Does the ADA Work Effectively for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Individuals in Public Accommodations and Transportation Facilities?
What would a deaf client do if an attorney failed to provide a sign language interpreter in a court-related matter? Is there a solid guarantee that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) can be honored to prohibit attorneys from discriminating against people with hearing disabilities? The answer, under Title II of the ADA, is that attorneys cannot refuse to serve someone solely based on their qualified disability status. Thereby, if a deaf client needs an attorney for any number of reasons, courts are required to provide sign language interpretation service, or to honor the client’s choice of aid or service. Thus, enabling equal opportunity of effective communication in which there is a relay of critical information to deaf individuals about important state and local government services. This cost is later reimbursed through the business tax purpose by the IRS, which directly links to ADA regulations.
What would the deaf population do without effective communication in the accessibility standards for transportation facilities? ADA’s Title II also applies to every type of public transportation service, including airlines, paratransit and ferry services, which has been adopted by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as its standards for accessibility of transit facilities. First published in 1991, and later amended in several revisions to include play areas and recreation facilities, and last updated in 2010, the ADA Standards for Accessible Design provides the scoping and technical requirements for compliance with the federal ADA law of 1990. Although the ADA has since paved the accessible way over the last decade, particularly for wheelchair and blind users, the communication requirements sections were minimally unaltered throughout the code revisions, thus failing to cover a fuller array of deaf user requirements for safe and accessible travel. As a result, many deficiencies in hearing and communication access can be plainly observed during transit at airports, bus and train stations, and other transit facilities, which ultimately hinder the user’s ability to understand relevant information for public transportation. Unfortunately this would also contribute to less travel activities and more sedentary lifestyles due to a decreased sense of safety and confidence in public transportation services especially during this pandemic.
Hence, the 2010 ADA Standards was published with the exclusion of new technology for communication access to the deaf and hard of hearing in newly designed and constructed buildings facilities. Moreover, little consideration has been given to users’ preferences for other communication devices like videophones capable of displaying subtitles or closed captioning and sending text messages, which are openly known to deaf users and companions to be extremely beneficial as an alternative way of communicating with others. One such requirement that did not see the light of day in the ADA updates is the captioned telephone. This hearing loss device improves visual and audio accessibility by displaying closed captioning of a phone conversation on the telephone screen. What chances are there of getting the U.S. Access Board to re-assess the deaf users’ limited array of requirements and upgrade the current standards so poorly drafted to properly accommodate the U.S. deaf population? Clearly, it is imperative to enable the deaf traveler to accurately perceive and understand travel information and reach their destination safely. This describes the premise underlying the concept of DeafSpace and deaf architecture that works for the deaf community.
Other requirements of the 2010 ADA Standards where they—deaf, deaf-blind, and hard of hearing individuals—have experienced discrimination in public facilities are as follows:
TTY. A TTY stands for TeleTYpe and is also known as Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) that permits the use of a telephone to communicate by typing text messages on the interface of the telephone—which is similar to modern day text messaging on a smartphone but provided as a public accommodation facilities requirement. This aids the deaf or hard of hearing user who might not have a smartphone and needs to make a call at a public pay phone. Although the TTY was invented more than 100 years ago to make a telephone call to anyone, it was not until the mid-80’s that the relay service began to help TTY users to contact other users who did not use the TTY system. Then, in the mid-90’s, the Video Relay Service (VRS) went into operation under the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), which enabled deaf and hard of hearing to use American Sign Language (ASL) to communicate with voice telephone users through video equipment, rather than typed text as TTY / TDD. Video equipment in desktop computer, laptop, or separate monitor links the modern VRS (Video Relay Service) user to a Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) operator as a Communications Assistant (CA). This means that the CA and VRS user who is deaf or hard of hearing contacts another person together, and, during the call, all members of the call can see and communicate with each other effectively. At the present moment, more VRS users prefer to make contact through the Video Relay Interpreter (VRI), and the usage of TTY has been reduced overall in the nation as a result. Both VRS and VRI can facilitate two-way communication faster than TTY since they permit the use of ASL, which can match the same speed of the spoken word that would be heard on the hearing user’s telephone. Thus, VRS and/or VRI is more advanced technology that can provide the same functionality of a telephone in public facilities for the modern deaf or hard of hearing user.
Video Relay Service (VRS) and Video Relay Interpreter (VRI). Neither VRS nor VRI have been mentioned in the 2010 ADA Standards. In section 217, referencing telephones, the requirements for TTYs have not been replaced nor updated with the newer video systems of VRS and/or VRI at the following locations, but not limited to: bank of pay telephones, building interior, site exterior, rest stops, emergency roadside stops, service plazas, detention and correctional facilities, hospitals, transportation facilities, etc.
Some deaf and hard of hearing people whose mobile device or laptop is not working due to low battery or poor internet connection would benefit from the availability of videophones at places of public accommodations, transportation and commercial facilities to save time on the two-way communication that they need. For example, a traveler who disembarks a plane and carrying a dead mobile device will need to use a fixed VRS device at a public payphone to request a pickup, rather than fumble around with an outdated TTY system. We are genuinely curious whether the U.S. Access Board is aware of this pertinent issue and whether there have been discussions about updating the telephone system in the next revision of the Standards? The stagnant nature surrounding hearing accessibility over the last decade leads us to implore the U.S. Access Board members to go ahead and raise these issues of accessibility that deaf and hard of hearing people encounter routinely, and have that tough conversation about revising the telephone system requirements in the next Standards update. We also urge our readers to share with us what Universal Design hearing feature do you think can benefit the deaf community and the general population by extension. Please email us at info@worlddeafarchitecture.org.
