Comments of the American Council of the Blind regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
28 C.F.R. Part 36; CRT Docket No. 126; AG Order No. 3449-2014 RIN 1190-AA63
Movie Captioning and Video Description
November 18, 2014
The American Council of the Blind (ACB) is a leading national membership organization. Its members
are blind, visually impaired, and fully sighted individuals who are concerned about the dignity and wellbeing of blind people throughout the nation.
Established in 1961, ACB is one of the largest organizations of people who are blind in the world, with
more than 70 state and special interest affiliates and a nationwide network of chapters and members
spanning the globe.
In 2008, ACB established the Audio Description Project (ADP) to boost levels of description activity and
disseminate information on audio description work throughout the United States and worldwide. ACB is
committed to the development of audio description in a wide range of formats, including movie theaters.
ACB along with the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) appreciate the opportunity to respond to
this notice of proposed rulemaking. Any reference to ACB in this document includes AFB. We will
respond to specific questions in a narrative form.
Introduction:
The addition of description to a movie’s soundtrack increases the accessibility to the content and grows
the size of the audience of those who are blind or who have low vision. Description enhances the viewing
experience not only for those who need the service, but also for those who view a film with the visually
impaired person.
There is no legitimate reason why a person with a disability must also be culturally disadvantaged. The
creator of any work to be publicly accessible must consider how his/her work is enhanced by universal
access, the use of captions and audio description, or other enabling techniques. An architect who designs
a building may not view the installation of ramps or lifts as part of his/her vision. And yet how
inappropriate would it be for the museum housed in that building to ask that visitors who use wheelchairs
to “bring your own ramp” if you want to venture inside!
(Question 3): Should "audio description" be the nomenclature adopted in the final rule?
A: ACB strongly supports the DOJ position that the term audio description be used as the official term to
describe this method of effective communication.
The generic phrase referencing the use of language to provide access to visual images is (and has been
since the late 1970s) audio description. In whatever format (film/movies, DVDs, performing arts,
museums), the description is made available as audio, in an aural format. The generic logo indicating the
availability of description (as established by the National Endowment for the Arts and the Graphic Artists
Guild) is AD))) and there is long-standing, established federal precedent in the government for the phrase
“audio description.” For many years, the National Park Service has produced copious documents that
refer to “audio description” and the Service regularly requisitions audio description for its videos and
films. As a practical matter, newspaper and online movie listings include information about accessibility
for a particular film by using CC for Close Captioning - but the letters VD (for video description) are not
used because of the negative social connotation.
Captions, by the way, are not referred to as “video” captions simply because they occur on television or
with a video. ACB and its Audio Description Project is committed to spreading the word about audio
description; we ask that the US Department of Justice help in that effort by maintaining the use of the
phrase audio description - one phrase that can be universally applied - and helpful to people to know this
important access service by knowing what to call it.
(Question 7): Is the proposed six-month compliance date for digital screens a reasonable timeframe to
comply with the rule? Is six months enough time to order, install, and gain familiarity using the
necessary equipment; train staff so that they can meaningfully assist patrons; and meet the notice
requirement of the proposed rule? Will manufacturers have the capacity to provide the necessary
equipment for captioning and audio description as of the six-month proposed compliance date of this
rule for digital movie screens? If the proposed six-month date is not reasonable, what should the
compliance date be and why? Please provide specific examples, data, or explanation in support of your
responses.
A: ACB strongly supports the DOJ position that 100% of all digital theater screens provide audio
description services within six months of the issuance of this ruling. Several large theater chains have
already committed to have 100% of their screens equipped with audio description by the end of calendar
year 2014. This equipment is readily available and should pose no undue burden for implementation. We
believe it is important for visually impaired consumers to have the ability to view movies in their local
communities wherever a digital screen exists with audio description.
(Question 8): Should the Department adopt a four-year compliance date for analog movie screens
(Option 1) or should it defer application of the rule's requirements to analog screens for now and
consider additional rulemaking with respect to analog screens at a later date (Option 2)? Commenters
are encouraged to provide information to support their recommendation.
