Captioned Internet Videos -- An Emerging Issue and Initial Success

Internet videos are becoming a more important source of information, supplementing and sometimes completely replacing written communication. But too often, the makers of those videos forget about those of us who "hear" with our eyes as well as our ears. Especially with the fairly low-fi computer sound systems, non-captioned videos are often inaccessible to us.

Thanks to the persistence of one of our Wash-CAP members, the Spokane Regional Health District has now captioned all of its informational videos. When you go to the District's web-site, you can choose between the regular menu of videos or the "closed-captioned" menu -- click on the latter, and the videos appear with a "captions" icon that you can turn on or off.

The District originally took the position that written transcripts available upon request would be sufficient. We disagreed. In correspondence with the District, through its Spokane attorneys, we pointed out that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires public agencies to make all of their programs and services accessible to people with hearing loss, and the law further requires them to give primary consideration to the method of accessibility being requested. We also pointed out that the time and expense required to furnish a written transcript would be essentially the same as the time and expense required to prepare captions, so there was little money to be saved by their proposed alternative, and much to be gained in terms of more widespread and timely access by our proposed method.

After considering the alternatives, perhaps including our observation that it would cost them a great deal less to caption the videos than to debate the issue in court, the district complied, and now makes its on-line health advisories accessible to everyone.

The whole business of internet accessibility is an increasing concern. A bill introduced in the House of Representatives, H.R. 3101, would address the problem on a federal level. (Read about H.R. 3101 at the website of the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology, or COAT). Since government agencies have to make all of their "programs and services" accessible, government-provided videos pretty clearly must be captioned. 

The great gap at the moment deals with on-line videos created by private businesses, who are not required to make their programs and services accessible, but only their places of business. Courts are divided on whether a website where goods are sold can be classified as a place of business for purposes of disability laws. The federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has said that places of business are brick-and-mortar places only.

However, a federal district court in California has qualified the Ninth Circuit's rule somewhat by saying that if the inaccessibility of the website actually hinders one's ability to shop at the brick-and-mortar store, that may be a violation of federal disability law. We believe that logic should apply, at the very least, to on-line instructional videos for products sold at the brick-and-mortar store

Government Entities

GOVERNMENT ENTITIES. We're all entitled to participate in the civic life of our city, state and nation, and we're entitled to enjoy the benefits provided by the government. So in most instances, any facility or service operated by a state or local government must offer aids and services sufficient to ensure that communication with us is as effective as communication with those whose hearing is undiminished. In determining what aids and services to offer, public entities must give "primary consideration" to our preferences.

The most significant national case dealing with the duties of public entities towards those with hearing loss comes from Kitsap County. A man asked that his divorce trial be captioned. Instead, he was offered listening devices, a small and acoustically friendly courtroom, and the opportunity to move around so that he could speech-read the testifying witnesses. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled those aids and services were insufficient. It reminded the county of its obligation to give "primary consideration" to the requests of the individual, and warned abainst furnishing aids and services based on "stereotypes," such as the belief that assistive listening devices are adequate for all individuals with a hearing loss, or that all of us benefit from sign-language interpretation.

In the wake of that decision, the Washington Supreme Court adopted General Rule 33, which applies to all non-federal courts in Washington. It provides that any participant in a court proceeding is entitled to the aids and services they request if they give two weeks' notice unless it would be impossible to provide the service an the date scheduled for the proceeding, and it would be impossible to continue the proceeding until the aids and services became available.

While GR 33 takes care of the access problem for parties, witnesses, jurors and attorneys, it leaves open the question of whether aids and services have to be provided for spectators. My own view is that ADA essentially requires equal treatment where possible, and that if a court proceeding is open to hearing spectators, then aids and services must be provided to make the proceeding equally open to those with hearing losses.