I was reading the news when I saw a mention of Congress in the process of legislation that would substantially enhance accessibility for the deaf and the disabled for the internet. Naturally, this got my attention.

Here’s the link if you’d like to read the bill for yourself: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h6320/show

For those who’re wondering, the bill has just been introduced. The bill currently is waiting to be scheduled for debate.

If you’d like a summary of what the bill potentially covers, read on!

• Require all VO-IP (Example: Vonage) equipment to be compatible with hearing aids
  • Pretty much this one is talking about phones that work through internet. Right now, landline phones are required to be compatible with hearing aids. Cell phones unfortunately however are exempt, meaning they don’t have to be compatible. The new bill doesn’t fix that. One step at a time, I guess.
  • Layman’s Terms: If the bill becomes law, people with hearing aids would finally be able to have VO-IP equipment that works fine with their hearing aids!
• Redefines ‘Telecommunications Relay Services’.
  • It’s just rephrasing the section, no big changes here.
  • Layman’s Terms: Same thing as old law, different words.
• Requires all VO-IP providers to pay taxes to the Telecommunications Relay Services Fund
  • Meaning, the funding for the relay services for the deaf would significantly increase. Excellent news! It also equalizes them with the other telephone service providers; they have to pay taxes too, so it wasn’t fair that they had to pay taxes to the TRS Fund while the VO-IP providers didn’t when they both basically were providing the same service, albeit via different methods.
  • Layman’s Terms: More money for the relay services!
• Requires all VO-IP equipment to be accessible by the disabled
  • Sometimes VO-IP equipment will beep to let people know there’s an event, such as an error, or whatever. This section of the bill, if it becomes law, would require manufacturers to from that point on include visual indicators for the deaf, and auditory indicators for the blind. Pretty good!
  • Layman’s Terms: If this bill passes, all VO-IP equipment will tell you visually if there’s an event, like a problem or something.
• Requires all VO-IP providers to make it so the deaf can use TDDs with their services!
  • No explanation needed!
• Requires that the VO-IP providers make all features that they offer to the hearing be also available to the deaf.
  • Think of call-waiting, forwarding, etc, etc.
• Sets up guidelines for enforcement of Accessibility Violations of this bill
  • Basically gives this bill teeth if it becomes law, so we can fight companies who try to avoid following the law! Good to know!
• Requires Government to have a database containing information of ALL accessible products
  • The government would have a website and/or a catalog that deaf people could browse though to find accessible products to buy and make use of. Great for me; I tend to depend on Harris Communications for that and their prices are high! This would also give significant competition to those in the accessibility industry since all of their products would be listed in one place! This bill also requires the government to make the effort to let EVERYBODY know about this source!
  • Layman’s Terms: No more searching for accessible products, now we can find info about them in a single source! And not only that, they’ll even make the effort to let the disabled KNOW about this source!
• Defines assistance programs such as Lifeline Link Up, etc as Services
  • Layman’s Terms: Simply redefining it, I suspect this would enable using the fund for broadband services; maybe this means free (or more likely cheap) internet for the Deaf so we’d be able to use our videophones. There was no mention of ‘broadband’ in the bill, so I can’t be too sure as to this part.
• Emergency Access and Real-Time Text Support
  • VO-IP and Relay providers, whether TDD-based or IP-based (such as Video Relay Services, or IP relay services), would be required to set it up so people can dial emergency numbers, and also have highly efficient text-based conversations when via IP relay or TDD, ensuring no delay is caused.
  • Layman’s Terms: Now we don’t have to worry about emergencies; we can dial 911 using any kind of relay service we want.
• Majority of internet video media must be captioned!
  • No explanation needed, but this part is my favorite part!
    • Note: I doubt YouTube would be captioned. Some may be, but most wouldn’t. I think this law would be applicable to video distributors, and YouTube doesn’t distribute the video media, the users do. So chances are, this section would be applicable to companies, politicians, organizations, and so on. Individuals and movies distributed on a personal basis would most likely be exempt from this. For those, there’s always Bill Creswell.

This bill is definitely a much needed addition to the ADA. Your thoughts?

As some of you may know, I’ve been in contact with the Obama administration regarding captioning all of their video media on their website. I got a response from them:

Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting us about closed captioning of video on our website.  We appreciate your message, and work hard to make our website accessible.
To find a selection of videos with closed captioning, please click here:
http://www.barackobama.com/closedcaptioning/
Thank you again for contacting us.
Sincerely,
Obama for America
—————————–
Paid for by Obama for America

While I’m grateful that they caption most of the media, I find it objectionable that they find it necessary to shunt deaf viewers off to a separate unorganized page full of captioned media. I would think it’d be more preferable to the deaf community that they instead just make captioning available on all of their media in their own respective locations, so deaf people can read the relevant articles, and view the media in the same location.