A: ACB supports the position of DOJ that four years is an adequate time for analogue theaters to make the
transition to digital audio description equipment available for use by the blind and visually impaired
community. We believe the current shift of the movie industry from analogue to digital will require these
theaters to convert to digital technology sooner rather than later to remain financially viable. However,
we think it is very important to provide services the underserved blind and visually impaired movie-goer
in rural and low population communities. In many circumstances these blind and visually impaired
consumers must travel large distances to reach movie theaters that offer audio description. It is important
for the DOJ to consider DVD and other internet movie distribution networks as well for meeting this
underserved population.
We realize and concur with the Department that, particularly in small towns and in rural America, there
will be some theaters that will simply not have the resources to make the conversion to digital delivery.
For those areas, access to audio description on DVDs may well represent the only way that people who
are blind can enjoy all the elements of a presentation that others take for granted.
Another element that we believe needs further consideration concerns how audio description is delivered.
We have already suggested that there is validity to making audio description on DVDs an inherent
element of coverage. We should add that it is crucial that, in addition to actually being required to include
audio description on DVDs, there be a requirement that an approach be found that will assure that people
who are blind can actually find where the described version of the movie is located on that DVD. There
have been a number of menus that can be accessed using traditional controls because they speak. They
have been around for well over a decade but have not gained much traction. We believe that it is high
time that the Department look to make some method mandatory that would allow people who are blind to
fully utilize the DVDs with audio description they buy.
We would request that the Department mandate audible accessible menus on DVDs. Why not consider
making the default version that plays when the video is inserted into the player the one that includes audio
description? The sighted viewer could easily turn off the audio description feature. This is a simple
approach that would cost providers nothing and would allow people who are blind to be included in the
whole DVD experience with the accessibility actually there to utilize. We feel that this is relevant to this
NPRM because of our belief that there must be recognition that people who are blind deserve access to
audio description wherever they live and whatever format they utilize.
(Question 12): How many devices capable of transmitting audio description to individuals should each
movie theater have on hand for use by patrons who are blind or have low vision? Should the number of
individual audio-description listening devices be tied to the number of seats in each auditorium or
other location with a movie screen? Should the number of individual audio-description listening
devices be tied to the number of seats in the theater facility as a whole? Please provide the basis for
your comment. How many movie theaters have two-channel receivers that can be used to provide audio
description? How many movie theaters will need to buy additional individual audio description
listening devices? How much do audio description listening devices that meet the requirements of this
proposed rule cost?
A: ACB believes it is very important that we provide a sufficient quantity of audio description devices to
support a group of blind and visually impaired consumers attending a movie at the same time. Many blind
and visually impaired individuals have friends and family members that are also blind or visually
impaired. Therefore, we recommend that all theaters provide eight audio description devices or two audio
description devices per screen, whichever is the larger amount. We appreciate the cost involved with
purchasing audio description devices and are supportive of devices that allow both audio description and
assisted listening capability to consumers. However, it is important that theater staff understand how to
configure this dual equipment for audio description consumers. Please see the comments associated to
(question 15) for more information on theater staff training.
(Question 14): It is the Department's view that the cost of the proposed requirement for theaters to
provide notice indicating which screenings will be captioned or audio-described is de minimal. The
Department requests comments on this view. Specifically, how much will it cost theaters to provide
information regarding the availability of captioning and audio description for each movie and to
specify whether open movie captions or closed movie captions will be provided for each particular
showing and time? The Department understands that this cost may vary depending on the type of
communication or advertisement, and so we request that commenters specify the type of
communication or advertisement along with their cost estimate. In addition, how many times in a given
year do theaters provide communications and advertisements that would trigger this proposed
requirement? The Department understands that this will likely vary depending on how many screens a
theater has, and so we request theater commenters to specify how many screens they operate in their
response to this question. Because the rule would require 100 percent of movies available with captions
and audio description to be shown with these accessibility features, should the Department permit
theaters to indicate those movies that do not have these features rather than indicating those that have
these features? Would this approach have an effect on the cost of providing notice? If so, how would it
affect the cost?
