>> Okay, first, I just wanted to say hi, tell you that I used to work for
Gallaudet University for around 12 years.
I've been involved in disability access issues policy on
the policy level for the last 30 plus years.
So, I'm not going to give away my age.
I'm going to stop at that.
But I'm thrilled to be here, a little bit daunted because all of you are
experts on engineering and technology and I'm not.
I'm policy only.
So, please be kind to me, be gentle, nice, kind.
My signing is not as perfect as it should be.
Anyway, but I'm going to use the interpreter going forward.
We'll be moving a lot faster if we do that.
So, thank you.
And like I said I'm thrilled to be here.
So, it was really interesting for me to hear Ian's introduction because I want you to take
away, if you take away anything from this conference
take away at least three concepts.
And this was not part of my presentation but I really
wanted to pick up on what Ian said.
First of all, the societal benefit.
A lot of times people think gaming, they think it's just fun and games.
That's the same thing that we heard years ago when we worked
on legislation to require captioning on television.
If you don't have access to the culture, if you don't have,
if you're not part of what is so mainstream in society
you're cut out and it was interesting to me, I was watching Good Morning America a couple
of weeks ago and I heard a person named Dr. Jonathan Fader,
a clinical sports psychologist talk about fortnight.
And this is actually going to connect to the CVAA because what he said,
the CVAA, let me just say that the CVAA is not a law about gaming.I think you know
that.
It's a law about communications access, advanced communications access and video programming.
So, it's being able to communicate with each other.
When we were writing the CVAA we had no idea that this was going to have an impact,
a side impact or tangential impact on other things including e-readers and gaming.
We've been thrilled that it has had an impact.
But one of the things you should know right off the bat,
is that the CVAA does not require accessible gaming.
It requires accessible communications in gaming.
What I loved about this comment by this Dr Fader is,
he said about fortnight it's a multiplayer game.
The thing that teenagers really enjoy about it is
that you're actually talking to your friends while you're doing it.
So, that's one of the fun parts about it.
It's that interactive component.
A lot of kids who aren't connected in sports or other settings really
find a social scene in that which is a benefit that goes to my heart.
I mean, that is incredible for kids that don't have another way of having social interaction,
doing it through games is extraordinary.
And that's where the CVAA comes in.
Then there was another individual, Scott Steinberg, a trends expert.
I'm not sure how you get that name, but what he said is for some parents
the social aspect may eventually actually have a positive effect and
that's directed to all the parents like me who had three boys who
lived with video games and you're wondering what
this social benefit is for there it is.
The beauty of video games is that they're moving from being solo experiences to
more social experiences that invite people to
come together and bond over a shared positive activity.
So, that's the first one that societal benefit critical.
The second is, retrofitting and I saw this on one of the quotes outside,
retrofitting is so much more expensive than designing with
access and because of customization, which you also touched on and the ability
of software to transform really any technology,
now nothing is impossible.
Nothing.
I mean my view is that over the years again, I started in this industry when everything
was hardware.
Now everything is basically, in my opinion most likely pretty
achievable which is the standard on the CVAA.
Of course there're going to be some exceptions but that's kind of the rule of thumb.
And then the third thing that I want you to take away is,
don't do it on your own if you're a developer, consult with people with disabilities.
I can say that 10 times in a row.
I have seen that over and over again backfire.
In the, when the ADA, I was very fortunate and working on a lot
of the legislation that was mentioned earlier
the ADA, I worked on the closed captioning bills,
I worked on hearing compatability.
My favorite story, my least favorite story actually should be,
is when theaters went ahead and installed the system listening devices after the ADA
was adopted and nobody could use them because they hadn't
consulted with anybody and it was so embarrassing for them to have spent thousands
if not millions of dollars
retrofitting their theaters and they couldn't walk.
So, having said that let me move on.
I know that I have limited time and I have a ton to get through.
So, let me move on and just tell you about what the CVAA is.
Okay, wait.
What am I doing wrong?
Okay, here we go.
So, the CVAA is a 21st century
communications and video Accessibility Act.
It was designed to fill in gaps that existed before it was adopted.
So, it's not only requiring communication.
