$&&(6672

08/7,0(',$

7(&+12/2*<%<3(23/(

:,7+6(1625<

',6$%,/,7,(6

National Council on Disability

March 13, 1998
National Council on Disability

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004–1107

Access to Multimedia Technology

by People with Sensory Disabilities

This report is also available in braille and large print and on diskette and audiocassette.

Publication date: March 13, 1998

202–272–2004 Voice

202–272–2074 TTY

202–272–2022 Fax

http://www.ncd.gov

The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent those of the administration, as this

document has not been subjected to the A–19 Executive Branch review process.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

March 13, 1998

The President

The White House

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of the National Council on Disability (NCD), I am pleased to submit a report entitled Access to

Multimedia Technology by People with Sensory Disabilities. The report was developed with the advice

of NCD’s Tech Watch Task Force, a group of experts in technology and disability from around the

country.

The rapid advances in technical capability and affordability are exciting. For America’s 54 million

people with disabilities, however, such technological developments are a double-edged sword that can

release abundant opportunities or sever essential connections.

On the one hand, they can be revolutionary in their ability to empower people with seeing, hearing,

manual, or cognitive impairments through alternative means of input and output to typical screens and

keyboards. This is true because digital information generally is not inherently visual, auditory, or tactile. 

Rather, it can be expressed in any of those forms with appropriate programming. This allows previously

inaccessible tasks to become possible and practical for individuals with disabilities, for example, a blind

person using a CD-ROM-based encyclopedia on a computer equipped with synthetic speech output.

On the other hand, technological developments can present serious and sometimes insurmountable

obstacles when principles of universal design are not practiced in their deployment. A distance learning

course broadcast over the Internet, for example, is inaccessible to a deaf person if a text transcript is not

also available.

This NCD report provides an overview of multimedia access barriers and solutions, including public

policy interventions that we recommend as part of an overall strategy to make the electronic bridge to the

21st century available to all Americans. Thank you for the opportunity to play the independent role that

our mission requires and to offer an assessment of progress and prospects in this area. NCD stands ready

to work with you and stakeholders outside the government to see that the agenda set out in the attached

report is implemented.

Sincerely,

Marca Bristo

Chairperson

(The same letter of transmittal was sent to the President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate and the Speaker

of the U.S. House of Representatives.)
ii
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY

MEMBERS AND STAFF

Members

Marca Bristo, Chairperson

Kate Pew Wolters, Vice Chairperson

Yerker Andersson, Ph.D.

Dave N. Brown

John D. Kemp

Audrey McCrimon

Gina McDonald

Bonnie O’Day, Ph.D.

Lilliam Rangel Pollo

Debra Robinson

Shirley W. Ryan

Michael B. Unhjem

Rae E. Unzicker

Hughey Walker

Ela Yazzie-King

Staff

Ethel D. Briggs, Executive Director

Andrew J. Imparato, General Counsel and Director of Policy

 Mark S. Quigley, Public Affairs Specialist

Jamal Mazrui, Program Specialist

Janice Mack, Administrative Officer

Brenda Bratton, Executive Secretary

Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant
iv

TECH WATCH

Chairperson

Bonnie O’Day, Ph.D.

Members

Eric Bohlman

Judy Brewer

Debbie Cook

Norman Coombs

Tim Cranmer

Cindy King

 Scott Luebking

Kelly Pierce

Paul Schroeder

Mitch Travers

Greg Vanderheiden

Staff

Jamal Mazrui
v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The National Council on Disability wishes to express its appreciation to Paul Schroeder, director

of the Midwest office, American Foundation for the Blind, as the primary author of this report. 

NCD also wishes to express its appreciation for the significant contributions made by staff of the

National Association of the Deaf, and by the many disability and multimedia specialists who

were interviewed for this report. 

vii

CONTENTS

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

USE AND IMPORTANCE OF MULTIMEDIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Definition of Multimedia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Use of Multimedia in the Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Benefits of Multimedia in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Use of Multimedia in the Workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Benefits of Multimedia in the Workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Importance of Multimedia Access for People with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

BARRIERS TO ACCESSING MULTIMEDIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Knowledge and Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Financial Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Access Barriers for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Access Barriers for People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Access Barriers for People Who Are Deaf-Blind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

SOLUTIONS FOR MAKING MULTIMEDIA PRODUCTS ACCESSIBLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Improving Access for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Video Description for Visual Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Improving Access for People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Captioning for Auditory Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Speech Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

VOLUNTARY EFFORTS TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO MULTIMEDIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Access Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
viii

Company-Led Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Industry-Led Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Web Access Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Advanced Television . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Association to Promote Access Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Information Infrastructure Standards Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

National Advisory Task Force on Multimedia Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Legislative/Regulatory Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Government Procurement of Accessible Information Technology . . . . . . . . . . 40

Implementation of the Telecommunications Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Copyright Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

PCTV Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

State Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Research, Education, and Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

APPENDIX A: FRAMEWORK OF MULTIMEDIA CATEGORIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

APPENDIX B: NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR VISUALLY

IMPAIRED AND PEOPLE WHO ARE DEAF OR HARD OF HEARING IN

THE UNITED STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Number of Persons in the United States Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired . . . . . . . 51

Number of Persons in the United States Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing . . . . . . . . 52

Use of Computers and the Internet by People with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

APPENDIX C: SURVEY OF EDUCATORS OF BLIND OR VISUALLY IMPAIRED

PERSONS WORKING WITH MULTIMEDIA PRODUCTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
ix

APPENDIX D: RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EDUCATORS OF PEOPLE

WHO ARE BLIND OR VISUALLY IMPAIRED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

APPENDIX E: QUESTIONS FOR EDUCATORS AND MEDIA SPECIALISTS OF

PERSONS WHO ARE DEAF OR HARD OF HEARING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

APPENDIX F: CURRENT MULTIMEDIA PROJECTS FOCUSING 

ON ACCESSIBILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Kiosks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

APPENDIX G: MISSION OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Overview and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Specific Duties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Consumers Served and Current Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Statutory History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

xi

PREFACE

In August 1994, members of the National Council on Disability (NCD) began meeting with

representatives of the computer industry to discuss the accessibility of graphically based software

for people with disabilities, particularly people with severe visual impairments. To obtain

ongoing information and advice about technology-related issues, NCD then established Tech

Watch, a community-based, cross-disability task force. The 12-member task force advises NCD

on issues concerning access to emerging technologies and helps monitor compliance with

relevant laws.

This report was commissioned by NCD on the advice of Tech Watch. It is an overview of

computerized multimedia technology, barriers to access for people with disabilities, and progress

to date on addressing these issues. The report concludes with recommendations to policy makers

and industry officials to solve problems raised in the report. 

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report by the National Council on Disability (NCD), an independent federal agency, focuses

on the barriers to use of computerized multimedia technology by a significant segment of the

disability community—people who have visual or hearing impairments—and recommends

actions that would reduce or eliminate those barriers.

Advances in computer and telecommunications technology have made it possible to combine

high-quality computerized video, audio, text, and images into attractive and compelling

interactive multimedia presentations. As this new information technology increasingly renders

the sounds, images, and textures of the real world in a virtual environment, people with visual or

hearing disabilities face a troubling, uncertain future in which opportunities for employment,

education, and recreation may be greatly enhanced or diminished as a direct result of new

technology.

Publishers, schools at all levels, employers, and a host of cultural and civic-oriented institutions

are grappling with multimedia technology. If a commitment to accessibility for all individuals is

not ensured now, individuals with disabilities, particularly those with sensory disabilities, will

suffer the loss of educational opportunities and employment options. On the other hand, a

commitment by the information technology industry to develop and support multimedia products

that are accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, and a commitment by government to

purchase only accessible products, will give persons with disabilities heretofore-unrivaled

opportunities to learn and contribute to society.

In an attempt to educate policy makers, manufacturers, and consumers about these issues, NCD,

through its Tech Watch task force, commissioned a study on multimedia access for people with

visual and hearing impairments. The research was conducted by the American Foundation for

the Blind (AFB) and the National Association of the Deaf (NAD).
2

People with sensory disabilities are especially concerned about access to computerized

multimedia programs because multimedia presentations rely on highly dynamic visual and audio

formats to present information to the user. Multimedia developers expect the end users of a

program to access both the audio and the visual information. However, because information

presented in each medium conveys only part of the message, these presentations are not fully

accessible to blind or visually impaired people or to people who are deaf or hard of hearing. The

highly dynamic nature of computerized multimedia further magnifies the access problems.

The most significant barriers preventing people with sensory disabilities from achieving full and

equal access to multimedia products are technological challenges, lack of knowledge and

awareness concerning access issues, and the costs involved in developing access solutions. In

some ways, the access barriers created by interactive multimedia technologies are not new. For

example, people with severe visual impairments have generally found it difficult to use or

understand fully visual images such as charts, photographs, and video. However, techniques

have been developed to facilitate the interpretation of these visual images through text or verbal

descriptions. Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing are not able to use aural output such as

beeps, speech, or music. However, closed or open captioning can provide access to aural output. 

Similarly, the use of computers to create multimedia information has both augmented and

diminished access barriers. For example, mouse movements or clicks often do not have

keyboard equivalents, so visually impaired people are unable to use particular features. The use

of bit-mapped text creates a barrier because it cannot be read by screen readers. Furthermore,

font sizes and background colors built into computer software may make it unusable by people

with low vision. On the other hand, designers of computer programs and World Wide Web

pages are able to enhance access by providing keyboard alternatives for mouse commands and

text descriptions of images and visual tools and by providing capabilities for enlarging text and

for alternative colors and contrasts.
3

Unfortunately, the current state of multimedia access for people with sensory disabilities is bleak. 

There is essentially no multimedia product available that has been shown to be fully accessible to

individuals who are blind, and very few multimedia products that are accessible to deaf or hardof-hearing people. While the outlook for access to multimedia for persons with low vision may

be slightly better, there is still cause for concern. Children and adults with low vision have been

able to use some multimedia products, but additional work is needed to achieve full access. With

respect to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, there is a general misconception that most

media are currently captioned. The statistics provided in this report clearly show that very little

of the content is captioned or made visually accessible in other ways. The limited amount of

captioned educational material is especially worrisome.

Some major producers of multimedia applications have begun efforts to improve access to this

technology. These are important first steps, but it is difficult to be optimistic about the speed at

which such access will be attained based on the history of access to other forms of media and

information technology—for example, the telephone, television/video, and the personal

computer. It took almost 90 years after the invention of the telephone to provide deaf people

with a means of access. Closed captioning of television was not initiated until 1980, and the vast

majority of cable programming remains inaccessible. People who are blind or visually impaired

must purchase add-on software and hardware to make personal computers accessible, and the

most common operating system and many popular software applications are still difficult or

impossible for these individuals to use. 

Despite the current lack of accessible multimedia products and the troubling history of unequal

access to information technology, there is room for guarded optimism. The methods by which

individuals with disabilities can handle the basic operation of multimedia products—launch the

program, select topics of interest, peruse material, terminate the session, and shut the system

down—are now relatively well understood, though not standardized in implementation. A few

notable mainstream computer companies and multimedia publishers are working on access

issues. Researchers are attempting to develop accessible demonstration products. The World
4

Wide Web Consortium is working on access issues. Recent legislation has included accessibility

language. Persons with disabilities are becoming more active in demanding access to

technology. Indeed, many of the gains made thus far, however slight, can be credited to the

power of consumer activism. 

Access to multimedia is just one of many difficult challenges faced by technology users with

disabilities, especially those who are blind, visually impaired, deaf, or hard of hearing. Few

would suggest that the problems surrounding access to productivity tools such as word

processors and spreadsheet programs have been solved. Even productivity tools that are voicebased (Internet phone and voice/speech recognition software) are generally inaccessible to deaf

or hard-of-hearing users. The issues surrounding multimedia access must be integrated into the

larger technology access picture. Multimedia content and delivery mechanisms are changing

every day. A coordinated, cooperative effort is needed to ensure equality of access to this critical

information technology. According to experts, the multimedia access challenges are not

insurmountable. There is widespread agreement among those interviewed for this report that a

lack of awareness of accessibility issues within the multimedia industry is the most significant

factor limiting the development of accessible products.

NCD recommends the following actions to address multimedia access problems: 

National Advisory Task Force on Multimedia Access

Based on the experience of the Texas Education Agency Task Force and the work of the Access

Board’s Telecommunications Access Advisory Committee, a national advisory task force

comprising representatives of industry, government, and the disability community should be

convened to work toward an agreement on accessibility guidelines for multimedia technology.

The U.S. Department of Education may be in the best position to convene such a task force,

because of the extensive use of multimedia in educational materials. Alternatively, the Access

Board may be an appropriate entity to carry out such an activity, drawing upon work it has done
5

developing accessibility guidelines under Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act and

(potentially) Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Some of the issues to be considered by such a national task force would include

 • organizational processes to ensure consideration of accessibility (universal design) at all

levels of product development and delivery;

 • built-in access versus access via assistive technology such as screen readers and

specialized input devices;

 • industry-based or government-established standards versus voluntary guidelines;

 • techniques for accessible input, output, and controls; 

 • methods to provide access to online help and product documentation; and

 • methods to ensure customer support for disability access.

