Op-ed: For the hearing-impaired, web’s multimedia revolution represents an old battle that shouldn’t have to be fought again

After corresponding with us about this issue, reader David Galitz agreed to write the following piece for the Daily Mole. (Thanks, David.) You can submit op-eds too: send to steve [at] dailymole [dot] com.

As a hearing impaired individual, I find myself following the birth of the new web media with frustration and concern. Beginning with Julia Child’s “French Chef” in 1975, it took over 35 years to achieve near universal closed captioning of television programs. Only in 2006 was the goal of 100% closed captioned programming (with certain exceptions) reached. Today, as increasing amounts of information and programming are being placed on the web in audio or video format, little of that content is being made accessible to the deaf and hard of hearing. For example, services such as Amazon’s Unbox, NBC’s Hulu, and Netflix all lack captioning support, and growing numbers of broadcasters are streaming their shows, news stories, and entire news broadcasts to the web without captions. Political candidates are also increasingly turning to the web with multimedia content. A quick check of the major Presidential candidates shows only Hilary Clinton providing captioned video content (on approximately 50% of the video clips).

Why does this matter? Ideally, it wouldn’t if web media were merely a new platform for distributing the same content found elsewhere. However, more and more of this audio and video is being provided as web-only content: “webisodes” of popular programs, exclusive webcasts of news broadcasts and reports, even traditional newspapers are getting into the multi-media game on-line. There is also new media and citizen journalism sites such as The Daily Mole, TheUpTake, and even YouTube, which promise to cover stories and perspectives that have been neglected or ignored by traditional media outlets in the past.

While the frustration of not being provided similar options to participate in and enjoy the same entertainment and cultural opportunities is significant, it is the potential lack of accessibility to the expanding news and information sources that concerns me the most, as that impacts the ability of the deaf and hard of hearing to be informed citizens on an equal footing with others. This a problem that I fear will only get worse if, as often predicted, we are in the midst of a paradigm shift away from traditional print and broadcast to the internet.

From a technical standpoint, there seems little reason for the current lack of online captioning. Most broadcast programming being repurposed to the web has already been captioned, authoring and editing tools exist that allow captions to be prepared the various video platforms, and the inclusion of the small text files needed for captions shouldn’t appreciably increase bandwidth requirements. The recently formed Internet Captioning Forum should provide additional resources for addressing technical issues.

The biggest obstacles appear to be a lack of awareness of the need for accessibility and resources. Awareness should be easily addressed through efforts like this one. The more difficult problem is resources: the small, independent operations, let alone the citizen journalists that will make up the new web media, are more likely to operate on much smaller budgets than traditional media. Factor in a splintering audience among the increasing number of new media sources, and the expenditure of time and money on content accessibility is apt to be closely questioned.

Access to current broadcast programming is guaranteed through FCC regulations mandating closed captioning. Unfortunately, any attempt to apply a comparable regulatory framework to the web is in for significant challenges, if not outright failure. First, the FCC authority arises from licensing and regulation of the airwaves: it is difficult to envision where a comparable authority would arise for online content. Second, the internet lacks the standardization found in traditional broadcast: while all of the major video formats (Quicktime, WMV, Real, and Flash) are now capable of handling closed captions, each one handles them differently. Finally, there is the sheer impracticality of enforcing such a mandate in an unregulated
environment.

As bleak as the present situation and outlook appear, there are some small signs of progress. PBS now provides captioned streams of their science program Nova, the new NBC direct also has captioned versions of some NBC programs, and Apple’s latest versions of iTunes and video iPods now support closed captions. I have also found, more often then not, the smaller new media sources to be responsive to suggestions for addressing accessibility issues: Ideally, if captioning is not an option, a transcript should be included for audio and video content. At a minimum, excerpts or summaries of the most important parts should be considered.

It is ironic that the internet, which initially served as an equalizer in communication and information access for the deaf and hard of hearing, now threatens to reverse many of the gains we have achieved. A democratic society such as ours depends on an informed citizenry for its survival, but also can impose a heavy toll on the success of individuals who fail to remain informed. It is therefore important, to ensure that as web media expands, perhaps even replacing traditional media outlets, those of us with disabilities are not abandoned and left to re-fight battles for accessibility thought to be in the past.

Closed captioning Multimedia The Web Web access