A: ACB takes exception to the notion that the cost of marketing audio description should be negligible.
We believe that the Department should set a minimum of one-half percent of the marketing budget that
theater chains and theaters should be required to spend to advertise and promote the availability of
captioning and audio description. Unless theaters are mandated to market these accessibility services, the
growth in their use will be extremely slow.
ACB agrees with the Department’s suggestion that the actual cost of a proposed requirement for theaters
to provide notice indicating which screenings will be captioned or audio described will be minimal. It is
difficult for ACB to determine precisely what those costs would be or the number of times per month that
theaters distribute their schedule information. But we assume that simply adding the AD))) or CC logos
to already purchased print advertisements (or by adding the logos to material provided to Tribune Media
or Rovi) could be accomplished at little, if any, cost. Similarly, adding the logos to material already
submitted to websites (Fandango, movies.com, etc.) would require no additional cost.
In addition, if this information is provided to ACB’s Audio Description Project, we can ensure that the
information regarding described films could be distributed regularly and widely at a nominal cost to the
theater chains and theaters for the benefit of the intended audience, especially via the Audio Description
Project’s popular website (acb.org/adp), Facebook presence and Twitter feeds.
We believe that a positive approach to theater advertising is best, i.e., noting the presence of access for
films that provide audio description (as opposed to indicating its absence and putting consumers in the
awkward position of having to assume that *all* other films are accessible).
It is imperative that theater chains and theaters be required to affirmatively market the availability of
movies that are audio described. It is crucial that all ads for movies include information about whether the
movie is audio described or captioned. It is not sufficient that this information be available in a few
locations or formats. It should be available through a wide array of online listings; through listings run on
apps available for hand-held mobile phones; and on telephone information lines where movie times and
locations are listed; in printed media such as newspapers, magazines; and in such other places as
information about scheduled showings may be made available to the general public.
This is crucial for two reasons. First, many potential users of audio description have no idea it is available.
Having family or friends seeing information that indicates that audio description is available can be an
encouragement for people with vision loss to attend movies in theaters which they otherwise would not
have done. Many members of the general public may also not know it is available and may well have
friends or family members who they will encourage to attend movies once the service is understood to be
available.
We believe that a positive and proactive approach to theater advertisements is best, i.e., noting the
presence of access for films that provide audio description (as opposed to indicating its absence and
putting consumers in the awkward position of having to assume that *all* other films are accessible).
Finally, we believe that every theater should be required to announce at the start of every performance
that the movie that is about to be shown has captions and audio description available. This will allow all
of those present at the theater to know that these options exist and are free to patrons who can benefit
from their use. This could be an announcement on screen similar to the “turn off cell phones” message at
the beginning of all movie showings. We think it would also be helpful if these announcements included
an example of what audio description and closed captioning are to increase understanding among the
general public. Further, it would also be very useful if the announcement about audio description and
captioning showed before the movie starts, actually included a little audio description so the blind or
visually impaired person could know that their receiver is working correctly. Presently, there is no audio
description until the movie actually starts – none of the trailers at the beginning have description. If your
unit is not working correctly, it’s a bit late to do much about it without missing the beginning of the film.
(Question 15): How much additional time beyond the normal time movie theaters spend training staff
would be needed to incorporate instruction in the operation and maintenance of the equipment for
captioning or audio description? How much additional time do theaters anticipate spending on
assisting patrons in using the captioning and audio description devices? How should the Department
estimate the value of the additional time theater personnel would spend on assisting patrons in using
the captioning and audio description devices? Would that additional cost be borne by the theaters, and
if so, how?