Legislative/Regulatory Policies

Congress and the administration should develop and implement legislative/regulatory policies to

improve access to multimedia. For example, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act should be

strengthened to promote access through government procurement of accessible information

technology, exemptions from copyright restrictions to add accessibility through captions or video

description, and tax credits or other financial incentives to support and promote the development

of accessible multimedia technology.
6

Universal design concepts should be included in industry standards and guidelines for

multimedia products. Technology industries are changing at a revolutionary pace. It is important

that access issues be incorporated into new standards as early as possible if universal access is to

become the rule rather than the exception. The Access Board’s Telecommunications Act

Accessibility Guidelines and the ongoing efforts of the World Wide Web Access Initiative

provide encouraging examples of efforts to improve access to information technology. 

Multimedia-related standard-setting activities should be expanded to stimulate accessibility.

Government Procurement of Accessible Information Technology 

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires federal agencies to comply with accessibility

guidelines in the procurement of information technology. Enforcement of this law has proven

inadequate, and many federal agencies purchase information technology that does not comply.

Recently, amendments have been introduced in Congress to increase compliance with Section

508. For example, H.R. 1255, the Federal Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility

Compliance Act of 1997, would require federal agencies to certify compliance annually, with

oversight by the Office of Management and Budget. A companion bill has been introduced in

the Senate. Efforts are also under way in the Senate to expand the scope and enforcement of

Section 508 by assigning authority to the Access Board for regulations. The as-yet-unrealized

intent of Section 508 has been to take advantage of the purchasing power of the Federal

Government to create a market-based incentive for the production of accessible technologies and

to ensure that they are usable by the 145,000 federal employees with disabilities.

Implementation of the Telecommunications Act

The legislative history of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 clearly shows that Congress

intended the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate Section 255, Access by

Persons with Disabilities. At the time of this publication, however, the FCC has not issued or

even proposed such regulations. The unfortunate result is that new telecommunications
7

technologies and services, many of which are multimedia in nature, have been emerging each

week without significant attention to universal design. The FCC must fully and speedily exercise

its authority in this area to prevent unnecessary barriers to people with disabilities on the

burgeoning information superhighway.

Copyright Reform

In 1996, Congress enacted legislation that eliminated the need to obtain the permission of

publishers or copyright owners if an authorized entity wishes to reproduce or distribute a nondramatic literary work in a specialized format for the exclusive use of blind persons or others

with physical disabilities. The law defines authorized entities as nonprofit organizations or

governmental agencies whose primary mission is to provide specialized services related to the

training, education, adaptive reading, or information access needs of blind or other persons with

disabilities. “Specialized formats” specifically include braille, audio, or digital text exclusively

for use by blind or other persons with disabilities. “Blind or other persons with disabilities”

means individuals who are eligible to receive specialized library services under definitions used

by the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped of the Library of

Congress. 

To date, no similar exemption from the copyright requirements exists for adding captioning or

video description. Accordingly, it remains extremely burdensome to add captions or video

description to copyrighted works, including videotapes and computer media, needed for

instructional programming. Often, obtaining such permission can take upwards of six months,

eliminating entirely the benefits of such materials for educators and students during a given

semester. Legislation granting an exemption from copyright restrictions in order to reproduce

such materials for the purpose of adding accessibility through captions or video description may

be a useful step. 
8

Incentives

Tax credits or other financial incentives could be crafted to support and promote the development

of accessible multimedia technology, especially technology designed for employment or

education. For example, the R&D Tax Credit was originally signed into law in 1981 as part of

the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA, P.L. 97–34). Corporations received a tax credit

ranging from 1.65 percent to 20 percent for qualified R&D expenditures (QREs) that exceeded a

certain fixed base amount. QREs had to be technological in nature and relate to the development

of new or improved business products. This credit expired on May 31, 1997. Industry-supported

efforts are under way to make the credit permanent. To the extent that incentives are continued

or expanded, companies receiving incentives must be held accountable for their disability access

obligations, including those under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the

Telecommunications Act.

PCTV Accessibility 

Many personal computers now have television circuitry that enables the computer to receive and

display television signals. In March 1995, the FCC issued a ruling requiring computer systems

that have the capability of receiving television signals and are sold with monitors that have a

viewable picture size of 13 inches or larger to have built-in circuitry to decode and display closed

captions. The FCC has based its ruling on the requirements of the Television Decoder Circuitry

Act of 1990. The FCC’s ruling exempted (1) computers that are sold without monitors but that

have television reception capability and (2) separate plug-in circuit boards that can be used to add

television reception capability to an existing personal computer. In December 1995, several

consumer organizations representing deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals filed a petition for

rulemaking requesting that the FCC require all computer components with television reception

capability—whether or not such components are sold with a monitor—to be equipped with

circuitry capable of decoding closed captions. This petition is now pending in the FCC’s Office

of Engineering and Technology.
9

State Action

Texas has taken a leadership role in analyzing and attempting to remove the access barriers posed

by multimedia-based educational material. Texas was an early adopter of legislation designed to

advance the availability of braille textbooks, including a requirement that publishers provide

electronic versions of textbooks for braille production. Subsequent concerns about access to

multimedia textbooks led to the Texas Education Agency’s convening a task force to address

access to multimedia material. On June 20, 1997, Texas governor George W. Bush signed

Senate Bill 294, which calls for a study of the costs and benefits of using computer networks in

Texas schools and creates a subcommittee to “investigate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of

developing electronic textbooks that may be used by students who are blind or have other

disabilities.” It is conceivable that the state will eventually require electronic textbooks to be

accessible.

Research, Education, and Collaboration

Government agencies, private corporations, and foundations should conduct research on

information technology access issues and the development of solutions. People involved in all

aspects of the development of multimedia and other information technology should be educated

about access issues. 

Support is needed for research examining the technological and social issues surrounding access

to multimedia and other information technology by persons with disabilities and the benefits of

such access to individuals who are not considered disabled. In particular, research is needed on

ways to make visual and aural information accessible to individuals with sensory disabilities. 

Various government agencies fund research activities related to information technology and

disability access. Principal among these agencies are the National Science Foundation, the

Department of Commerce (National Telecommunications and Information Administration and
10

National Institute on Standards and Technology), and the Department of Education (National

Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research). These agencies should be encouraged to

fund further research into methods that enhance access to information technology for people with

disabilities.

Mainstream technology and multimedia developers, producers of assistive technology, disability

organizations, and research institutions should strengthen partnerships aimed at developing

access and usability solutions. Use of multimedia products and other information technology by

persons with disabilities is not well documented or understood. Mainstream developers who

now rarely include persons with disabilities in marketing or usability surveys must do so.

Furthermore, efforts to improve access and usability through assistive technology should be

improved. In addition, though experts differ on the extent to which multimedia products will

ever be accessible “out of the box” (built-in access does not appear imminent), efforts to improve

the accessibility of mainstream products must be greatly expanded.

The development, sale, and use of information technology involves many people—educators,

content providers, programmers, marketers, engineers, end users, and so on. If equal access to

multimedia for people with disabilities is to become a reality, knowledge and awareness will

have to be developed across all areas. Innovative methods to instruct those currently involved in

the information technology and multimedia industry about access issues and solutions must be

developed. The training and information dissemination efforts now being undertaken by the

Association of Access Engineering Specialists provide a good example of such innovation. 

Enlisting the support and interest of university faculty and other experts across many

disciplines—from computer science to publishing to education—is also important.
11

USE AND IMPORTANCE OF MULTIMEDIA

During the 1990s, multimedia technology has been a dominant focus of the computer industry. 

In its many forms, multimedia offers exciting possibilities for education and entertainment. And

of all the media types—text, image, audio, video, and animation—video continues to dominate

the public attention. In the past, computer-based multimedia relied on external laser disc players

for the video source. The focus has shifted to video delivered on CD-ROM and, more recently,

to digital video disc (DVD) and the World Wide Web. 

Definition of Multimedia

Definitions of the term “multimedia” vary widely and include the following:

 • “The use of more than one medium in a program or system such as the use of

audio, video, graphics, animation and computer data used together for a

program.... Multimedia means the joining of any two or more of these” (Santa

Cruz Technology Alliance 1997),

 • “Delivery of information, usually via a personal computer, that combines different

content formats (text, graphics, audio, still images, animation, motion video, etc.) and/or

storage media (magnetic disk, optical disc, video/audio tape, RAM)” (Interactive

Multimedia Organization 1996),

 • “A mix of sight and sound” (Bolnick 1997),

For this paper, because we are focusing on issues related to those who have hearing or visual

disabilities, we have chosen to define multimedia as technology that has the potential to be

interactive and that includes both aural and visual elements. See appendix A for an organizing

framework we developed as we attempted to circumscribe our working definition of multimedia.
12

Use of Multimedia in the Classroom

The use of multimedia in schools is still at an early stage but is continuing to grow rapidly. In

1995, more than half the nation’s schools lacked the electrical outlets to handle their

technological needs, and only 9 percent of classrooms had dial-out telephone lines (MSNBC

1997). According to a 1996 report of the U.S. Department of Education (1996a), only 4 percent

of schools had enough computers to allow regular use, and only 9 percent of classrooms

nationwide had access to the Internet. A study by Quality Education Data (1996) showed that 83

percent of school districts planned to increase their multimedia computer purchases during the

1996–97 school year at a projected cost of 4.1 billion dollars. Currently 46 percent of all U.S.

schools have connections to the Web, with an additional 21 percent predicting connection by

1998 (http://www.queddata.com). 

The goals of President Clinton’s and Vice President Gore’s Technology Literacy Challenge

include having a modern multimedia computer in every classroom and having every classroom

connected to the information superhighway (U.S. Department of Education 1996a). Half the

K–12 teachers in a recent survey said that students in their classroom are using a computer 10 or

more hours per week (Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association [CEMA] 1997).

According to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting/WGBH National Center for Accessible

Media (NCAM), CD-ROMs are used more than any other type of multimedia in the classroom,

and their use will increase, particularly for the teaching of science. Currently, CD-ROMs are

being used by more than 18,000 science teachers in the United States (NCAM 1997a). The

number of K–12 schools in the United States with CD-ROM drives increased from 13 percent in

1992 to 48 percent in 1995 (Apple Computer 1995). The Chronicle of Higher Education reports

that 76 percent of college and university classrooms are equipped for multimedia (Apple

Computer 1995). 
13

Distance learning is also on the rise. Historically, distance learning meant broadcasting a lecture,

usually on video or audio, to distant locations (Hall 1997). Distance learning, when conducted

live, can now be interactive. Desktop video conferencing occurs in real time and may include

“white board areas” where participants can communicate visually with each other through

writing or drawing. Distance learning has become widespread because of certain advantages;

including allowing students to take various classes that are not offered at their home school.

Benefits of Multimedia in Education

A report on technology use in education states that it can provide the following benefits:

 • enhance students’ achievement;

 • help students master skills required for the workforce;

 • serve as a motivational tool, improving attitudes toward learning, confidence, and selfesteem;

 • enhance ability to remember and understand material;

 • enhance organizational and problem-solving skills;

 • help students become independent learners and self-starters;

 • increase family involvement in children’s education; and

 • improve skills and knowledge of teachers (U.S. Department of Education 1996b). 

Studies have found that students using technology have a distinct advantage over similar students

who are not using technology. For example, it has been found that students perform much better

than their peers on basic skills tests if their classes use computer-assisted instruction (U.S.

Department of Education 1996b). A study by the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers

Association (CEMA 1997) showed that 96 percent of teachers believe that computers are

effective teaching tools and that children enjoy working with computers and their grades tend to

improve when using this medium. FIND/SVP reports that children in households with personal
14

computers watch less television because they are using the PC; this finding is even stronger for

households that have PCs with multimedia capability (Apple Computer 1995).

Use of Multimedia in the Workplace

The use of computer technology in the workplace is also increasing rapidly. In a 1996 survey of

the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), 73 percent of training

professionals said that computer skills are “essential for employment” (Bassi, Gallagher, and

Schroer 1996). By the 21st century, it is predicted that 60 percent of U.S. jobs will require

computer skills (U.S. Department of Education 1996b).

Multimedia products are being used increasingly for formal training in the workplace. Lakewood

Publications conducts a study of training in the workplace each year, surveying representative

companies across corporate America. In 1996, they found that 37 percent of companies use CDROMs for some or all of their training, 22 percent use a company intranet, and 15 percent use the

Internet (there was some overlap in responses). In addition, 10 percent use commercial satellite

distance learning and 5 percent use company-owned satellite distance learning (Hamrin 1997). 

Brandon Hall, editor of Multimedia and Internet Training Newsletter, explains that Web-based

training is not as popular now as CD-ROMs because of limited bandwidth; this limitation is

expected to be overcome in the near future (Hall 1997). According to EMedia Professional

(January 1997), Datamonitor USA reported that sales for multimedia training products for the

business sector will reach $8 billion by 2005, with an additional $2 billion in home markets. In

addition, EMedia Professional (February 1997) cites figures from Frost & Sullivan showing that

the videoconferencing market is expected to reach $35 billion by 2002, increasing at an annual

rate of 42 percent.

ASTD reports that in one year (1994–95), the percentage of technology-related training time for

training organizations increased from 22 to 31 percent. It also reports that 75 percent of these

organizations used interactive multimedia computer-based training in 1995, a large increase from
15

53 percent the previous year. Also in 1995, 55 percent of training organizations used televised

distance learning; 83 percent of organizations expect to use multimedia CD-ROMs in the future,

and 81 percent expect to use the Internet for training (Bassi, Gallagher, and Schroer 1996). 

