the technology to others could cost nearly $160 million.

Outfitting one movie theater with both captioning for the deaf and descriptive video devices for the blind costs $4,000 to $6,000, said Larry Goldberg, director of media access at WGBH, Boston's public television station, which holds a patent on a movie-captioning system called Rear Window. (The station pioneered captioning on television. Julia Child's "The French Chef" was the first program to be captioned.)

Many movie studios already are paying for captioning and descriptions for their top movies, Goldberg said.

"Theaters will argue that not every screen should be required to install systems," Goldberg said, but theater owners know changes are on the horizon.

John Fithian of the National Association of Theatre Owners said the organization plans to make comments at Thursday's hearing.

Some 911 systems are updating their systems to accept text messages, but cell phone carriers also must cooperate to make the system work.

James Soukup, emergency communications director for Durham, N.C., said those upgrades will cost $750,000 in Durham alone.

Marca Bristo, president and CEO of Access Living, said bringing the ADA up to date simply means applying it to "the basic activities of life."

"If you were to take these things away from the general population – things like watching a movie, surfing the internet, making a 911 call – there would be an outcry," Bristo said. "All we are asking for is what other people take for granted."


This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.


View the original article here

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

DADT update: Judge likely to refuse Government troops gay agenda

RIVERSIDE, California, a federal judge said Monday she learns to refuse a request from the Government to delay the order to put an end to the army to implement its ban on openly gay troops.

U.S. District judge Virginia Phillips said that it would revise the arguments of counsel for the Department of justice and render a decision as from Monday or Tuesday.

"My preliminary determination is to refuse the application for a stay," Phillips said at the beginning of the hearing.

Phillips said that the Government has not demonstrated that its likely to be detrimental to the troops or in any way impede efforts to implement the new regulations for the military to deal with members of the openly gay agenda.

If it rejects the request, the Department of justice officials say Obama appel.Experts administration say that they will be probably more favourable sites in the u.s. Court of appeals for the 9th circuit in San Francisco and, ultimately, the Supreme Court.

"Away it that decision Gets the presentation of the evidence in the Court judgment, more it is likely that courts will assume that military must have a vital interest at stake," said Diane Mazur, a Professor of law, as opposed to the policy.

The army has promised to comply with the injunction against the policy "not requested, not explain" also that his order remains in place.

Government lawyers had asked Phillips to suspend its agenda while they did call, saying that forcing an abrupt change in policy can damage the morale of the troops as they fought two wars.

The judge declared unconstitutional policy on 9 September, saying it violated the rights of freedom of expression and the right to petition the Government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the first amendment.

Phillips said the policy support military and instead of this preparation has a "direct and deleterious effect" on military by harm to recruit and demanding discharge members service with essential skills and training.

At the time, it has applied to both sides to give its contribution to an injunction and Monday, called "premature" Government's request She said that the Department of justice had much opportunity to modify her injunction before she ordered on 12 October.

Phillips also the Government did not evidence the trial to demonstrate how its agenda would cause irreparable harm to the troops.

Government Attorney Paul Freeborne stated that the Department of justice had no reason to present evidence that his order has fallen.

He said his injunction throughout the country is not realistic and will hurt the military effectiveness because it does not allow for sufficient time for the army to conduct training and education to implement the new regulations.

Freeborne "You are demanding that the Department of justice to implement a massive policy change, a change in policy that can be reversed by appeal," him.

A lawyer representing a gay rights group that brought an action challenging the ban in 2004, Log Cabin Republicans said the Department of justice has had six years to meet and do not have.

Woods ' Government now wants to continue to deprive us of their constitutional rights, and the Tribunal is not required, "said Phillips.Son group says more than 13 500 soldiers fired in politics in the era Clinton administration.

Richard Socarides, a former advisor to the Clinton White House on the rights of homosexuals, said that he does not expect Phillips to residence.

"It seems to have lost patience with the Government's position and me, which is reflected in its decision so far," said Socarides. "But they will probably go to the Court of appeal and Supreme Court and you'll see in a few days that this order was suspended.?

Act of 1993, members may investigate the sexual orientation of staff of the Department and punish for as long as keep themselves .the President Barack Obama stated that he wanted to act repealed at the Congress.

Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, a Republican and President of Admiral of the chiefs of staff Mike Mullen, top of army uniformed officer, both say they support lifting the ban .but the gates and Mullen also have warned that they would prefer to go slowly.

Gates has commissioned a study scan due December 1, which includes a survey of troops and their families.

President has agreed to the study of the Pentagon, but has also worked with Democrats to prepare a draft Bill which would have lifted the ban, pending review of the Ministry of defence and the certification of the army as the morale of the troops do not suffer.

That the legislation passed in the House of Commons, but was blocked by Republicans in the Senate.

Militant gay rights concerned than Republican gains in the midterm elections next month could make even more difficult to reverse the policy in Congress.

Obtain political HuffPost on Twitter, Facebook and Google Buzz! New HuffPost Hill newsletter subscribe!

This entry transmitted via the service for full-text RSS - if this is your content and you read on someone to another site, please read our FAQ page fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Article five filters features: After Hiroshima - non-rapport Cancer Catastrophe of Fallujah.


View the original article here