It also requires video description, Internet captioning,
on television programs that had not been captioned and was obviously
designed to address all the new challenges.
Many of us, as I said I got started in this field in the 1980s.
We thought we were going to be done at the turn of the century and then all of
a sudden this thing called the Internet and the World Wide Web got developed and it
was like, oh damn it, I can't go retire in the Bahamas
just yet.
Now I've got to work on this new legislation, these new technologies.
And so this we had adopted you know we had gotten past all these laws on
making telecommunications the way we used to think about the telephone
and close captioning on TV and like I said hearing compatability.
We had great laws on all of this in the 80s and the 90s.
Well, they all didn't apply to the Internet.
And so we went back to Congress and we started off
an organization or a coalition called the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible
Technology.
How many of you have ever heard of COAT?
Just a few of you.
Okay, COAT was a short-lived coalition we formed it to get the CVAA passed
and literally with lightning speed we went from 10 organizations to 300 across the
country.
We realized we had hit a nerve and that the access that
we had gained in all of these other earlier laws,
accessibility laws were slowly starting to seep away and we needed a new law to get
that access in perpetuity.
So, it covers digital Internet based on wireless technologies and we at the FCC,
I joined the FCC in 2010 right as it was being passed and I was lucky
enough to get a position that enabled me to help implement
it with about 100 people at the FCC.
I've never seen any agency spend as much time as we did on this law.
And we've adopted around 25 rules affecting it.
So, what is the CVAA?
The CVAA is divided into two parts.
The first part is communications, I mentioned that, what is advance communication?
I'm going to get to that in a second.
It also covers web browsers on mobile phones, 911 services.
We have a program also to give out free equipment to low income people who are
deaf blind.
I'm going to just have to apologize.
I'm sorry for the interpreter, I'm speaking so fast.
So, just cut me off if you need to at any point.
I'm just trying to get through so much.
And the second part of the CVAA is video programming.
It covers, I say closed captioning of television programming on the internet,
making sure that emergency information on TV is accessible.
It also requires any kind of device; laptops, cell phones,
you name it to have the capability of passing through closed captioning,
video description and accessible emergency information and it requires
accessible controls on televisions and on screen menus.
So, if you go home, if you're not familiar with what the CVAA
does, if you happen to be sighted close your eyes
and try to control anything on
your TV whether it's on the on off switch, the volume, picking a program,
changing a channel, recording a program, none of that was successful before the CVAA.
And the reason I mention all of this is because all of these other requirements of
the CVAA have resulted in more of an industry of accessibility engineering.
And that industry has application to gaming as well because so many advances have
been made.
So, I mentioned advanced communications services.
There's four components to advance communication services.
Interconnected VoIP and non-interconnected VoIP service both.
Electronic messaging including anything really in text such as email,
instant messaging, and sms.
There's also another component of videoconferencing, that particular component has
not gone into effect yet because it only covers interoperable videoconferencing.
And there is, that is not typical usually in
videoconferencing like FaceTime is not interoperable with Skype,
is not interoperable with other types of videoconferencing.
So, that's kind of on hold at the FCC right now.
So, video games.
As I mentioned, the CVAA does not require accessible gaming but it does
say that people have to be able to communicate with each other by voice or text.
Well, it doesn't specify voice or text, just says communicate.
And if that is the case then it's covered by the CVAA.
It will include gaming on mobile devices gaming on PCs,
on consoles, etc.
What are the accessibility obligations?
Both the ACS providers and manufacturers have to make their services
and products accessible to people with disabilities, and they also have to be usable unless
doing so is not achievable, and that's a key term.
Again, I think that at this point on our industry, in our environment, a lot is achievable,
but there may be some things that are not.
You can also achieve accessibility by using a third party solution,
and that could be it must be available to consumers at nominal cost,
and it has to be something of course that the consumer can
access.
What we have found in the communications arena, in the area of cell phones,
is that the companies like Samsung, and Apple, and Microsoft they are not charging anybody,
and frankly, I think it's not
appropriate to charge anybody for access.
This was a compromise that we got on in congress, but I'm very pleased to see that
there have not been any external nominal charges.