Benefits of Multimedia in the Workplace

ASTD reports that the use of technology in training is less costly than traditional training and

allows workers to get training when and where they need it, leading to better work performance

and fewer work interruptions (Bassi, Gallagher, and Schroer 1996). Hall (1997) says that the

average time to train someone via computer is about half that of traditional instructor-led

training, saving on both time and cost.

ASTD (1996) also reports that, when comparing multimedia training with traditional computerbased training, the majority of organizations feel that multimedia training provides better results

in five areas they were questioned about: knowledge outcomes, performance outcomes, overall

return on investment, retention, and instruction completion times.

Importance of Multimedia Access for People with Disabilities

In a series of interviews, numerous experts expressed the view that multimedia access for people

with disabilities has become extremely important because it is being so widely used in

educational settings and the workplace. George Kerscher, research director with Recording for

the Blind and Dyslexic (1997), points out that almost all of the money now being spent by

education publishers for research and development is going toward multimedia. Microsoft’s

David Bolnick (1997) adds that multimedia “is going to be everywhere.” He notes, for example,

that textbooks being provided in multimedia format will be updated much more rapidly than print

books have been in the past. According to Larry Scadden of the National Science Foundation

(1997), multimedia is “becoming the dominant part of the educational system and it will continue

to grow. Disabled children don’t have full access to instructional materials, and blind people are
16

the ones who are missing out the most.” The impact on children and teachers with disabilities of

not having multimedia access will become greater and greater. “It’s slowing down the

educational process and it’s putting the blind kids at a greater disadvantage than they’ve had in

quite a while,” added Scadden.

Mary Ann Trower (1997), an education specialist with Edmark, echoes this concern, noting that

multimedia is “a different way of learning and brings forth different concepts” and that disabled

children will miss out if they cannot participate. In an interview, Tom Wlodkowski (1997) of

NCAN spoke about the specific example of increasing numbers of students conducting science

experiments using interactive multimedia CD-ROMs, and he laments that “blind students are

locked out” of this activity. The importance of access to multimedia products is also emphasized

by James Allan (1997), an instructor at the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired,

who notes that access to multimedia is “a critical need for anyone in any area of life” and that

“having access to information can make or break you.” 

In discussing future trends, Kerscher believes that multimedia products will be written in

Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), and it will not matter whether the delivery medium is a

CD-ROM or the Internet. Currently transmission speed and capacity limit the amount of

multimedia that is available over the Internet, but Kerscher is confident these issues will be

overcome in the next five years. He also feels that schools will be using the Internet more and

more and that increasing numbers of children will be educated at home with multimedia

technology. He refers to the Internet as “the blackboard of the future.” Scadden adds that there

is time to avoid a crisis, especially with respect to access to the Internet, because the World Wide

Web Consortium is interested in these issues and will provide guidelines for HTML

development. CD-ROMs, though, will still be much more of a problem in the future. Similarly,

Allen believes that the Internet is more likely to become accessible than CD-ROMs, because the

Web Access Initiative is bringing Web stakeholders together to create standards for accessibility. 

He is not aware of any similar effort focusing on CD-ROM accessibility.
17

BARRIERS TO ACCESSING MULTIMEDIA

The most significant barriers preventing people with disabilities from achieving full and equal

access to multimedia products are lack of knowledge and awareness among multimedia

companies and the market they serve concerning access issues, the costs involved in developing

access solutions, and technological challenges. Because the technology-based barriers and

solutions involve targeted efforts to meet the needs of specific sensory disabilities, these will be

discussed separately by disability.

Knowledge and Awareness

Probably the most often repeated reason for lack of accessibility of multimedia is the fact that

software providers are largely unaware of the issues. IBM’s James Thatcher (1997) believes the

main reason for lack of accessibility is that software developers have not been educated in

accessibility issues. In fact, he says that when developers do learn of access issues they are, in

general, “both excited by and interested in learning how to make their products more accessible.” 

Kerscher echoes this view, suggesting that developers simply do not know how to make their

products accessible. According to NCAM’s Madeleine Rothberg (1997), the issue of access is

often not brought to the attention of software developers. Once it is, developers need to be able

to incorporate fast, easy, reliable ways to build access in. They need to know that someone has

found out how to do this and that it is not that difficult to achieve. Incorporating accessibility

issues into the training of multimedia product designers at the university level as well as in

ongoing training of those already employed in multimedia production would be a very useful first

step.

The rapid improvement in technology capabilities also contributes to the problem of access.

Computer manufacturers, software developers, and electronic information service providers are

turning out more powerful computers, software, and high-speed, high-capacity communications

networks, which enable consumers to use, produce, and transmit high-quality sound and video
18

images. As this new information technology increasingly renders the sounds, images, and

textures of the real world in a virtual environment, those who attempt to provide technology

access for people with sensory disabilities cannot keep up with the changes in new technology.

The World Wide Web illustrates the point. Perhaps more than any information distribution

system before it, the Web presents an incredible opportunity for people with disabilities. In

addition to providing a communication protocol that is potentially highly accessible and

relatively easy to use, the Web can enable people with disabilities to pursue education,

employment, and entrepreneurial opportunities never before thought possible. However,

opportunity often implies challenge. One of those challenges is found in the current evolution of

the Web as it moves from a text-based interface to a multimodal, multimedia operating

environment. It is this environment that presents barriers to individuals with sensory disabilities. 

Web sites that are primarily text-based are generally quite accessible to people who are deaf or

hard of hearing, as well as to those who are blind or visually impaired. However, more and more

sites are incorporating sound, graphics, and video. These sites impose barriers to users with

hearing or seeing impairments. For example, individuals who can hear can go to the CNN Web

site (http://www.cnn.com) and download video clips of important news events. However,

individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing are denied access to the audio portion of the news,

unless it is captioned.

Because the Web has become such an important resource for information and services, it is vital

that Web sites be designed so that they are accessible to all users. A useful and quick reference

that provides guidance on designing HTML pages can be found at the Trace Web site

(http://trace.wisc.edu). This resource includes specifics on provision of text anchors, caption or

text tracks, and text files (Vanderheiden 1996).
19

Financial Barriers

The cost of accessibility also ranked high as a significant barrier. Edmark’s Trower says the

biggest problem with building accessible software is the cost. Additional features need to be

built in for a small number of people, while the software still has to sell for a reasonable cost on

the general market. Barry Cronin of Addison Wesley Longman’s Consumer Publishing Group

(1997) notes that cost is a major factor, because over time it has become increasingly expensive

to produce software, yet the price of software to consumers is being cut drastically. Because of

cost, says Cronin, the company must engage in “compromise decision making” while trying to

make its products accessible. For example, he notes that it is much more costly to pay for an

actor’s extra time to build his or her voice into additional audio tracks for products than it is to

use existing hooks to create access through synthetic speech generated by a screen reader. He

feels that most companies probably assume they will not make money by providing access but

also do not believe they will sustain a loss. Cronin says approximate figures for costs are about

$400,000 to $700,000 to produce a multimedia CD-ROM and about $10,000 to $15,000 to make

it accessible. He believes that if his company produces CD-ROMs accessible to visually

impaired children, and if they reach only 10 percent of the audience, his company will recoup its

accessibility-related costs. In addition, providing accessibility could give the company a “unique

differentiation” from other software companies.

Access Barriers for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired

The current state of multimedia access for persons who are blind is bleak. There is no

commercial multimedia product available that has been shown to be fully accessible to

individuals who are blind, and the outlook for access to multimedia for persons with low vision

is only slightly better.

A key barrier to access to multimedia for people who are blind or visually impaired is the

computer and software on which the multimedia technology itself depends. The widespread
20

acceptance of the graphical user interface (GUI) dramatically increased the computer access

problems facing people who are blind or visually impaired. Access to computer-based

productivity tools such as word processors, databases, and spreadsheet programs has not been

adequately solved. The issues surrounding multimedia access must be integrated into the efforts

to ensure access to computer hardware and software so that there is a coordinated, cooperative

effort to ensure equality of access to critical information technology. 

Because the programming and usability of GUI systems are quite different from those of textbased systems, many of the gains that blind computer users had made in terms of access have

been severely hindered by the GUI. For example, in character-based systems, information is

manipulated using only keystroke commands, whereas the GUI enables the individual user to

manipulate visual representations of objects, usually in the form of icons, using a mouse or other

pointing device. However, direct manipulation of icons using a pointing device is difficult or

impossible for persons who are blind or who have other disabilities affecting their eye-hand

coordination. Thus, keystroke commands that substitute for the actions carried out by a pointing

device are required for such users. 

While efforts have been under way for some time to enhance the accessibility of GUIs, the

problem has become more complex as computer systems increasingly include multimedia

capabilities. Microsoft’s Bolnick articulated the challenge: “It’s very hard for designers to

conceive of being blind” and to envision what can be done and how the problems can be

approached. Multimedia is heavily image-based, and those images can change rapidly, making it

more difficult for a blind user to keep up with the changing status even if it is described. While

the guidelines for captioning are well established, guidelines for the description of visual

elements—such as text, charts, and pictures—need to be agreed upon and distributed in an easyto-use format. 

Trower notes that making multimedia products accessible to young blind and visually impaired

children is especially difficult, because products for younger children are even more image-based
21

than multimedia directed toward those who are older. Scadden adds that while video description

of the large amount of visual material may be helpful, many products already include continuous

narration, making it difficult to add more audio on a video description track.

Access Barriers for People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

It is somewhat difficult to be optimistic about the speed at which access will be attained,

especially if one looks at the history of access to other forms of media—for example, the

telephone and television/video (King 1995, Strauss and Richardson 1991). It took almost 90

years before the first invention was created to provide deaf people with visual access to the

telephone. Although the teletypewriter (TTY), developed in 1964, enabled individuals to

communicate in print across telephone wires, it was not until the passage of Title IV of the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990 that Congress directed the establishment of

telecommunications relay services (TRS) nationwide, enabling people with TTYs to

communicate with people who have voice telephones. However, because TRS is a technology

designed to retrofit a telephone network created without access for all, relay services remain slow

(communication occurs at a rate no greater than one-third the speed of a voice conversation),

cumbersome, and expensive. 

With television, for which the first public broadcast occurred in England in 1927, it was 45 years

(1972) before the first open captioned broadcast occurred and another eight years after that before

the first closed-captioned broadcast took place in America in March 1980. Captioning of primetime broadcast television, which is now highly successful, has been subsidized to a large degree

by the Federal Government (the emphasis of federal funding is shifting to seed funding to

encourage financial participation by the private sector) and increasingly through corporate

advertising sponsorships. In 1993, the Television Decoder Circuitry Act became effective,

requiring all televisions manufactured or imported into the United States with screens 13 inches

or larger to have built-in decoders capable of displaying closed captions. New legislation

requiring closed captioning of television programming was enacted in the Telecommunications
22

Act of 1996. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued rules on captioning on

August 8, 1997. Despite extensive development and consumer advocacy efforts, captioning

continues to be viewed as an add-on or postproduction service rather than as a basic right and an

integral aspect of the news, information, education, and entertainment milieu. For example, the

vast majority of cable television remains uncaptioned (King 1995). 

In addition to a general lack of captioning on cable programming, the number of available

captioned videotapes remains low. Eighty percent of all general-interest videos and 95 percent of

all educational videos are still not accessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals; that is, they

are not captioned (Gopen 1995). Nevertheless, one study reported that 94 percent of teachers of

deaf and hard-of-hearing students used video at least once a week during the academic year

(Harkins 1996). In that study, only 26 percent of these videos were captioned in their entirety (64

percent, some; 18 percent, none). The failure to caption resulted in heavy reliance on signlanguage interpreters.

Based on a review of the Multimedia and Videodisc Compendium for Education and Training,

only 3.5 percent of educational laser discs are identified as captioned. For entertainment laser

discs (based on the Winter 1994 Laser Video File), approximately 17 percent are captioned. For

CD audio used in computer-based multimedia products, virtually all such media are uncaptioned

and thus inaccessible. Similar problems exist for file-based media—for example, digital audio

and digital video (King 1995).

These statistics are especially disheartening when one considers that there are (1) standards for a

two-track analog video closed-captioning system (in place since 1979); (2) substantial financial

support mechanisms from the federal government for captioning of analog video; (3) six major

captioning service providers and more than 100 small captioning service companies; and (4)

more than 10 companies that provide tools for professionals and consumers to caption their own

analog video (Berke 1997). 
23

The situation is equally dismal for digital media. Although comparable accessibility statistics are

not available for digital video and audio delivered on CD-ROMs, networked servers, or the

Internet, the audio portion of most such products is inaccessible for deaf and hard of hearing

people. The two consumer-level digital video formats (Apple’s QuickTime and Video for

Windows) include specifications for captioned text tracks; however, few developers are

incorporating these. Only a very small number of companies (notably Microsoft and

Broderbund) have committed to making future titles accessible (CAP-Media 1997).

Access Barriers for People Who Are Deaf-Blind

The Texas Education Agency report made two points about those who are deaf-blind. First,

making visual information auditory is not enough—electronic text must be included, so that the

information can be presented in braille. Any added audio descriptions should also be available in

electronic format so that they are accessible to deaf-blind people. Second, there should always be

a way to amplify auditory information for those who are blind and hard of hearing.

25

SOLUTIONS FOR MAKING

MULTIMEDIA PRODUCTS ACCESSIBLE

Many solutions to technological barriers are likely to prove relatively easy to implement.

Although it is an oversimplification, the main rules to keep in mind in attempting to make

material accessible to individuals with vision or hearing disabilities are that everything visual

must be described in text or aurally and that everything aural must be able to be seen.