A reader, Bill Creswell (who is also a captioner himself) pointed out:

I believe he has to request Project readOn to have his videos captioned.

Probably means that the most current videos haven’t been captioned yet.

Then he went on to cite an interview in where Project readOn stated:

For instance, the political partners on our site have formed a simple ‘business agreement’ with us whereby we will caption 100 minutes of content for free, and then after that point they pay a modest amount to cover the costs of the captioning. This offer is open to any candidate, so we believe there is no reason that EVERY candidate shouldn’t use our service! We can’t caption their content without their permission, so this is an arrangement that we feel can benefit everyone.

Wait… “modest”? Now I’m wondering just exactly how much this “modest” amount is. But even then, their claim that they cannot caption their media without their permission; I’d have to beg to digress. The election-related media, if released by candidates via their websites, are pretty much released into the public domain. Add into the fact that the video media that they put on their website gives viewers not just the ability to obtain a link to the video, but also an embed code that would allow any user to embed the videos on their own respective websites. To me, that’s pretty much all any captioner would need to verify that they have permission to add captioning to it. As long as the captioning was precisely captioned word-for-word, I see no reason why this would pose a legal hazard. So Project readOn’s claim is groundless. Then add in the fact that Project readOn adds their logo to the videos that they caption not just at the bottom of the video, but also in a large image at the end of the video. This constitutes as free advertising. Personally, I think the free advertising should be enough payment for them to caption it. Asking for monetary compensation WHILE adding advertising into the mix is very much so a highly questionable business practice.

I responded to Bill Creswell saying:

But still, if the television stations can run captioning even for the sections that are live, then I see no particular reason why they cannot caption the media on their site so the deaf can view those media at the same time as the hearing rather than being forced to wait until they get around to having it captioned. Perhaps they should hire an in-house captioner?

Don’t get me wrong, I sincerely appreciate their even captioning it at all, most candidates usually don’t bother. But still, I’d like to encourage Obama’s administration to adopt a “full prompt accessibility” approach rather than a partial one.

A big thank you goes out to Bill Creswell for shining more light on the captioning situation.

In any case, I was going to send an email response to the Obama administration saying pretty much what I just said in this blog post, but I saw the “To:” field saying: “Obama for America Correspondence Team no-reply@barackobama.com”. Wait a minute, no-reply? Meaning they don’t accept email replies? Crazy. I went to their website, and sent it from their form. As soon as I get a response, I’ll be sure to let you know.

I’d also like to add that a reader going by the alias of MM posted a comment saying:

Our British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, launched a blog site for the ‘people’ to ask him questions, that wasn’t captioned or deaf accessible either, we wrote and asked why, he never responded, join the club!

Wow. Guess this is a global problem… Even so, I think that if we put our combined effort into it, we can make alot of changes for the good of the deaf community!

I noticed that most of the media on Barack Obama’s website was not captioned. They did have a webpage that contained links to several captioned videos, but that’s it: the rest of the website wasn’t captioned with the exception of the disabilities issue page. So… I sent a message to the Obama administration:

“There’s a problem with the videos on the site. Majority of them are not closed-captioned. I’m deaf, and I’m also a member of the National Association of the Deaf, World Federation of the Deaf, as well as the California Association of the Deaf. I think I can speak for the Deaf community when I voice our collective dismay at being shut out of your media, and would like to strongly encourage you to caption all of your media, and all of the future ones. Please?”

Got a response immediately after:

Dear Don,

Thank you for contacting Obama for America.  The volume of messages we’re receiving has gone up since Barack’s victory in Iowa.  While we cannot respond individually to over a thousand messages per day, the level of interest and thoughtfulness of the comments reflected in these communications are very gratifying.  Your thoughts on our campaign and America’s future are greatly appreciated.

Individual citizens like you are the foundation of this campaign.

…

Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,

The Correspondence Team
Obama for America

So in short, they’re saying thanks for the message, but don’t hold your breath waiting for a response. I shouldn’t be surprised. If the Obama administration actually gets around to responding, I’ll be sure to post their response here.

Or is he?

The media has been ripping him a new hole lately, and I’ve wondered at the truth of any of it. So rather than blindly endorsing Obama without finding out Obama’s feedback regarding those claims, I thought I would check with Obama’s website for their comeback.

For those of you wondering; McCain is just another Bush. More on that in another post. So if Obama ended up being undeserving of my vote, I’d simply toss my vote to Ron Paul and be done with it. Ron’ll probably never become president, but at least the vote wouldn’t go wasted.