A: ACB believes that it is absolutely critical for movie theater staff to have adequate training in access
awareness (including an understanding of the nature of blindness or low vision) and theater equipment
maintenance and operation. For example, all too often equipment set for assisted listening are given to
blind or visually impaired consumers who desire audio description. By the time the problems are
discovered, the film has already begun and addressing the issue disturbs other patrons and the description
consumer ends up missing the film’s opening sequences. Even when the equipment functions properly,
many times the signal doesn’t reach all portions of the theater. Blind and visually impaired consumers
need a way to determine that the equipment is functioning properly before the start of the feature
presentation. Please see (14) for more details.
In addition, some training in providing effective services to individuals who are blind or visually impaired
such as sighted guide technique. Often, theater staff will direct information to a sighted companion,
ignoring the description consumer. Ideally, two to four hours of training would be focused on the audio
description equipment technology and the proper interaction with blind and visually impaired consumers.
(Question 17): The Department invites comment on methods and data for monetizing or quantifying
the societal benefits of the proposed regulation, including benefits to persons who are deaf or hard of
hearing or blind or have low vision, as well as to other members of the movie-going public or other
entities. For example, the Department invites comments on methods and data for estimating the
number of people with vision or hearing disabilities who would benefit from this rule, and addressing
the challenges noted above in developing such an estimate, as well as comments on methods and data
that could be used to estimate the value of the different types of benefits noted above. The Department
also invites comments on its qualitative discussion of the benefits of this rule, which include equity,
human dignity, and fairness.
A: Perhaps the most important need addressed by audio description in movie theaters is the ability to
bring children and adults who are blind or have low vision into the mainstream of society. The inability
of anyone, adult or child, to participate fully in popular culture - which has a unique power to bind us
together - effectively alienates individuals who are blind or visually impaired from his/her community.
As such, description provides the keys to our culture to the extent that description helps people who are
blind or visually impaired be more familiar with media (television and movies), museums, theater, and
other everyday events, thus allowing the description user to be more engaged and engaging individuals.
This makes it possible for the user of audio description to be more socially integrated into society and
develop stronger employment skills.
As background to the information from the U.S. Census describing the blind and visually impaired
population, we would also like to offer more demographic information detailed below. We have found
that many newly blind and visually impaired individuals do not define themselves as visually impaired to
the formal U.S. Census process. The most current demographic information available reveals that more
than 25 million Americans (about 1 out of every 15 people) report experiencing significant vision loss,
i.e., individuals who have trouble seeing, even when wearing glasses or contact lenses, as well as
individuals who are blind.
According to the report for the 2012 National Health Interview Survey, 20.6 million American adults age
18 and older reported experiencing vision loss. The term “vision loss” refers to individuals who reported
that they have trouble seeing, even when wearing glasses or contact lenses, as well as to individuals who
reported that they are blind or unable to see at all. This estimate pertains to a nationally representative
sample of the non-institutionalized civilian population 18 years of age and over.1
Of this population, at least 6.5 million individuals are more severely visually impaired. Survey data of
state special education staff found that over 93,000 children served through special education (ages 0 to
21) in 1998 were visually impaired or blind (American Foundation for the Blind, 2000). Data collected by
the American Printing House for the Blind indicates there were 55,200 legally blind children in 1999.
1
National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, 2012, www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm. For
further information, see Blackwell, D.L., Lucas, J.W., & Clarke, T.C. (2014). Summary health statistics for U.S.
adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2012. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 10 (260).
Conclusion:
The Department of Justice has, in its latest NPRM, substantially extended the obligations that theaters
have to make audio description available. The comments that follow do not only speak directly to the
NPRM, but also raise issues that we believe deserve serious consideration.
As with so many other issues, audio description has found applications far beyond the live performance
venues and movie theaters. It is now accepted as a valid accommodation in museums and art galleries, is
provided on DVDs, appears on the Internet to clarify visual content and is being included in applications
that are being developed for computers, telephones and tablets.