Improving Access for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired

In our discussion with experts, there was some notable disagreement regarding the most effective

means of ensuring access to multimedia. Some favored an approach that maximizes access by

ensuring that multimedia products are accessible through screen readers. Others, notably Gregg

Vanderheiden of the Trace Center (1996), argued for accessibility as part of the design of the

mainstream product itself. 

According to Barry Cronin of Addison Wesley Longman (1997), most accessibility does not need

to be created by the software producers — in most cases, a software company must “just make

sure their software works with existing screen readers.” From a practical standpoint, IBM’s

James Thatcher (1997) argues that off-the-shelf access will not happen in any grand way and that

therefore the focus needs to be on access products. Software developers should work to ensure

compatibility with these access products when designing new software. 

Vanderheiden counters that access products do not become effective for a year or two after new

software is released and provide “only partial access pretty late in the game.” As software

products are being released faster, screen readers are falling farther behind. He believes that

Microsoft’s Active Accessibility is a move in the right direction, as Microsoft is putting the onus
26

back on the software developer. Edmark’s Mary Ann Trower (1997) believes that universal

design principles should be incorporated from the very beginning of software development.

Peter Korn of Sun Microsystems takes a middle ground. He maintains that for at least the next

five years, information technology should not be considered “accessible” unless it is compatible

with the screen access approaches used now by people with disabilities. However, he emphasizes

that specialized screen access should not be the long-term approach because “it is an alternate

interpretation of the visual expression of the information, rather than direct access to the

information in a modality chosen by the user.” (Korn 1997)

These differences of opinion deserve further consideration. Perhaps a national advisory task

force could be convened to consider design and other multimedia access issues.

The Texas Education Agency (1997) wrote a report to the Texas legislature regarding the access

issues related to electronic textbooks for blind or visually impaired students. It defines an

accessible electronic textbook as one that disabled students can use and that achieves “the same

intended benefit” as a comparable product for nondisabled students; in addition, the benefit

should be achieved “with approximately the same amount of effort.”

In implementing access strategies, there seems to be general agreement among experts on the

solutions necessary for blind and visually impaired people to have full access to multimedia. A

number of strategies and recommendations from various experts are summarized below (Lowney

1997, NCAM 1997b, Paciello 1997, Texas Education Agency 1997, Trace, 1997). The

recommendations are not meant to be exhaustive but represent the types of solutions that are

commonly suggested.

Customizable features. Use customizable sizes and types of fonts, customizable colors for fonts

and backgrounds; allow user to customize interface timings; provide capability of focusing in and

enlarging parts of the screen.
27

Mouse versus keyboard. Mouse access should never be the only method of access. Ensure that

each feature has a keyboard equivalent and that it is documented; users should be able to explore

mouse or keyboard functions without triggering unexpected changes.

Speech access. If speech is not built in, make sure that all aspects of the software operation and

content are accessible with existing speech programs.

Access to graphical material. Graphical images should include video descriptions (see section

below), either in written text format or by built-in voice. On the Internet, images should include

“alternative text” attributes to describe what the images represent. NCAM uses a specific symbol

(a D-tag) on its Web site to indicate that video description is available for a visual image.

Accessible documentation. In addition to making all online documentation accessible, software

producers need to make any other documentation accessible (e.g., written documents, videotaped

instructions).

Miscellaneous. Avoid bit-mapped text that cannot be interpreted by a screen reader, or provide

an ASCII-based alternative text; all controls should be operable without having to see them; all

buttons and keys need to be accessible (e.g., flat touch screens can include a scanning feature that

would read aloud each option); status messages should be both aural and visual; the presence and

direction of hypertext links need to be detectable.

Video Description for Visual Images

Video description is a proven method of providing the visual information contained in a video

image to people who are blind or visually impaired. Video description (also known as audio

description) refers to a means of making television, movies, and other video programming

accessible through verbal (audio) descriptions of key visual elements that are inserted into natural

pauses in the program’s dialogue without interfering with the sounds and dialogue that are a
28

regular part of a video program. The narration enhances understanding and enjoyment of a video

program by providing verbal descriptions of essential visual elements such as settings, action,

comparative size, gestures, body language, scene changes, graphics, subtitles, and costumes. A

study by the American Foundation for the Blind (Packer and Kirchner 1997) showed that those

individuals with visual impairments who had experienced video description for television or

video found it to be extremely important for their understanding and enjoyment of programming.

Although not yet used for enhancing access to interactive multimedia, video description is

available in association with certain television programs and home videos. In addition to its use

in television and video, video description has great potential for use in making computers and the

Internet accessible to people with visual impairments. By incorporating video description into

programs, these environments can be made meaningful to and usable by people who are blind or

visually impaired. Microsoft Corporation (Bolnick 1997) is planning to incorporate video

description capability into its new Synchronized Accessible Media Interchange (SAMI)

technology, which will be used in making software accessible to people with disabilities.

The addition of video description to computer products would not only make them more

accessible to visually impaired people but also to other people with disabilities (e.g., those with

cognitive disabilities who might benefit from the use of description as an enhancement to their

understanding of visual elements). Sighted people may find description helpful, particularly in

circumstances where it is not convenient or possible to see a computer screen (many anecdotes

attest to the value of video description in enabling sighted viewers to close their eyes or walk

away from the television and still follow the program). A recent article in The New York Times

(Bradsher 1997) reported that Microsoft Corporation is working on Internet access for people

who are driving cars. The goal is to minimize the need for a driver to look at a computer screen,

yet still allow him or her to access electronic mail and to be able to “surf” the Internet. The

article states that there is already significant interest in using this technique, noting that

California state troopers issue warnings to people who use laptop computers while they drive. 
29

Improving Access for People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

Captioning for Auditory Access

Captioning is a long-standing effective method of conveying access to aural material for people

who are deaf or hard of hearing through the display of subtitles or text description. Along with

ensuring access for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, multimedia captioning provides

enhanced usability for all consumers through searchable text, annotation, and hyperlink

capabilities. Universal design in this sense would ensure full and independent access for people

with disabilities (King 1997).

Many movie clips found on the Web are created with a software standard made by Apple called

QuickTime. These clips are composed of separate video and audio tracks. Without much

difficulty, a separate text track can also be added to the clip. This text track can become, in

effect, a caption track. To see several examples of captioned movie clips, visit the NCAM Web

site (http://ncam.wgbh.org). 

Unfortunately, the availability of external captioning services and captioning tools has not

persuaded the majority of analog video producers to include captions (CAP-Media 1996). When

video and multimedia become digital, it is unlikely that the captioning situation will significantly

change. The tools provided by Apple for captioning can be difficult to use. QuickTime

captioning has been available for many years, but there are no commercial CD-ROMs that use

this feature, and Web sites using QuickTime captions were created primarily as examples of how

access could be achieved (King 1997). Microsoft’s SAMI tools implementation will not begin

for another six months and will likely be created for developers. Also, with regard to Windows

95/Windows NT, the captions are open, as opposed to closed. In addition, significant copyright

issues need to be addressed, since these tools require making new copies of the media. 
30

Captioning capacity—the ability to display text on the screen—should be incorporated into

standard multimedia workstations. If properly designed into multimedia packages, captioning

will not require separate equipment or software but will be affordable and available to anyone. 

Speech Recognition

Speech recognition or speech-to-text technology changes so rapidly that research tends to be

outdated as soon as it appears in print. Current focus would include Telephone Applications

Program Interface (TAPI) and Speech Applications Program Interface (SAPI) standards. 

Microsoft is on the cutting edge with regard to TAPI and SAPI technologies. Research is also

being done to determine whether SAPI and TAPI standards can be incorporated as part of the

telephone network. There is a very strong movement at this time to make speech recognition an

integral part of multimedia applications (Jensema 1997). It is anticipated that a variety of

materials with speech-to-text capabilities will be coming out in a year or so. The industry

perceives speech recognition as the wave of the future because of the higher speed of the spoken

word and the convenience of not using keyboards. Dragon Software, for instance, just came out

with the first continuous, speaker-independent recognition system for personal computers. With

normal speech, this software can handle 100 words per minute with 95 percent accuracy. 

Speech-to-text and text-to-speech technologies hold much promise. In addition, imagine the

breakthroughs that could result from approaches that would allow the translation of American

Sign Language (ASL) to text or text to ASL.
31

VOLUNTARY EFFORTS TO

IMPROVE ACCESS TO MULTIMEDIA

Several efforts designed to address barriers and improve access to multimedia technology are

under way. These activities can be divided into three categories:

1. Development of access guidelines for technical assistance

2. Individual company-led access-related efforts

3. Industry-led voluntary guidelines/standards

Access Guidelines

This effort is best illustrated by the work taking place at the National Center on Accessible

Media (NCAM), housed at WGBH in Boston. NCAM is working on a National Science

Foundation–funded project to make science and math CD-ROMs accessible to people with low

vision or blindness. The first year of this three-year project will be spent identifying the barriers

in existing science and math CD-ROMs, and the second year’s activities will involve teaming up

with a multimedia software publisher to make a prototype of an accessible CD-ROM and

developing access guidelines and techniques that can be incorporated by developers into their

products. The third year will involve finalizing design guidelines and disseminating them widely

to those who are in a position to incorporate the guidelines into software products.

Company-Led Efforts

Mary Ann Trower (1997) of Edmark, a publisher of children’s educational software, believes that

universal design principles should be the aim from the very beginning of software development.

Edmark produces software for children from preschool to high school and has built many
32

accessibility features into much of their software. She says that building in the additional

features from the beginning is a lot less expensive than retrofitting products.

Some of the ways that Edmark has built in access for visually impaired children is by keeping the

computer screen “clear and simple,” using font sizes as large as possible, and having large

response spaces on the screen. She says “as ages go up, you end up with smaller spaces and

smaller places, and faster action,” which adds to the difficulty.

Edmark software is available for IntelliKeys, so that overlays developed for blind children can

work with it. Trower is currently working on a project looking at ways of adding “scripting” on

Edmark’s software, whereby certain elements of the screen would be verbalized as a mouse was

moved over those sections.

Broderbund provides another example (Broderbund 1997). Its Software Education Division has

contracted with the Alliance for Technology Access (ATA) to test Broderbund’s software with

various assistive devices and create a list of Broderbund products that can be accessed with each

device. Among the devices listed are various screen enlargement programs, such as inLarge, and

alternative keyboard access programs, such as IntelliKeys. At this writing, 23 products have

gone through ATA’s testing process.

A number of Broderbund’s products have both visual and auditory output built in. As an

example, “Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego?” reads aloud everything that is written;

however, it is not fully accessible to people who are blind because it still requires clicking in

particular areas. In Broderbund’s “Living Books” series, an entire story can be read aloud. This

software includes alternative keyboard commands and a scanning feature whereby one can have

various options read aloud. Broderbund is continuing to look at additional accessibility issues in

its products and is trying to broaden its scope of access.
33

According to Barry Cronin (1997), Addison Wesley Longman’s Consumer Publishing Group

products either will have voiceable text built in or will be accessible with a screen reader. In

some cases, they will feature a combination of both. The decision of which to use depends on a

number of factors, particularly the cost involved. Because of the issue of cost, says Cronin, the

company must engage in “compromise decision making” while trying to make its products

accessible. Its main goal is addressed by the question, “Will this product be understandable,

enjoyable, and easy to use for a child with a disability?” The company’s planners do not believe

they will make money by providing access, but they also believe they will not sustain a loss. 

Microsoft’s Accessibility Home Page (Microsoft 1997) recently announced its new Accessibility

and Disabilities Web site. Included are several recent and particularly relevant announcements,

the most notable one regarding the new Microsoft Synchronized Accessible Media Interchange

(SAMI) format, scheduled for distribution by the end of 1997. This new format will enable

software developers who create multimedia software titles and Web pages to provide closed

captioning for users who are deaf or hard of hearing. Microsoft has also announced release of

new guidelines for accessible Web page design to take advantage of accessibility features in its

Internet Explorer Web browser. Other announcements include Microsoft’s release of Active

Accessibility (MSAA) 1.0, new technology to make better accessibility aids and more accessible

applications, and the version 3.0 release of the Designed for Windows NT and Windows 95 logo

program, containing four new accessibility requirements.

An important caveat should be kept in mind: It will be some time yet before the new Microsoft

SAMI technology is disseminated and fully put into practice—the critical step is getting

mainstream software developers to use this technology, across the board. Similarly, MSAA is

not widely used at this time, and its potential cannot be assessed until both mainstream and

adaptive software developers begin implementing it.

Sun Microsystems has also undertaken efforts to address the accessibility of one of its key

technologies, Java, an object-oriented programming language. Applications developed in Java
34

are capable of running on several different platforms (e.g., Windows, Mac, and Unix). Java

software applications can also be created for consumer products such as copiers and cellular

phones. This cross-platform operation has made Java a popular programming language for the

World Wide Web and other network environments. 

Sun has released Early Access, interim editions of the Java Accessibility API (applications

program interface). Peter Korn (1997) describes this API as a contract detailing how programs

written in Java will communicate with assistive technologies such as screen readers. Korn says

Sun is implementing the accessibility API as part of the Java Foundation Classes (JFC), a new set

of building blocks for designing the user interfaces of Java programs. These building blocks are

supposed to be as modality-independent as possible. Ultimately, Korn says, programs built with

the JFC will be compatible with screen readers. Korn predicts that the Java Accessibility API

will be incorporated into the next release of the Java Development Kit (JDK), scheduled for early

next year. Korn says that the goal is for the user interaction to be “pluggable,” meaning that a

user may choose an alternative modality such as speech or braille rather than a keyboard, mouse,

or visual display. Thus, the user can interact with the Java application in his or her preferred

modality (Korn 1997).