Assistive Technology in Fast Food Service. Does ADA work effectively for deaf and hard of hearing customers in fast food service? Currently, the Standards for restaurants have more requirements covered for wheeled mobility device, cane, and blind users than deaf users. For instance, while the interactive kiosk is an user-friendly service device located in the fast food restaurant for convenient access, the drive-thru is inaccessible to deaf or hard of hearing drivers whose user experience is that of hearing an artificially intelligent voice assistant through a speaker, often with distorted sound quality. In section 227—sales and service, and in section 230—two-way communication systems, there is no requirement for the fast food’s drive-thru facility; yet, the standards have provided for the interior facilities. It seems that the standards are cherry picking what features to make accessible and what features to ignore from the code development writing process. Meanwhile, the disabled driver who is hearing abled clearly does not face this problem on the drive-thru (with a functional speaker) at any of the numerous fast food restaurants, including McDonald’s, Burger King, Dunkin Donut, etc. The U.S. Access Board has not yet revised the communication access items in the two aforementioned paragraphs cited from the 2010 ADA Standards. We find it incredulous and extremely disappointing that the U.S. Access Board—whose members are hearing and wheelchair individuals no less—does not even care about these ubiquitous problems impacting 15% of American adults—37.5 million and counting—who have trouble hearing!
Closed Captioning and Subtitles in Transportation Facilities. The provision of closed captioning, also known as subtitles, in transportation systems may not contain equal access to communications related to transportation services. The term “captions” means to synchronize with the video image so that viewers have equivalent access to the content that is originally presented in sound, regardless of whether they receive that content via audio or text. Captions are either open or closed. Open captions always are in view and cannot be turned off, whereas closed captions can be turned on and off by the viewer.
Under the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), the DOT has issued rules to define the rights of qualified disabled travelers and the obligations of air carriers under this law, which is a part of Title IV of the ADA. These rules include: unlimited number of passengers with disabilities on a flight; advance notification for disability accommodations that require preparation time; non-charge for the transportation of safety assistants to disabled passengers on a flight; and specific seat selection for the disabled traveler. However, the ADA has not established the scoping requirements for communication access for audio under the ACAA. For example, airlines are not required to provide closed captions on in-flight entertainment or on pilot announcements. At transit gates, all announcements for boarding, stand-by, delays, cancellations, baggage claim and etc. are predominantly in audio format. Moreover, although the ADA has scoped broad ranging requirements for the mobility of wheelchairs and blind users between airline terminals and adjacent bus and taxi stations, there is virtually no availability of communication access that is provided in both audio and visual formats for deaf/hard of hearing users. Yet, how does the sighted deaf or hard of hearing traveler receive audio-based information without a display of closed captioning on the flight information display system? Does Title IV of ADA require closed captioning on the communication of flight and passenger-related information at transportation facilities? The plain answer is no, Title IV does not cover closed captions at transit gates and in-flight services. ADA’s Title IV requires a TRS and a TTY or TTY-equivalent and subtitles only on federally funded television programs. This exacerbates the frustrating user experience for deaf travelers who miss relevant transit information and require assistance to re-route them towards their destinations.
Clearly, it is important to keep up with changing communication trends. With reference to the 2010 ADA Standards, we have identified a practical need for ADA code revisions, particularly on the requirements for: TTY, VRS and/or VRI, fast food drive-thru, and closed captions in transportation facilities. Evidently these deficiencies in public accommodations and transportation services reflect a bleak picture of the current 2010 ADA’s poorly drafted standards for hearing and communication access. Therefore, there is a lot of room for action to improve upon this rudimentary front. The massive gaps in the Standards with respect to deaf and hard of hearing users suggest that code enforcement of the ADA over the last decade had resulted in very little if not the least advancement in communication and visual and/or audio access. What can be done to prompt the next steps toward improving access for the deaf population? We implore the U.S. Access Board and agencies of the DOJ to raise the standards for transportation services under Title II of the ADA. What steps must we take to get serious about the very real hearing ailments of the deaf and hard of hearing spectrum of children, teenagers, adults, and senior citizens? We implore you to consider how might universal designers and architects improve the visual accessibility of architectural and transportation spaces? What hearing aid design requirements do we need to fight to get them into the ADA Standards? How can architects and universal designers integrate the user’s visual communication requirements into the mainstream of public facilities and services that effectively enable the user’s capacity to read the other’s facial expressions, body language, and sign language? These are not complex questions to answer, but they do require extra care and attention to these issues at hand.
Sincerely,
Robert Nichols, Assoc. AIA, MArch, Executive Director
Karen Kim, MSIE, MArch, Co-Editor
Robert Nichols is an architect/universal designer and the executive director of World Deaf Architecture (WDA).
Karen Kim is an ICC-certified Accessibility Inspector and Plans Examiner, ADA compliance expert, and co-editor of WDA News.