<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Hi all.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>These things sometimes happen with baby steps, like from the report below. I thought I’d pass it along for your information. If this type of email is not permitted, please let me know. If it is, I’d love to read what other efforts others on this list are making. This article was part of the December 2024 issue of the DeafBlind American.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks for reading,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Scott<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>By René Pelerin and Scott Davert<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>This report concerns the activities of the Federal Communications Commission’s Disability Advisory<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Committee (DAC) and how AADB and HKNC worked with the Committee to make the needs and<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>challenges of the DeafBlind community known. This report focuses on the advocacy and work that<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>ultimately resulted in the DAC adopting recommendations and those recommendations being sent to the FCC.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>All recommendations were approved on October 18, 2024. If this is the first time you are learning about the DAC and its activities, you may be wondering: "What the heck is the Disability Advisory Committee?" The Disability Advisory Committee (DAC) is a group created by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to help answer difficult questions that the commission cannot answer on their own including ensuring people with disabilities have, including those who are DeafBlind, have equal access to telecommunications services. This includes<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>access to making phone calls, communicating online and to access emergency information. The<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Committee is made up of different agencies, Telecommunication Relay Service providers, providers of broadcast media, and major technology vendors including Amazon, Apple, and Comcast. The ultimate goal of the DAC is to provide the FCC with timely information and recommendations pertaining to existing and developing technology. From the DeafBlind Community, Scott Davert represented the Helen<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Keller National Center. AADB was first represented by John Winstead, followed by René Pelerin, and<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>now Cathy Miller.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Since there are many issues surrounding technology and accessibility, it is not possible for the entire committee to work on one issue. Instead, subcommittees were given different tasks to complete which they would then bring back to the full Committee for voting.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Both Scott Davert and AADB collaborated to support the development of a document with Best Practices for Telecommunication Relay Services (TRS). This includes traditional TTY relay service, video relay service, IP-relay service, and Captioned telephone service. The purpose of this document is to help TRS providers develop guidelines which will provide higher quality of service when a customer has multiple disabilities. The Committee met almost every two weeks with presentations from various individuals with all types of disabilities that included hearing loss. Some examples of topics included how DeafBlind individuals use Communication Facilitators (CF) during VRS calls, how to use Deaf Interpreters during VRS calls for individuals who are Deaf with additional disabilities, and how to accommodate individuals who are low vision via VRS calls, and so on.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Each of the approved recommendations will be covered here as it relates to the DeafBlind Community. These recommendations were developed to improve the accessibility and customization of TRS services, educate and reach underserved populations, integrate new technologies, enhance service accessibility in<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>rural areas and expand research and pilot programs for continuous improvement. For those who are DeafBlind, the impact is that it recommends that funding be expanded to include communications facilitators and Certified Deaf Interpreters. Further, provide flexibility for users to choose Communication Assistants (CAs) based on specific skill sets. It also recommends the FCC dedicate funding to conduct research for better use of relay with assistive technology like screen magnification, screen readers, and braille devices. Additionally, develop specialized training for CAs to better serve users with unique needs such as those who have a combined vision and hearing loss.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Scott Davert also was a part of the subcommittee which examined the communications needs of<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>individuals who are blind, low vision or DeafBlind in video games. At first, the subcommittee was not<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>considering the DeafBlind population but quickly changed when the needs and desires of the<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>community were raised. The 21<sup>st</sup> Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) set forth requirements to facilitate accessibility of certain modern communications technologies to people with disabilities. The CVAA requires that any provider of advanced communication services or any manufacturer of equipment used for advanced communications services, including end user equipment, network equipment, and software, ensure that such services and equipment are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, unless doing so is not achievable. This means, for example, that online communication with other game players should support audio, text, and video communication. This subcommittee also met bi-weekly and had many presentations from different perspectives surrounding barriers and successes within the gaming industry.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Scott Davert provided a presentation covering braille and online gaming. The end results of these<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>presentations are as follows. First, the FCC should continue to monitor for CVAA violations from game providers. Further, that the FCC should take steps to make game and platform developers, designers, and engineers aware of their responsibility to ensure two-way communications are accessible to all gamers. Lastly, that the FCC should consider the breadth of hardware and software barriers that gamers may face in accessing in-game communications. This includes technologies such as braille displays, Bluetooth keyboards and software such as low vision enhancements for screen reader users. Finally, there was a third set of recommendations that unanimously passed on the date of the final meeting of this term. These related to Best Practices on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Caption Live Video Programming. At the moment, some of the Commission’s Captioning Best Practices could<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>be interpreted to apply specifically to human captioners. The subcommittee was tasked with<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>providing a recommendation about what the Commission’s Best Practices for Real-Time (Live)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Captioning should look like, with proposed amendments or modifications to include automated<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>captioning. These changes were to update the existing best practices already adopted to include<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>the use of software and the things that go along with it such as ensuring that captioning vendors are able to install updates and maintain the digital systems.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>In closing, it was a busy October 18 in Washington D.C which included the unanimous adoption of all recommended changes covered above. The work will continue in the next term of the DAC where further explorations and recommendations will be made to continue the advocacy. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>