Again important caveats should be kept in mind regarding Java and its accessibility components: 

It will be some time yet before Java has significant market share, and its potential cannot be truly

assessed until it is supported by both mainstream and adaptive software developers. It does raise

the possibility, however, that multimedia products as well as to personal computer applications

(e.g., consumer electronics) may benefit from underlying accessibility in a broadly deployed Java

language environment.

Industry-Led Efforts

Web Access Initiative
35

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which includes more than 200 companies and

organizations, has established the Web Access Initiative (WAI). The purpose of this initiative is

to ensure that the protocols and procedures developed and promoted by the W3C incorporate the

needs of persons with disabilities.

The activities related to the WAI are overseen by an International Program Office (IPO) and

several work groups. Each group focuses on different activities—for example, ensuring the

accessibility of basic elements of the Web, such as HTML and data formats; creating

accessibility guidelines for developers of Web sites, Web browsers, and Web authoring tools;

and establishing criteria for rating the accessibility of Web sites. (see

http://www.w3.org/WAI/group). The IPO helps coordinate the efforts of the work groups and

educates key players in the Web industry. In addition, the IPO helps ensure that disability

organizations, people with disabilities, and other interested parties can participate in WAI

activities.

Together, these efforts represent a significant breakthrough for persons with disabilities. Rarely

have the needs of persons with disabilities been considered during the early days of a new

technology such as the World Wide Web. While much work remains, the collaboration put in

place by the WAI offers tremendous encouragement to the disability community. This initiative

could serve as a model for future collaborative efforts.

Advanced Television 

Advanced television (ATV), also known as high-definition television (HDTV), is a complete

redesign of North America’s television service. ATV will be completely digital, with a sharper

picture, an aspect ratio resembling that of a wide-screen movie, multiple CD-quality audio

channels, and ancillary data services. The creation of ATV necessitates the creation of a new

captioning system and offers the potential of convenient delivery of video description over one of

the multiple audio channels that can be accommodated within each digital signal. In addition,
36

ATV will make exciting new caption features possible, such as multiple caption streams

(enabling viewers to choose among different languages or different reading speeds); a wider

range of character sizes, fonts, and colors; and increased flexibility with regard to caption

placement. 

To ensure the development of a captioning system that serves the needs of viewers now and in

the future, the Television Data Systems Subcommittee of the Electronic Industries Association

formed a working group on ATV closed captioning. This working group consists of the top three

caption service providers (the Caption Center, the National Captioning Institute, and VITAC);

major caption hardware and software companies (Avio Systems, EEG Enterprises and

SoftTouch); major receiver manufacturers (Panasonic, Philips, Thomson, and Zenith); and a

leading manufacturer of digital TV hardware (General Instruments). The working group is

determining the features, display protocols, instruction sets, and transmission methods for an

optimal captioning system that will serve current and future users of captioning (NCAM 1997c).

Although the digital TV standard allows for inclusion of an audio track for the purpose of

delivering video description, the FCC has thus far not ordered a set-aside of audio bandwidth for

this purpose (FCC 1996). In addition, manufacturers of digital television receivers are not yet

required to support simultaneous multichannel audio-decoding capability, which would enable

video descriptions to be delivered separately from a program’s main audio and would thus have

the potential to lower costs considerably.

Association to Promote Access Engineering 

A working group of disability and technology industry representatives has formed the

Association of Access Engineering Specialists (AAES) under the National Association of Radio

and Telecommunications Engineers (NARTE). AAES has the following purpose: “to promote

the development of engineering for disability access and to support an ongoing dialogue between

the disability community and industry regarding access issues.” The initial focus of AAES will
37

include developing a knowledge base, providing educational opportunities, distributing

information regarding access engineering, and initiating standards coordination (NARTE 1997).

Information Infrastructure Standards Development

The Information Infrastructure Standards Panel (IISP) has been convened by the American

National Standards Institute to review the need for coordination and development of additional

information technology standards. Several initiatives under consideration by this panel are likely

to be relevant to standardization of multimedia technologies—for example, nomadicity and

electronic publishing. 

39

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION

National Advisory Task Force on Multimedia Access

Based on the experience of the Texas Education Agency Task Force and the work of the Access

Board’s Telecommunications Access Advisory Committee, a national advisory task force

comprised of representatives of industry, government, and the disability community should be

convened to work toward an agreement on accessibility guidelines for multimedia technology.

The U.S. Department of Education may be in the best position to convene such a task force,

because of the extensive use of multimedia in educational materials. Alternatively, the Access

Board may be an appropriate entity to carry out such an activity, drawing upon work it has done

developing accessibility guidelines under Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act and

(potentially) Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Some of the issues to be considered by such a national task force would include

 • organizational processes to ensure consideration of accessibility (universal design) at all

levels of product development and delivery;

 • built-in access versus access via assistive technology such as screen readers and

specialized input devices;

 • industry-based or government-established standards versus voluntary guidelines;

 • techniques for accessible input, output, and controls; 

 • methods to provide access to online help and product documentation; and

 • methods to ensure customer support for disability access.
40

Legislative/Regulatory Policies

Congress and the administration should develop and implement legislative/regulatory policies to

improve access to multimedia. For example, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act should be

strengthened to promote access through government procurement of accessible information

technology, exemptions from copyright restrictions to add accessibility through captions or video

description, and tax credits or other financial incentives to support and promote the development

of accessible multimedia technology.

Universal design concepts should be included in industry standards and guidelines for

multimedia products. Technology industries are changing at a revolutionary pace. It is important

that access issues be incorporated into new standards as early as possible if universal access is to

become the rule rather than the exception. The Access Board’s Telecommunications Act

Accessibility Guidelines and the ongoing efforts of the World Wide Web Access Initiative

provide encouraging examples of efforts to improve access to information technology. 

Multimedia-related standard-setting activities should be expanded to stimulate accessibility.

Government Procurement of Accessible Information Technology 

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires federal agencies to comply with accessibility

guidelines in the procurement of information technology. Enforcement of this law has proven

inadequate, and many federal agencies purchase information technology that does not comply.

Recently, amendments have been introduced in Congress to increase compliance with Section

508. For example, H.R. 1255, the Federal Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility

Compliance Act of 1997, would require federal agencies to certify compliance annually, with

oversight by the Office of Management and Budget. A companion bill has been introduced in

the Senate. Efforts are also under way in the Senate to expand the scope and enforcement of

Section 508 by assigning authority to the Access Board for regulations. The as-yet-unrealized

intent of Section 508 has been to take advantage of the purchasing power of the Federal
41

Government to create a market-based incentive for the production of accessible technologies and

to ensure that they are usable by the 145,000 federal employees with disabilities.

Implementation of the Telecommunications Act

The legislative history of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 clearly shows that Congress

intended the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate Section 255, Access by

Persons with Disabilities. At the time of this publication, however, the FCC has not issued or

even proposed such regulations. The unfortunate result is that new telecommunications

technologies and services, many of which are multimedia in nature, have been emerging each

week without significant attention to universal design. The FCC must fully and speedily exercise

its authority in this area to prevent unnecessary barriers to people with disabilities on the

burgeoning information superhighway.

Copyright Reform

In 1996, Congress enacted legislation that eliminated the need to obtain the permission of

publishers or copyright owners if an authorized entity wishes to reproduce or distribute a

nondramatic literary work in a specialized format for the exclusive use of blind persons or others

with physical disabilities. The law defines authorized entities as nonprofit organizations or

governmental agencies whose primary mission is to provide specialized services related to the

training, education, adaptive reading, or information access needs of blind or other persons with

disabilities. “Specialized formats” specifically include braille, audio, or digital text exclusively

for use by blind or other persons with disabilities. “Blind or other persons with disabilities”

means individuals who are eligible to receive specialized library services under definitions used

by the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped of the Library of

Congress. 
42

To date, no similar exemption from the copyright requirements exists for adding captioning or

video description. Accordingly, it remains extremely burdensome to add captions or video

description to copyrighted works, including videotapes and computer media, needed for

instructional programming. Often, obtaining such permission can take upwards of six months,

eliminating entirely the benefits of such materials for educators and students during a given

semester. Legislation granting an exemption from copyright restrictions in order to reproduce

such materials for the purpose of adding accessibility through captions or video description may

be a useful step. 

Incentives

Tax credits or other financial incentives could be crafted to support and promote the development

of accessible multimedia technology, especially technology designed for employment or

education. For example, the R&D Tax Credit was originally signed into law in 1981 as part of

the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA, P.L. 97–34). Corporations received a tax credit

ranging from 1.65 percent to 20 percent for qualified R&D expenditures (QREs) that exceeded a

certain fixed base amount. QREs had to be technological in nature and relate to the development

of new or improved business products. This credit expired on May 31, 1997. Industry-supported

efforts are under way to make the credit permanent. To the extent that incentives are continued

or expanded, companies receiving incentives must be held accountable for their disability access

obligations, including those under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the

Telecommunications Act.

PCTV Accessibility 

Many personal computers now have television circuitry that enables the computer to receive and

display television signals. In March 1995, the FCC issued a ruling requiring computer systems

that have the capability of receiving television signals and that are sold with monitors that have a

viewable picture size of 13 inches or larger to have built-in circuitry to decode and display closed
43

captions. The FCC has based its ruling on the requirements of the Television Decoder Circuitry

Act of 1990. The FCC’s ruling exempted (1) computers that are sold without monitors but that

have television reception capability and (2) separate plug-in circuit boards that can be used to add

television reception capability to an existing personal computer. In December 1995, several

consumer organizations representing deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals filed a petition for

rulemaking requesting that the FCC require all computer components with television reception

capability—whether or not such components are sold with a monitor—to be equipped with

circuitry capable of decoding closed captions. This petition is now pending in the FCC’s Office

of Engineering and Technology.

State Action

Texas has taken a leadership role in analyzing and attempting to remove the access barriers posed

by multimedia-based educational material. Texas was an early adopter of legislation designed to

advance the availability of braille textbooks, including a requirement that publishers provide

electronic versions of textbooks for braille production. Subsequent concerns about access to

multimedia textbooks led to the Texas Education Agency’s convening a task force to address

access to multimedia material. On June 20, 1997, Texas governor George W. Bush signed

Senate Bill 294, which calls for a study of the costs and benefits of using computer networks in

Texas schools and creates a subcommittee to “investigate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of

developing electronic textbooks that may be used by students who are blind or have other

disabilities.” It is conceivable that the state will eventually require electronic textbooks to be

accessible.

Research, Education, and Collaboration

Government agencies, private corporations and foundations should conduct research on

information technology access issues and the development of solutions. People involved in all
44

aspects of the development of multimedia and other information technology should be educated

about access issues. 

Support is needed for research examining the technological and social issues surrounding access

to multimedia and other information technology by persons with disabilities and the benefits of

such access to individuals who are not considered disabled. In particular, research is needed on

ways to make visual and aural information accessible to individuals with sensory disabilities. 

Various government agencies fund research activities related to information technology and

disability access. Principal among these agencies are the National Science Foundation, the

Department of Commerce (National Telecommunications and Information Administration and

National Institute on Standards and Technology), and the Department of Education (National

Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research). These agencies should be encouraged to

fund further research into methods that enhance access to information technology for people with

disabilities.

Mainstream technology and multimedia developers, producers of assistive technology, disability

organizations, and research institutions should strengthen partnerships aimed at developing

access and usability solutions. Use of multimedia products and other information technology by

persons with disabilities is not well documented or understood. Mainstream developers who

now rarely include persons with disabilities in marketing or usability surveys must do so.

Furthermore, efforts to improve access and usability through assistive technology should be

improved. In addition, though experts differ on the extent to which multimedia products will

ever be accessible “out of the box” (built-in access does not appear imminent), efforts to improve

the accessibility of mainstream products must be greatly expanded.

The development, sale, and use of information technology involves many people—educators,

content providers, programmers, marketers, engineers, end users, and so on. If equal access to

multimedia for people with disabilities is to become a reality, knowledge and awareness will
45

have to be developed across all areas. Innovative methods to instruct those currently involved in

the information technology and multimedia industry about access issues and solutions must be

developed. The training and information dissemination efforts now being undertaken by the

Association of Access Engineering Specialists provide a good example of such innovation. 

Enlisting the support and interest of university faculty and other experts across many

disciplines—from computer science to publishing to education—is also important.

 1

The list of examples below is not meant to be exhaustive, but to be representative of those

technologies that currently exist while being flexible enough to incorporate new technologies that

are currently being developed or are not yet in existence.

 2This typology differs from Vanderheiden’s in that it elaborates on the different types of

visual and aural outputs that exist. In addition, it categorizes viewer/control devices and

transmission under the larger heading of "delivery" and adds under this major heading the

separate category of "underlying control software."

 3

We do not include videotape materials in this list as they are not interactive.

 4

The Internet, including the World Wide Web, is not specifically mentioned on this list as it is

a "meta-construct"&it uses varying combinations of transmission, control devices, and control

software and does not fit neatly into any one of the delivery categories.

