36 CFR Part 1194 - Proposed Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Standards and Guidelines NPRM - Preamble

413.1 General (Section-by-Section Analysis)

This proposed section addresses the accessibility of controls for captioning and audio description on devices used to watch video programming, including analog and digital televisions, tuners, personal video display devices, converter boxes, and computer equipment. Specifically, this provision would require hardware displaying video with synchronized audio to locate user controls for closed captions and audio description in specified locations of equal prominence to common user controls (i.e., volume and program selection), as set forth in two accompanying subsections (proposed 413.1.1 and 413.1.2). An exception would be provided for devices for personal use when closed captions and audio description can be enabled through system-wide platform settings. This exception is proposed in recognition of the fact that the small size of most mobile devices would make compliance particularly challenging.

The requirements in proposed 413.1 would be new to the 508 Standards and the 255 Guidelines. The Advisory Committee recommended inclusion of this provision to ensure that persons with hearing- and vision-related disabilities can find—and use—captioning and audio description controls. See TEITAC Report, Part 6, Subpt. C, Rec. 4-C. (Complimentary provisions governing software-based on-screen controls for captions and audio description are addressed in proposed 503.4.)

This proposed requirement, albeit with slightly different wording, was included in the 2010 and 2011 ANPRMs. Comments from organizations representing persons with disabilities lauded this proposed requirement as a significant step toward improving the accessibility of captioning and audio description controls. These organizations characterized consumers with disabilities as having long struggled with varying methods among manufacturers for accessing such controls, describing them as typically more complex and less “user friendly” compared to the control of other core functions. They also noted that difficulties locating and using caption and audio description controls is of particular concern for persons with disabilities when in unfamiliar locations (e.g., television in hotel room), or an emergency situation when accessing captioned or audio described information could be life-saving.

Commenters with connections to the ICT industry, on the other hand, expressed concern with the broad scope of the proposed provision. These commenters noted that the proposed requirement governing location of controls for captions and audio description would apply not only to televisions and remote controls, but also a wide range of “general purpose” devices—such as desktop computers, laptops, and other mobile devices—for which multimedia output is an incidental function. They suggested that either the scoping of the requirement be modified, or “general purpose” devices be exempted from providing physical buttons for closed captions and audio description. Others simply noted more generally that providing caption controls with equal prominence to volume controls could be problematic for some types of hardware-based ICT.

In late 2013, the FCC issued a final rule addressing, among other things, the accessibility of user interfaces on digital devices and software used to view video programming, including closed captioning and audio description (which, in the Commission’s rule, is referred to as “video description”).¹¹ To implement the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), Public Law No. 111-260 (2010) (codified in scattered sections of 47 U.S.C.), the FCC, in pertinent part, promulgated rules requiring “digital apparatus” designed to receive or play back video programming to provide access to closed captioning and video description through a mechanism that is reasonably comparable to a button, key or icon.¹² “Navigation devices”—which include digital cable ready televisions, set-top boxes, computers with CableCARD slots, and cable modems—are required to provide similar access to closed captioning (but not, at this juncture, video description) for on-screen menus and guides. The Commission declined, however, to adopt technical standards, performance objectives, or other specific metrics to evaluate accessibility. Establishment of such standards, the Commission determined, was beyond its statutory authority, and would, in any event, potentially stifle innovative approaches.

Proposed 413.1, in the Board’s view, complements the approach taken by the FCC in its final rule on accessibility of user interfaces. As with the FCC’s rule, the Board proposes to require that ICT with the capability of displaying video with synchronized audio ensure that controls for closed captions and audio description are accessible to persons with disabilities. Unlike the FCC, however, the Board does propose technical standards—namely, placement of caption and audio description controls—that govern how accessibility must be achieved. This is consistent with the Board’s statutory mandate under both the Rehabilitation Act and Communications Act. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 794d(2)(A)(ii), 794d(B); 47 U.S.C. 255(e). Thus, while the FCC may have been statutorily constrained by the CVAA with respect to technical standards for user interfaces, the Board is not. Indeed, one of Board’s core missions is the establishment of technical standards. In this way, proposed 413.1 may be seen as complimenting the FCC’s recent final rule. Both agencies establish an accessibility mandate for user interfaces on certain ICT that displays video with synchronized audio, but the Board, in this proposed rule, goes one step further by establishing a metric to assess accessibility—namely, placement of user controls for closed captions and audio description in locations of equal prominence to other core functions (i.e., volume control and program selection).

Question 30. Does proposed 413.1 strike an appropriate balance between ensuring users with hearing or vision impairments can readily find and use controls for closed captioning and audio description, while also affording device manufacturers sufficient design flexibility? Should the requirement for a captioning button be limited to devices that have both up/down volume controls and a mute button? Or, more generally, should the provision of caption controls be limited to certain types of hardware?

413.1.1 Caption Controls (Section-by-Section Analysis)

This proposed section would require that, where video-capable hardware provides physical volume adjustment controls, such ICT must also have a control for closed captioning in at least one location of comparable prominence to the volume adjustment controls. So, for example, if a television had physical volume controls on the display panel, as well as its accompanying remote control, this proposed requirement would be satisfied so long as a user control for captions was located either, at the manufacturer’s discretion, on the display or remote control in an equally prominent location to the volume control. (If this television also had a feature to adjust volume by way of an on-screen tool or menu, caption control requirements for this on-screen control would be governed by the software-based requirements in proposed 503.4.)

Question 31. While the Board believes that proposed 413.1.1 would greatly benefit persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, we did not monetize the benefits or costs of providing caption controls on covered hardware. The Board seeks data and other information from the public in order to estimate the monetized costs and benefits of this proposal. For commenters who do not view this proposed requirement as beneficial, how should the accessibility barriers faced by individuals with hearing impairments who seek to locate and operate closed caption features be addressed? Commenters should provide concrete suggestions for improving proposed 413.1.1.

413.1.2 Audio Description Controls (Section-by-Section Analysis)

This proposed section would require that, where video-capable hardware provides controls for program selection, such ICT must have user controls for audio description in at least one location of comparable prominence to the program selection controls. This requirement would be new to the 508 Standards. Locating audio description controls in a prominent location is not currently a common design practice, though the Board does not anticipate that it will add substantial cost. In practice, this would require one extra button on a remote control. While not as common as products featuring controls for captioning, there are already products commercially available that feature user controls for audio description.

Question 32. While the Board believes that proposed 413.1.2 would greatly benefit consumers who are blind or have low vision, we did not monetize the benefits or costs of providing audio description controls on covered hardware. The Board seeks data and other information in order to estimate the monetized costs and benefits of this proposal. For commenters who do not view this proposed requirement as beneficial, how should the accessibility barriers faced by individuals with vision impairments who seek to locate and operate audio description features be addressed? Commenters should provide concrete suggestions for improving proposed 413.1.2.