In any case, back to the article.

—————–

Claim: Michelle Obama Says “Whitey” On a Tape

Status: No such tape exists.

Details: Link

Conclusion: Obama’s wife has never said “whitey”. And besides, why would she be a racist? Remember, one of Obama’s parents is white. Which pretty much means (not counting Michelle’s side of family), HALF of Obama’s family is white. So if she had said that term, she’d be insulting half of Barack’s family. I would find that highly unlikely she’d do that to Barack.

—————-

Claim: Barack Obama is a Muslim

Status: False. He’s a Christian.

Details: Link

Conclusion: For one, he was not raised as a Muslim. For two, beliefs are entirely up to each person. So now we’re discriminating against someone for their beliefs? I know plenty of Muslims who’re pretty good people. I can respect their choice of faith, as long as they respect mine. “Yeah, but the people who did the World Trade Center thing on 9/11 were radical Muslims!!!” . If you want to resort to stereotyping, fine. Those people were not the first terrorists we’ve had – surely you realize that. Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? Remember the Unabomber? Remember the shooting attack at the Empire state building? Remember Eric Rudolph (Olympic Park Bomber)? I could go on, but I have a point to make here.

Oklahoma City Bomber was Timothy McVeigh – religious faith: Christian!

Unabomber was Theodore Kaczynski – religious faith: Atheist!

The Empire State building shooter was Ali Hassan Abu Kamal – religious faith: Judaism (Jew) Islam!

Olympic Park Bomber was Eric Rudolph – and his religious faith was Christian!

Alright, so far we have two Christian, one Atheist, and one Jew Muslim terrorists. Let’s not forget the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the witch trials (especially in Salem) in America. All those three historical events are Christian. I could go on further with the Atheists, and the Jews. But I won’t – my main point here is; if we’re going to stereotype, then by definition, we would have to say McCain shouldn’t be president because he’s a Christian, because Christians have a dark and troubled history! Controversial, isn’t it, making that claim? How is it any different for Muslims then? Just because a religion has a couple of bad apples doesn’t mean it applies to ALL practitioners of the faith.

[Edit: I'd like to thank Rob for pointing out my error in thinking Ali Hassan Abu Kamal was a Jew, I did further research and determined him to be Muslim. Please accept my apologies for this error.]

In any case, a person is free to choose their religion: and Barack Obama has consistently chosen to be a Christian: so therefore he’s a Christian. I have personally dabbled in Islam, Wicca, Mormonism when I was a kid – does that make me an adherent of any of those three? I beg to digress. I’m NOT any of those three – and of course you’ll respect my saying I am not; so why can’t we also respect Barack Obama when he says he’s not a Muslim? Case closed.

———

Claim: Barack Obama won’t say the “Pledge of Allegiance”, and he won’t put his hand over his heart during the “Pledge of Allegiance”.

Status: False, and false.

Details: See for yourself!

Just skip to the middle of the video and you’ll see him leading the “Pledge of Allegiance” as well as having his hand over his heart.

I’d also like to add Barack Obama’s grandfather was a World War II veteran, and was the one who taught Barack Obama the “Pledge of Allegiance”. Obama says that his grandfather is the inspiration for his strong love of the United States of America.

———————–

Any more claims about Barack Obama? Feel free to comment on any of the bad stuff you’ve heard about him that I haven’t covered here and I’ll be happy to research into those for you.

More Information:

SDKLite update

A new version of the SDKLite will be released very soon with some highly anticpated features! First, is the EPOC gyro-head tracking, think of using your head to move the mouse on the screen! Second, is an update to the Espressiv Suite that now adapts to each user. Both of these have been added to the control panel and API specification.

Nice, now developers can play with gyro-head tracking and ability to have Espressiv adapt uniquely for each user! This should make for more interesting developments!

The Emotiv EPOC neuroheadset will be available for purchase for $299 from the Emotiv website and from select retail stores in late 2008, in time for Christmas 2008. The exact date will be announced later in the year.

In case you missed it, they’re saying that for those who didn’t reserve the headset in time, they can still buy it from some select retail stores probably in late November or early December (based on their saying in time for xmas). So if you haven’t registered, or don’t want to register, you still have an inkling of hope to grab your very own headset! Sounds cool!

There’s also one more truly exciting thing I’d love to share, but unfortunately Emotiv is still working out the legal issues pertaining to it; as a result, I can’t release it until Emotiv finishes working out the legal kinks. I can tell you though that it will prompt very interesting developments in the Emotiv SDK community!

As always, I’ll write here as soon as I hear more from Emotiv.