47

APPENDIX A

FRAMEWORK OF MULTIMEDIA CATEGORIES

In an attempt to circumscribe our working definition of multimedia and our parameters for this

project, we sought a useful way to categorize multimedia-related terminology. Gregg

Vanderheiden, director of the Trace Center, divides information technology into a three-part

typology consisting of source material, transmission mechanisms, and viewer/controller

equipment. We tentatively suggest the following organizing framework1 as a useful way to

approach multimedia issues:2

Interactive Multimedia3

I. Delivery4

A. Transmission

1. Fixed transportable media (e.g., CD-ROMs, digital video disks, floppy disks)

2. Phone lines and other wired communications (e.g., cable)

3. Short- and long-range wireless (e.g., infrared, satellite)
 5

These involve both hardware and software elements.

 6

These elements can be used singly or together to create books, Web sites, games,

television/videos, e-mail, instructional material/distance learning, and so on.

 7Animation typically refers to animated drawings; however, most visual images can be

animated.

48

B. Viewer/control devices5

1. Kiosks

2. Attachments/terminating devices for phone lines, wireless, etc.

3. Computers

4. Digital television

C. Underlying control software

1. Web browsers

2. Content/organization software (e.g., HTML, VRML, XML, Java)

3. Proprietary presentation applications (e.g., operating systems, Lotus Notes,

Adobe, individual banks’ ATM software)

II. Content/product elements6

A. Visual Output

1. Icons (e.g., buttons, list boxes)

2. Still photos

3. Full-motion video

4. Still pictorial drawings

5. Numerically based graphs

6. Typographical text

7. Handwritten (bit-mapped) text

8. Maps

9. Marquees/tickertape

10. Animation7
 8

3-D is a technique that can be applied to any of the above visual elements.

 9

Virtual reality can also be created using other senses (e.g., using movement or touch).

 10Virtual reality may use a combination of the above visual elements. 

 11Stereo audio designed to give a sense of location, relative to the listener, to the sounds heard. 

Can be a combination of the above aural elements.

49

11. 3-D8/(visual)9 virtual reality10

B. Aural output

1. Beeps/bleeps

2. Synthetic speech

3. Digitized human speech

4. Ambient sounds

5. Voice inflections

6. Music

7. 3-D audio11

51

APPENDIX B

NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR VISUALLY IMPAIRED

AND PEOPLE WHOM ARE DEAF OR HARD 

OF HEARING IN THE UNITED STATES

Number of Persons in the United States Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired

Two recurring federal surveys provide national estimates of “visual impairment” that cannot be

corrected to “normal” by ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses. A widely used broad measure

comes from the annual Health Interview Survey (HIS) of the National Center for Health Statistics

(NCHS), a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 1994, HIS’s

household-based sample estimated 8,601,000 people with “trouble seeing even with glasses, if

used” (NCHS 1995). A reanalysis of HIS data collected from 1989 to 1994 (Packer and Kirchner

1997) shows that an estimated 500,000 report that they are “blind in both eyes.”

The main alternative estimate of visual impairment that comes from a federal survey of

households is found in the Bureau of the Census Survey of Income and Program Participation

(SIPP). In 1991–92, SIPP’s broad measure yielded an estimate of nearly 10 million people who

reported “difficulty seeing the words and letters in ordinary newspaper print, even when wearing

glasses or contact lenses (if the person usually wears them)” (McNeil 1993). Within that group, a

subgroup of 1.6 million people reported that they were “not able to see the words and letters at

all.”

In addition to the household-based sample, people in long-term care institutions, mainly nursing

homes, include many who have severe visual impairment. From the 1985 NCHS National

Nursing Home Survey (NNHS), we estimate that 338,200 institutionalized persons are blind or

have “partial or severe visual impairment” (NCHS 1989). 
52

To summarize, for the United States in the early 1990s, the broad estimates we have identified

range from 8.9 million to 10.3 million persons who have a visual disability.

Number of Persons in the United States Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communicative Disorders (NIDCD) has indicated

that there are at least 28 million deaf, late-deafened, and hard-of-hearing people in the United

States. According to the League for the Hard of Hearing in New York City, the NIDCD

confirmed the accuracy of this statistic in July 1996. The Council of Organizational

Representatives has also adopted this statistic as an accurate indication of the total population of

deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals in this country (COR 1996). 

The deaf and hard-of-hearing population is also estimated by NCHS. According to its 1990 and

1991 HIS, approximately 20 million persons, or 8.6 percent of the total U.S. population three

years and older, were reported to have hearing impairment. Persons 65 years and older were

eight times more likely to have hearing impairment than persons aged 18 through 34—29.1

percent and 3.4 percent, respectively (NCHS 1994). Note that these data do not include children

three years of age and younger.

Use of Computers and the Internet by People with Disabilities

Research has shown that people with disabilities use computers and the Internet in large

numbers.

The results from an ongoing survey of World Wide Web users conducted by the Georgia Institute

of Technology (1996), show that 8 percent of users report having disabilities. Almost half of

those with disabilities (3.7 percent of the total) report having visual impairments. This number

may be somewhat higher if those who identified themselves as multiply handicapped also have

visual impairments. All other types of disabilities were reported at less than 1 percent each.
53

A national study conducted by the American Foundation for the Blind in 1995 (AFB 1996) found

that the percentage of blind and visually impaired people who have a personal computer in their

household (29 percent) is similar to figures for the general population reported by other sources:

40 percent (Electronic Industries Association 1996), 38 percent (Wirthlin Worldwide 1996), 25

percent (Roper 1995). The percentage of respondents in AFB’s study who had personally used a

computer in the past year was 38 percent; of these, 59 percent had used a computer at work and

54 percent at home in the past year. Data for the general population show that 34 percent have

used a personal computer, 68 percent at work and 50 percent at home (Roper 1995). Of those in

AFB’s study who had used a computer in the past year, 31 percent had access to online computer

services or the Internet (12 percent of the entire sample of 417). These figures are within the

range found for the percentage of the general population that was online; general population

figures vary quite a bit because of various methodological and timing issues, and ranged at that

time from as low as 4 percent (FIND/SVP 1997) to as high as 22 percent (Nielsen 1996). The

number of Internet users in the general population has been increasing substantially (Werbach

1997, Wirthlin Worldwide 1996). Jupiter Communications, cited in EMedia Professional

(February 1997), predicts that the number of households online by 2000 will triple from 1996

numbers. We fully expect that Internet use will continue to increase substantially for blind and

visually impaired persons as well, provided that the Internet remains accessible.

In another study, Kirchner and Harkins (1991) found that among visually impaired people who

are employed, those who have no useful vision appear to have higher rates of computer use than

those who have a lesser degree of visual impairment. Blind and visually impaired people tend to

be poorer, on average, than the general population and tend to be employed much less often

(McNeil 1993). Studies have shown that computer users and Internet users tend to have higher

income than the general population (Georgia Institute of Technology 1996, Response Analysis

Corporation 1996, Wirthlin Worldwide 1996), that people tend to use computers at work more

than at home (Roper 1995) and that many people’s Internet access is provided by work (Georgia

Institute of Technology 1996). It is particularly noteworthy, given their generally lower income

and rate of employment, that blind and visually impaired persons use computers and the Internet
54

at rates similar to those of the general population, suggesting the increased importance of this

access to them.

With access to some computer technology through ASCII on their text telephones, the number of

potential deaf and hard of hearing users increases, according to Judy Viera of Teletec (1997). 

Robert Scheffel of the Oregon School for the Deaf (1997) estimates that about 95 percent of deaf

and hard-of-hearing students attending residential schools have access to computers, and Ed

Bosson of the Texas Public Utilities Commission (1997) estimates that about 9.3 million deaf

and hard-of-hearing Americans make use of ASCII, through either computers or text telephones.

According to Scheffel, about 30 percent to 50 percent of deaf and hard-of-hearing children in

residential schools have access to the Internet, and Viera says that 40 percent of deaf and hard-ofhearing people of all ages who have access to ASCII are estimated to have access to Internet.
55

APPENDIX C

SURVEY OF EDUCATORS OF BLIND/VISUALLY IMPAIRED

PERSONS WORKING WITH MULTIMEDIA PRODUCTS

As part of a contract from the National Council on Disability, we are exploring how blind and

visually impaired people are affected by the use of multimedia products (that is, products that

transmit both visual and auditory output, such as CD-ROMs or World Wide Web pages). 

We’re looking for educators who are on the “front line,” using or attempting to use multimedia

materials in their curricula, to share some of their experiences with us. We feel that your

hands-on experience in this area will be extremely valuable in examining the types of multimedia

products being used or adapted, and the types of problems visually impaired students encounter. 

We are interested in your personal experiences, and personal opinions. You may answer any or

all of the following questions, or you may choose to relay your experiences to us in whatever

manner you feel most comfortable. Thank you in advance for helping us to understand this

increasingly complex issue.

Please e-mail your responses to jpacker@afb.org. We would like to receive your answers back

by a week from the posted date, if at all possible.

Jaclyn Packer, Ph.D.

Senior Research Associate

American Foundation for the Blind
56

QUESTIONS:

1. What types of multimedia products (that is, products that transmit both visual and auditory

output) have you used?

2. Have your visually impaired students used multimedia in the regular education classroom

and/or special education classroom? In what grade levels and/or subject areas? Have you used

these products with children who are multiply handicapped?

3. What types of problems have you encountered in using multimedia products with visually

impaired children? 

4. Are there multimedia titles other students use that your visually impaired students are unable

to access? What are those titles/publishers?

5. Are there multimedia titles that your visually impaired students are successfully accessing? 

What are those titles/publishers?

6. What type of setting do you teach in (e.g., residential school for the visually impaired, special

class, itinerant teacher, teacher consultant)?

7. Have you seen any advantages in using multimedia products with blind or visually impaired

children? What are the advantages?

8. What assistive technology, if any, are you using to access multimedia products (e.g., synthetic

speech, braille, screen magnification)? Please tell us the product name and manufacturer.

9. If you have used any other methods or adaptations so that the multimedia products you used

would be more accessible, please describe these adaptations.
57

10. In your opinion, what types of multimedia provide the best access for children who have

visual impairments? The worst access?

11. Have you had any special training in adapting multimedia materials for your visually

impaired students? What type of training?

Please note: We may wish to follow up on your response via e-mail or telephone in order to get

more information from you. If you are willing, please let us know your telephone/TTY

number and/or e-mail address.

59

APPENDIX D

RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EDUCATORS 

OF PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND/VISUALLY IMPAIRED

In March 1997, the American Foundation for the Blind developed a questionnaire aimed at

educators who have used (or attempted to use) multimedia products with blind and visually

impaired children. Educators were asked numerous questions (see appendix C, above, for full

questionnaire) concerning assistive technology used, titles used, problems encountered, and

opinions about the importance of access to multimedia in education.

This questionnaire was distributed widely over the Internet to various e-mail discussion lists that

focus on technology access, education of blind and visually impaired children, deaf-blind

children, or special education in general, as well as those that focus on multimedia in the

education of children.* In addition, the questionnaire was posted to several private lists of Web

sites, including that of the Alliance for Technology Access, Council of Schools for the Blind

(COSB), and a list of braille teachers maintained by AFB. The Internet was chosen as a method

of distribution because people dealing with multimedia would be likely to be Internet users, and

because distributing a survey over the Internet can be a relatively quick way to get useful

qualitative information.

The majority of responses came within a week of posting. In total, we received 20 responses, of

which only 8 answered at least some of the questions we posed about children. Nine of the

 

*The Educator Questionnaire was posted on the following lists in March 1997: EASI,

VI-OUT, ACCESS-L, DEAFBLIND, ABLETECH-L, DVH-S, AERNET, BLINDFAM,

EDTECH, and AMTECH.
60

remaining 12 were requests for information on the topic that we were studying, and 3 were

responses sharing information about multimedia but not specifically about children and

education.

The fact that there were so few responses to the questionnaire (particularly from teachers) may

reflect that very few educators working with visually impaired children are actually using

multimedia products or have access to the Internet.

Answers from the small number of respondents are not necessarily representative of educators

working with visually impaired students. Of the 8 respondents, 7 were from the United States

and 1 was from Canada. Very few were actually teachers; four worked in school libraries and the

remaining four were an outreach consultant for a residential school, an itinerant teacher, an

educational consultant in a rural area, and a person working at an independent living center.

Respondents say they are using multimedia products with blind and visually impaired children at

all grade levels and with children who have other disabilities in addition to visual impairment.

Below are some of the types of multimedia that respondents indicated their students are using. It

is important to note that, in most cases, the respondent did not specifically state whether the

children using the software were blind or had low vision. In addition, respondents did not

specify how accessible the products were to the children, only that they were using them. It is

important to keep these points in mind because, while educators say children are using these

products, currently no multimedia software is available that is fully accessible to people who are

blind or visually impaired.

Multimedia products respondents say they are using in the schools include encyclopedias and

other reference materials, magazines and journals, children’s games, and assorted instructional

and creative products. These products are delivered by CD-ROM or over the Internet. Of all the
61

types of products named, CD-ROM encyclopedias were named most often. In particular, the

following encyclopedias are being used: Grolier, Encarta, World Book, and Compton. 

Among the reference materials cited as being used with visually impaired children were the

following: Magazine Index, Microsoft reference products, Time Almanac, and Sports Illustrated

Almanac.

Internet browsers mentioned by respondents were Netscape Navigator (cited by two

respondents), Webspeak, and Lynx.

Other software (not an exhaustive list) included Learn to Type, Wide World of Animals,

Thinking Things, Windows on Science, KidWorks, Bailey’s Book House, Millie’s Math House,

and HyperStudio.