We would suggest that the Department consider recognizing that audio description needs now to be
considered independently of the other elements with which it has, in the past, been associated. If there is
validity in making audio description available on television or in movie theaters, surely there is no
difference in the efficacy of making it available on DVDs, on the Internet or in applications. Just as
people who are blind have the right to access information wherever it is generated, we believe that, as an
inherent component of such information access, the clarification provided by audio description ought to
be included.
We would reiterate a position we have taken in the past in other comments we have made. The history of
access for people who are blind since the passage of relevant civil rights laws has been limited and
accretive. Instead of taking the position that people who are blind have the right to be fully included in all
components of society, the Department has chosen to force people who are blind to fight for each new
element of coverage that has been acquired.
It is beyond the scope of these comments to outline the history of audio description. However, long before
audio description appeared in theaters, people who are blind were spending their own money to buy video
tapes that included audio description. In meetings we had with the motion picture industry as early as
1987, we were assured that audio description would be provided as soon as the conversion to DVDs
happened. We were asked as a group to cut the industry some slack and to have faith. More and more
studios have now begun to provide audio description for theaters, but the promise that was made with
regard to DVDs has not been fully kept. We do not have firm statistics, but we believe that no more than
35 percent of the movies that are audio described in theaters make it to DVD.
Future Developments: There are a number of companies who are exploring the delivery of audio
description through applications on cell phones. Essentially they would utilize wireless connections to get
access to a stream or would allow the audio description file to be downloaded in advance by the user. This
approach would enable a person who is blind to access an audio description track with their phone. Audio
description could be made available in a variety of languages and is more likely to be clear and not
subject to poor reception. These systems have the ability to synchronize the audio description directly to
the sound track of the movie as heard in the theater or home setting, and may represent an approach that
has real potential to meet and augment audio descriptive obligations in innovative ways in the future. This
approach might also allow audio description to be provided in the home with DVDs that do not have
description by using the same synchronization approach used in the theater. This is another example of
how crucial it is to do two things: first, as stated several times earlier, we cannot consider a narrow and
directed response to this NPRM and must instead focus on making audio description available wherever it
is being delivered. Second, we must all recognize that there may be other approaches to creating access to
audio description than those being proposed in the NPRM that deserve serious consideration.
We have indicated throughout our comments that we believe that the Department must broaden its
approach to audio description or leave people who are blind outside of coverage as the potential for audio
description expands. In the United States, we are currently in the midst of a digital revolution. There is a
huge range of platforms where movies are now being viewed. It is probably true that more people view
motion pictures outside theaters than in them. Broadcast television channels, cable television channels,
satellite television channels, and channels delivered from the Internet either repeat those components
available elsewhere or package movies and other content which is purchased separately. An example of
this last kind of delivery is Netflix, while Amazon is emerging with a slightly different model.
In addition to all of these approaches to delivering content, there are other boxes such as "Apple TV"
where content is being aggregated. Even though this NPRM speaks to movie theaters, we believe the
Department must include in it some direction for those providing content in these various ways to make
certain that they consider the needs of people who are blind or have low vision. We wish to recognize one
cable provider, Comcast, that is leading the industry in accessibility to their platform for develop an
interface that is accessible and that may make audio description accessible in the future. However, other
cable providers don’t appear to be taking seriously their obligation to be accessible to people who are
blind or have low vision.
We are convinced that it is crucial that the Department of Justice recognize that, without its intervention,
audio description will absolutely not be successful in fulfilling the potential it has to enrich the lives of
millions of Americans who are blind or visually impaired. We look forward to DOJ taking a strong look
at where the future is headed related to new digital platforms and ensuring the rights of all blind and
visually impaired individuals to have accessibility and access to this content. Thank you very much for
your efforts to improve the lives of blind and visually impaired consumers.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eric Bridges
Director of External Relations and Policy
American Council of the Blind
2200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 650
Arlington, VA 22201
(202) 467-5081
Email: ebridges@acb.org
American Foundation for the Blind
1660 L Street, NW, Suite 513
Washington, DC 20036