Adapted equipment being used in the schools included Zoomtext, Enlarge, Outspoken, Biggie

Cursor, JAWS, MegaDots, Vocal Eyes, Doubletalk, Braille ’n Speak, Magic, Closeview, and

Intellitools. 

Respondents mentioned numerous benefits of access to multimedia by blind and visually

impaired students, including excitement, interest, motivation, independence, improved selfesteem, improved listening skills, access to materials in very rural areas, and increased ability to

get relevant materials in a student’s preferred medium. Many of these benefits are the same as

those that children without disabilities obtain from interacting with multimedia products.

63

APPENDIX E

QUESTIONS FOR EDUCATORS AND MEDIA SPECIALISTS

OF PERSONS WHO ARE DEAF OR HARD OF HEARING

1. What types of multimedia products (that transmit both visual and auditory output) have you

used?

2. Have deaf and/or hard-of-hearing individuals used multimedia in various settings, such as in a

regular education and/or special education classroom, workplace, or at home?

3. In what grade levels and/or subject areas?

4. What types of problems have you encountered in using multimedia products with deaf and

hard-of-hearing individuals?

5. Are there multimedia titles that deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals are successfully

accessing? What are those titles?

6. Are there multimedia titles that deaf and hard of hearing individuals are unable to access? 

What are those titles?

7. What type of setting are you in (i.e., residential school, special class, teacher, trainer,

consumer)?

8. Have you seen any advantages in using multimedia products with deaf and hard-of-hearing

individuals? What are the advantages?
64

9. What assistive technology, if any, are you using to access multimedia products (i.e., speech

recognition, captioning)? What are the product and manufacturer names?

10. If you have used any other methods or adaptations so that the multimedia products you used

would be more accessible, please describe these adaptations. 

11. In your opinion, what types of multimedia provide the best access to deaf and hard-of-hearing

individuals? The worst access?

12. In your opinion, what is the quality of accessible media? Was the captioning verbatim and

simultaneous? 

13. Have you had any training in adapting multimedia materials? What type of training?

14. Does your hardware include audio equipment (i.e., speakers)? If not, is your hardware

interoperable with multimedia programs?
65

APPENDIX F

CURRENT MULTIMEDIA PROJECTS FOCUSING ON ACCESSIBILITY

Education

The National Center to Improve Practice (NCIP) is a collaborative project between the Education

Development Center (EDC) and WGBH Educational Foundation in Boston. Funding is through

the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, 1992 to 1997. The

focus is on promoting change within local schools and districts so that practitioners will

effectively use technology, media, and materials to improve outcomes for students with

disabilities (NCIP 1995).

The Western Pennsylvania School for the Deaf (1997), in collaboration with Carnegie Science

Center and Duquesne University, received a grant for provision of interactive multimedia in their

classrooms. Teachers were trained in integrating technological tools for visual literacy into the

curriculum. The creation of an Interactive Technology Lab and the success of shared teacherstudent responsibility has proved to be crucial (http://www.wpsd.edu).

Distance education initiatives through Gallaudet University include “Telling Tales in ASL: From

Literature to Literacy” (April 1997), a live interactive video teleconference on ASL storytelling

presented in American Sign Language with spoken English and open captions, and now available

on videocassette (Gallaudet 1997, Silver 1997).

Quite a number of interactive videoconferencing and distance education efforts have occurred in

the past two or so years, with initiatives currently under way at various schools and

postsecondary programs, including Gallaudet University, National Technical Institute for the

Deaf at the Rochester Institute of Technology, California School for the Deaf at Riverside,
66

Eastern North Carolina School for the Deaf, Maryland School for the Deaf, New Jersey School

for the Deaf, Model Secondary School for the Deaf at Gallaudet, and others (King 1977).

General

The Universal Telecommunications Access Project is funded through the National Institute on

Disability and Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Department of Education, 1995 to 1999. It is a

collaborative endeavor involving the World Institute on Disability, Trace Research and

Development Center, and Gallaudet University. Components include systems engineering

studies, telecommunications access research, universal design specification and review, standards

efforts, applications of technology for independence, and knowledge dissemination and

utilization (Gallaudet University 1997).

Internet

Many people and organizations are actively working on Web access. These projects fall into two

categories: (1) access guidelines (e.g., W3C’s Web Access Initiative, http://www.w3.org/WAI;

Trace Center’s Guidelines for Web Access, http://trace.wisc.edu/text/guidelns) and (2) building

accessible Web pages (e.g., Educational Testing Service–Hansen, Katz, and Forer 1997) in which

essential information can be accessed aurally or through text.

The Web Access Project is funded through the Telecommunications Funding Partnership for

People with Disabilities and the Boston Foundation, continuing through 1997. Focus is on

researching, developing, and testing methods for integrating access technologies, such as

captioning and audio description, and new Web tools into a World Wide Web site, making it

fully accessible to blind or deaf Internet users (NCAM 1997c).

The Research and Development Institute’s “Project Vision—Visually Impaired Students and

Internet Opportunities Now” involves a training program developed for teaching blind and
67

visually impaired students how to access the Internet using assistive technology (Kapperman,

Heinze, Hahn, and Dalton 1997). Researchers on this two-year project, funded by the Office of

Special Education Programs of the U.S. Department of Education, conducted a demonstration

project in which they trained teachers and then field-tested methods on five low-vision and four

blind children. The children enjoyed being in the pilot project, and having access to information

on the Internet had a positive impact on them.

Kiosks

The Tactile Talking Display System (nicknamed “the Talking Kiosk”) was a collaborative

project of the Computer Center for Visually Impaired People at Baruch College, the American

Foundation for the Blind, and the Stein Partnership, an architectural firm.

The Talking Kiosk is a public kiosk at New York’s Pennsylvania Station that can be used by

people who are blind or visually impaired. The kiosk uses voice and enlarged screen text for

output, and a talking/tactile map and touch-tone telephone keypad for input. The kiosk provides

information that travelers need to use this large and complex transit facility. In addition to

information about where tracks and ticket booths are, the kiosk provides information about retail

facilities and other transit services in the station.

The Trace Center has developed an accessible public kiosk at Minneapolis’s Mall of America,

the largest shopping mall complex in the United States. This kiosk provides information in

various formats so that it is accessible to people with hearing, visual, and physical disabilities as

well as to those with reading problems or those who cannot read at all. People with visual

impairments can use the “Quick Read Button,” which reads aloud portions of the kiosk’s screen. 

There is also a “Touch and Confirm” mode, in which a voice tells you what you’re pointing to on

the screen. A simple touch of a button activates this mode. For those who are hard of hearing,

there is a volume control and a handset that is compatible with hearing aids. Deaf people can use
68

the “Show Sounds Captions” button, through which information is presented visually on screen,

including closed captioning (Vanderheiden 1997).

Software

Accessible Interactive Media: Digital Captioning Tools and a Model Interactive Captioned

Media Product is a grant project funded through Small Business Innovation Research, U.S.

Department of Education, 1996 to 1998. Phase II focus is on development of tools for captioning

multimedia CD-ROMs and Internet applications (CAP-Media 1996).

The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST), has worked on two CD-ROMS that have

access built in for blind and visually impaired people. 

CAST has worked with Scholastic, Inc., a top manufacturer of children’s books and software, to

develop Wiggle Works, a CD-ROM aimed at children from kindergarten to second grade. The

CD holds a total of 72 children’s books with which the user can interact. Each story can be read

aloud using a digitized voice, and font size and colors can be changed to suit the individual. In

addition, like the Annenberg CD (mentioned below), it includes a scanning feature with talking

buttons, so that a blind person can hear what options are available and choose one by pressing a

key.

Wiggle Works appears to be the most accessible CD-ROM currently available for blind and

visually impaired people, but lacks certain features that would make it fully accessible—notably,

accessibility features to help a visually impaired person install and begin the program, and builtin video descriptions of the book’s rich pictures, which are an integral part of the story. 

However, the “message button” feature allows someone to record a short description of each

picture, which can be addressed later by pushing a computer key.
69

CAST has also produced “Communications Technology for Everyone: Implications for the

Classroom and Beyond,” an accessible CD-ROM of a report of the same name from the

Annenberg Washington Program (1994). The CD-ROM, like Wiggle Works, includes scanning

with talking buttons. Other features include a large-text version, associated ASCII text files, and

the capability of having the text read aloud. It does not include audio description of photos or

video.

CAST’s “Ultimate Kid Books,” aimed at children from preschool to second grade, is a

publishing system that also reads books aloud. It has the added feature of allowing someone to

type in picture descriptions that can then be read aloud.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting/WGBH National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM)

is working on a CD-ROM project funded by the National Science Foundation. It is developing

techniques and guidelines for making science CD-ROMs accessible to blind and visually

impaired children and will be developing a prototype CD-ROM with accessibility built in. All

text will be readable using a screen reader or the speech will be built in, and all graphical

elements will be described in text or read aloud. 

71

APPENDIX G

MISSION OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY

Overview and Purpose

The National Council on Disability (NCD) is an independent federal agency led by 15 members

appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. 

The overall purpose of NCD is to promote policies, programs, practices, and procedures that

guarantee equal opportunity for all individuals with disabilities, regardless of the nature or

severity of the disability; and to empower individuals with disabilities to achieve economic selfsufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society.

Specific Duties

The current statutory mandate of NCD includes the following:

C Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, policies, programs, practices, and

procedures concerning individuals with disabilities conducted or assisted by federal

departments and agencies, including programs established or assisted under the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, or under the Developmental Disabilities

Assistance and Bill of Rights Act; as well as all statutes and regulations pertaining to

federal programs that assist such individuals with disabilities, in order to assess the

effectiveness of such policies, programs, practices, procedures, statutes, and regulations

in meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities.
72

C Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, new and emerging disability policy

issues affecting individuals with disabilities at the federal, state, and local levels, and in

the private sector, including the need for and coordination of adult services, access to

personal assistance services, school reform efforts and the impact of such efforts on

individuals with disabilities, access to health care, and policies that operate as

disincentives for individuals to seek and retain employment.

C Making recommendations to the President, the Congress, the Secretary of Education, the

Director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, and other

officials of federal agencies, respecting ways to better promote equal opportunity,

economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration into all

aspects of society for Americans with disabilities.

C Providing the Congress, on a continuing basis, advice, recommendations, legislative

proposals, and any additional information that the Council or the Congress deems

appropriate.

C Gathering information about the implementation, effectiveness, and impact of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).

C Advising the President, the Congress, the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services

Administration, the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

within the Department of Education, and the Director of the National Institute on

Disability and Rehabilitation Research on the development of the programs to be carried

out under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.

C Providing advice to the Commissioner with respect to the policies and conduct of the

Rehabilitation Services Administration.
73

C Making recommendations to the Director of the National Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research on ways to improve research, service, administration, and the

collection, dissemination, and implementation of research findings affecting persons with

disabilities.

C Providing advice regarding priorities for the activities of the Interagency Disability

Coordinating Council and reviewing the recommendations of this Council for legislative

and administrative changes to ensure that such recommendations are consistent with the

purposes of the Council to promote the full integration, independence, and productivity of

individuals with disabilities.

C Preparing and submitting to the President and the Congress an annual report titled

National Disability Policy: A Progress Report. 

C Preparing and submitting to the Congress and the President an annual report containing a

summary of the activities and accomplishments of the Council.

International

In 1995, NCD was designated by the Department of State to be the official contact point with the

U.S. government for disability issues. Specifically, NCD interacts with the special rapporteur of

United Nations Commission for Social Development on disability matters.

Consumers Served and Current Activities

While many government agencies deal with issues and programs affecting people with

disabilities, NCD is the only federal agency charged with addressing, analyzing, and making

recommendations on issues of public policy that affect people with disabilities regardless of age,

disability type, perceived employment potential, economic need, specific functional ability, status
74

as a veteran, or other individual circumstance. NCD recognizes its unique opportunity to

facilitate independent living, community integration, and employment opportunities for people

with disabilities by ensuring an informed and coordinated approach to addressing the concerns of

persons with disabilities and eliminating barriers to their active participation in community and

family life.

NCD plays a major role in developing disability policy in America. In fact, it was NCD that

originally proposed what eventually became ADA. NCD’s present list of key issues includes

improving personal assistance services, promoting health care reform, including students with

disabilities in high-quality programs in typical neighborhood schools, promoting equal

employment and community housing opportunities, monitoring the implementation of ADA,

improving assistive technology, and ensuring that persons with disabilities who are members of

minority groups fully participate in society. 

Statutory History

NCD was initially established in 1978 as an advisory board within the Department of Education

(Public Law 95–602). The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1984 (Public Law 98–221)

transformed NCD into an independent agency. 
75

REFERENCES

Allan, James, Ph.D., teacher of the visually impaired, Texas School for the Blind and

Visually Impaired. Personal communication, May 16, 1997.

American Foundation for the Blind. Comments of the American Foundation for the

Blind, October 28, 1996, before the FCC WT Docket #96–198, in the Matter of Implementation

of Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Access to Telecommunications Service,

Telecommunications Equipment, and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with

Disabilities.

American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) (1996). (http://www.astd.org/

industry/trends/trend1.htm)

Annenberg Washington Program in Communications Policy Studies of Northwestern

University (1994). Communications Technology for Everyone: Implications for the Classroom

and Beyond. Washington, DC: Annenberg Washington Program, p.15.

Apple Computer (1995). (http://hed.info.apple.com/aie-multimedia.html)

Bassi, L., Gallagher, A. L., and Schroer, E. (1996). The ASTD Training Data Book.

Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.

Berke, S. J. (1997). Closed Captioning Web Site. (http://www.erols.com/berke/)

Bolnick, David, accessibility program manager, Microsoft Corporation. Personal

communication, May 16, 1997.
76

Bolnick, D. A. “Accessible by Design”. Paper presented at the Conference on

Technology and Persons with Disabilities (CSUN), Northridge, California, March 1997.

Bosson, Ed, telecommunications relay service administrator, Texas Public Utilities

Commission, Austin, TX. Personal communication, July 1997.

Bradsher, K. Microsoft Wants Information to Travel Real Highway. New York Times,

June 30, 1997.

Broderbund, Lucinda Ray. Personal communication, July 15, 1997.

CAP-Media, Inc. (1997). Accessible Interactive Media: Digital Captioning Tools and a

Model Interactive Multimedia Product. (http://www.cap-media.com)

Chamberlain, P. T. (1996). Analysis of the Toshiba SD Super Density Video Disk

Format and its Success and Impact on the Consumer Market. (http://unok.no/robert/hifi/

dvd/failure.html)

Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association (CEMA) (1997). (http://www.

cemacity.org/cemacity/gazette/files/teachers.htm)

Council of Organizational Representatives (COR). Internal communications, October

1996.

Cronin, Barry, Ph.D., executive producer, Home Education Division, Consumer

Publishing Group, Addison Wesley Longman. Personal communication, June 23, 1997.

Electronic Industries Association (1996). U.S. Consumer Electronics Sales and Forecast,

1992–1993. Arlington, VA: Consumer Electronics Manufacturing Association.
77

EMedia Professional (January 1997). (http://www.onlineinc.com/emedia/)

EMedia Professional (February 1997). (http://www.onlineinc.com/emedia/)

Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Paragraph 58 of the Fourth Report and

Order, Digital Television Proceeding, adopted December 24, 1996.

FIND/SVP (1997). (cited March 12, 1997). (http://etrg.findsvp.com/

Internet/highlights.html)

Gallaudet University (1997). College for Continuing Education, Distance Education

Program. (http://www.gallaudet.edu)

Gallaudet University (1996). Technology Assessment Program, Rehabilitation

Engineering and Research Center on Universal Telecommunications Access. (http://tap.

gallaudet.edu/prj5.htm)

Georgia Institute of Technology (1996). (http://www.cc.gatech.edu/

gvu/user_surveys/survey-04-1996)

Goodstein, H., and Silver, T. Broadcast and Cable TV Access. National Association of

the Deaf (NAD) Broadcaster, October 1994, pp. 5–6, 8. 

Gopen, Stuart (1995). Gopen’s Guide to Closed Captioned Video, Chicago, IL: Caption

Data Base, Inc.

Hall, B. (1997). Multimedia and Internet Training Newsletter. (http://www.

multimediatraining.com/faq.html)
78

Hamrin, M. Michele, Lakewood Publications, Minneapolis, MN. Personal

communication, May 15, 1997.

Hansen, E. G., Katz, I. R., and Forer, D. C. “Building Organizational Awareness and

Expertise in Web Accessibility”. Paper presented at the Conference on Technology and Persons

with Disabilities (CSUN), Northridge, CA, March 1997. 

Harkins, Judith (1996). Captioned Media and Educational Technology: Research into

Contemporary School Practice. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Captioned Films and

Videos Program, National Association of the Deaf, Washington, DC, May 1996.

Interactive Multimedia Organization. (1996). (http://www.ima.org/tools/glossary.

html#_M_)

Jensema, Carl, vice president, Institute for Disabilities Research and Training, Silver

Spring, Maryland. Personal communication, July 1997.

Jordan, I. King (1993). A Matter of Access: Technology for Deaf and Hard of Hearing

People, Technos, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 26–28.

Kapperman, G., Heinze, T., Hahn, S., and Dalton, S. M. (1997). Project Vision: 

Visually Impaired Students and Internet Opportunities Now. Sycamore, IL: Research and

Development Institute.

Kerscher, George, research director, Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic. Personal

communication, May 15, 1997.

King, Cindy, multimedia developer, researcher, and professor, Gallaudet University,

Washington, DC. Personal communication. July 1997.
79

King, C. M. (1996). CAP-Media Web Site. (http://www.cap-media.com)

King, C. M. (1995). “Multimedia and Visual Access for Deaf and Hard of Hearing

People.” Proceedings of the Technology and People with Disabilities Conference, Los Angeles,

CA, March 1995.

King, C. M. (1993). Multimedia Captioning: Synchronized Text and Audio

Presentations. In H. Maurer (ed.), Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia Annual, 1993. 

Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, pp.

609–614.

King, C. M., and Larkins, E. J. (1994). Implementation Issues of Using

Hypermedia/Interactive Video in Special Education. In J. Willis, B. Robins and D. A. Willis

(eds.), Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1994. Charlottesville, VA: Association for

the Advancement of Computing in Education, (pp. 464–466).

King, C. M., and Short, D. D. “Using Digital Captions to Improve Literacy in

Multimedia Environments.” Paper presented at the National Educational Computing

Conference, Boston, MA, June 15, 1994.

Kirchner, C., and Harkins, D. (1991). Issues and Strategies Toward Improving

Employment of the Blind and Visually Impaired in Illinois. New York: American Foundation

for the Blind.

Korn, Peter, assistive technologies architect, Sun Microsystems Inc. Personal

communication, September 16, 1997. 

Lexington Center (1997). Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Hearing

Enhancement and Assistive Devices. (http://idt.net/~reslex/reslex/)
80

Lowney, G. C. “Active Accessibility and the Windows Logo Program.” Paper presented

at the Conference on Technology and Persons with Disabilities (CSUN), Northridge, CA, March

1997.

McNeil, J. M. (1993). Americans with Disabilities: 1991–92. U.S. Bureau of the

Census. Current Population Reports, P70-33. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

Microsoft (1997). Accessibility and Disabilities (Guidelines). (http://www.microsoft.

com/enable/dev/guidelines.htm)

MSNBC. (1997). (cited March 12, 1997). (http://www.msnbc.com/news/54691.asp)

National Association of the Deaf (NAD) Captioned Films/Videos Program. Video

Producer/Distributor Captioning Survey Results. Report to the U.S. Department of Education,

January 1995.

National Association of Radio and Telecommunications Engineers (NARTE) (1997).

(http://www.narte.org)

National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM) (1997a). Equal Opportunity Through

Accessible CD-ROMs. Media Access. Boston, MA: NCAM.

National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM). (1997b). (cited July 14, 1997). 

(http://www.boston.com/wgbh/pages/ncam/currentprojects/webaccess.html)

National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM). (1997c). Web Access Project.

(http://www.boston.com/wgbh/pages/ncam/ncamhome.html)
81

National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM). (1996a). Advanced Television Closed

Captioning. (http://www.boston.com/wgbh/pages/ncam/ncamhome.html)

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). (1995). Current Estimates from the

National Health Interview Survey, 1994. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). (1994). Data from the National Health

Interview Survey, series 10, no. 188, table 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). (1989). The National Nursing Home

Survey; 1985 Summary for the United States. Vital and Health Statistics. series 13, no. 97.

DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 89-1758. Public Health Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

National Center to Improve Practice (NCIP) in Special Education through Technology,

Media and Materials; Resource Files: Video and Captioning (1995). (http://www.edc.org/

FSC/NCIP/Library_Videos.html)

National Council on Disability (1996a). Guidance from the Graphical User Interface

(GUI) Experience: What GUI Teaches about Technology Access. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

National Council on Disability (1996b). Access to the Information Superhighway and

Emerging Information Technologies by People with Disabilities. Washington, DC.

Nielsen. (1996). Home Technology Report. (http://www.nielsenmedia.com/news/

hotech-summary.html)
82

Paciello, M. (1997). (cited March 12, 1997). (http://www.yuri.org/webable/mpblnax.html)

Paciello, M. (1996). Making the Web Accessible for the Deaf, Hearing, and Mobility

Impaired. Yuri Rubinsky Insight Foundation. (http://www.yuri.org/webable/)

Packer, J., and Kirchner, C. (1997). Who’s Watching? A Profile of the Blind and

Visually Impaired Audience for Television and Video. New York: American Foundation for the

Blind.

Quality Education Data (1996). 1996–1997 Technology Purchasing Forecast. Denver,

CO: QED.

Response Analysis Corporation (1996). (cited April 2, 1996). (http://www.

commercepark. com/AAAA/casie/comp/pac.html#second_survey)

Roper Starch Worldwide (1995). Roper Reports 95-2. New York: Author.

Rothberg, Madeleine, project director, National Center for Accessible Media. Personal

communication, May 22, 1997.

Scadden, Larry, Ph.D., senior program director, Programs for Persons with Disabilities,

National Science Foundation. Personal communication, May 15, 1997.

Scheffel, Robert E., computer specialist and network administrator, Oregon School for

the Deaf, Salem, OR. Personal communication, July 1997.

Santa Cruz Technology Alliance (1997). Cybertalk Glossary of Terms. (cited March 12,

1997). (http://www.scta.org/cyberglossary.htm)
83

Silver, Toby R., vice chair for Captioning Access, National Association of the Deaf,

Telecommunications Committee. Personal communication, July 1997.

Strauss, Karen Peltz, and Richardson, Robert. Breaking Down the Telephone

Barrier—Relay Services, Temple Law Review, vol. 64 (Summer 1991), pp. 583–607.

Texas Education Agency (1997). Accessibility of Information in Electronic Textbooks for

Students Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

Thatcher, James, Ph.D., IBM Special Needs Systems. Personal communication May 20,

1997.

Tielsch, J. M., Sommer, A., Witt, K., Katz, J., Royall, R. M. (1990). Blindness and

visual impairment in an American urban population: The Baltimore eye survey. Archives of

Ophthalmology, 108, 286–290.

Trace Research and Development Center (1997). (http://trace.wisc.edu/text/guidelns/

htmlgide/htmlgide.html).

Trower, Mary Ann, Education Specialist, Special Needs, at Edmark, a publisher of

children’s educational software. Personal communication, May 19, 1997.

University of Arkansas (1996). RT-31 Research Project R-5, Advocating for

Communication Access Using Technological Accommodations to Enhance Rehabilitation

Service Delivery to Persons Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. (http://www.uark.edu).

U.S. Department of Education. (1996a). (http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Plan/

NatTechPlan/title.html).
84

U.S. Department of Education. (1996b). (http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Plan/

NatTechPlan/benefits.html). 

Vanderheiden, Gregg, Ph.D., Director of the Trace Research and Development Center.

Personal communication, May 22, 1997.

Vanderheiden, G., and Others. (1996). Accessible HTML Guidelines—Quick Reference,

Trace R & D Center at the University of Wisconsin. (http://www.trace.wisc.edu).

Viera, Judy, President, Teletec International, Madison, WI. Personal communication,

July 1997.

Werbach, K. (1997). “Digital Tornado: The Internet and Telecommunications Policy.”

OPP Working Paper No. 29. Washington, DC: Office of Plans and Policy, Federal

Communications Commission.

Western Pennsylvania School for the Deaf (1997). Multimedia Technology. 

(http://www.wpsd.edu).

Wirthlin Worldwide (1996). The Wirthlin Report, 6 (7). McLean, VA: Worthlin

Worldwide.

Wlodkowski, Tom, Project Coordinator, National Science Foundation-funded CD-ROM

Access Project. Personal communication, May 22, 1997.

Wong, Peter, Software Design Engineer, Accessibility and Disabilities Group, Microsoft

Corporation. Personal communication, May 16, 1997.
85

GLOSSARY 

Analog captioning: Subtitles in video materials, configured for analog transmissions.

Closed captioning: Subtitles embedded in video materials and visible only to those who have a

caption decoder, which is usually built into television sets. 

Digital captioning: Subtitles embedded in video materials, configured for digital transmissions.

Digital video disc (DVD): A new media storage format intended to replace audio CDS,

CD-ROMs, videotapes, and laser discs. DVD players will fall into two categories: (1)

stand-alone devices attached to televisions and (2) DVD-ROM drives in computers (similar to

today’s CD-ROM, but with eight times the storage capacity). Originally scheduled for release in

June 1996, DVD players were delayed because of copyright negotiations between the

entertainment and computer industries. 

Open captioning: Subtitles that are visible to anyone viewing the video material (broadcast,

cable, videocassette, and otherwise).

Remote captioning: Captioning services provided through remote means, usually through

telephone lines. May require use of on-site interpreters to supply audio.

Screen reader: Device that enables blind and visually impaired people to use a computer as a

sighted person would, either by magnifying the text on the screen or by converting the text to

speech or braille.

Telecommunications relay service (TRS): Provides a link between voice and text

telecommunications users.
86

Teletypewriter (TTY): A device that enables individuals to communicate in print across

telephone wires.

Video description (also known as audio description): A means of making television, movies,

and other video programming accessible through verbal (audio) descriptions of key visual

elements inserted into natural pauses in the program’s dialogue, without interfering with the

sounds and dialogue that are a regular part of the program.

Video relay interpreting: Provides a visual link between voice and text telecommunications

relay service users, incorporating usage of sign-to-voice and/or voice-to-sign and related relay

interpreting skills.

Video remote interpreting: Provision of sign-to-voice and/or voice-to-sign and related types of

interpreting services using video technology through remote telephone connections, thereby

bypassing the need for on-site interpreters.