So, what does achievability mean?
When you look at whether something is achievable, you are looking at about four factors,
the nature and cost of the steps needed to achieve accessibility or compatibility,
because compatibility is another option.
Making it compatible for example with a Braille device,
you're looking at the technical and economic impact
on the operation of the manufacturer or provider, as well as on the operation of
the specific equipment or service in question, including on the development and
deployment of communications technologies.
What does that mean?
Well, one of the things that we look at is whether it would fundamentally
alter the nature of a product or service.
Again, that hasn't seemed to impede any accessibility it used to.
Before the CVAA was adopted, there was another law called
Section 255 of the Communications Act.
That recovered telecommunications access, and at that time when that law was passed
in 1996, there were really just hard wired and hardware
phones, and to, again,
to retrofit those or to retrofit any kind of
communication device was sometimes required a fundamental alteration,
but with software and customization, that's much less likely to happen now.
The third factor is looking at the types of the operations
of the manufacturer or provider, and finally, the extent to
which the provider, or service, or manufacturer offers accessible services
or equipment containing varying degrees of
functionality and features offered at different price points.
What that basically means, it usually applies in cell phones.
So, if there's a whole product line of cell phones and
there are several phones within their product line that are
accessible at different price points.
With different features and functions, you may be able to satisfy the requirements
of the CVAA.
I think that's going to be harder to meet with gaming when
every game is a little bit different from each other.
So, How to Design for Accessibility.
I just have three short slides here.
Obviously, you're going to be discussing this extensively during this conference,
but one of the things as I said that you have to remember is to consider
accessibility at the design stage as early as possible.
That's going to be when it's least burdensome, least costly, and most effective.
The example I like to give is telecommunications relay services,
which many of you are probably familiar with, nationwide program that enables people
who are deaf and hard of hearing and who speech disabilities to communicate through
communications assistance by text or sign with the communications assistant either speaks
or signs what the individual is typing or signing,
and then signs or text back, that program now plus $1.3 billion annually.
That to me is the epitome of a retrofitted program and it's
not as effective as direct communication.
In fact, some of us are moving towards trying to convince companies to hire
people who know ASL to communicate directly with people like in customer service
centers.
But to me, it's the epitome of a retrofit that is expensive,
costly, and not as effective.
So, the FCC rules also establish performance objectives.
There is a long laundry list of performance objectives.
So, I'm going to talk to you about some of these.
These are not inclusive, but they cover the majority.
The input, control, and mechanical functions must be locatable,
identifiable, and operable, and have at least one mode,
and this is the site as you could see for people who are blind or visually impaired,
one mode that allows use without vision, with low vision, or limited or no hearing.
In other words, if you're deaf and blind or have some level of
hearing loss and with little or no color perception.
There are other performance objectives for people who are deaf or hard of hearing.
Similarly, you have to apply for least one mode that doesn't
require use or auditory perception.
You must provide auditory information through at least one mode in
visual form and were appropriate and tactile form.
You must provide audio or acoustic information including
any auditory feedback tones important to the use
of the product through increased amplification, increased signal to noise ratio,
or a combination, must reduce interference to hearing aids,
cochlear implants and other hearing and sister technologies.
That usually applies more to cell phones, but I added it in a text.
That's the hearing aid requirement.
I added it in just because we're moving to, there's a lot of wireless games so,
you should just know about it.
Again, if it's wireless and using IP, it has to provide compatibility with
TTY devices or Real Time Text capability.
Again, this is mostly with respect to cell phones,
but I wanted to take a pause and just let you know
that the FCC has adopted new rules.
In fact, these were the last rules ever to be
adopted by the Obama administration.
When all of the other roles were polled when the administration changed,
these rules went through.
What it said was that because TTYs were going out
of fashion as wireless provider of wireless service providers,
make the transition to Internet-based wireless services such as Wi-Fi.
They have an option to either support TTY or Real Time Text.
What is Real Time Text?
By show of hands, how many people here know what Real Time Text is?
A lot of you, very educated audience.
So, basically, it's just communicating, and as you're communicating,
the other side is receiving what you're communicating.
So, as your the characters are being typed, the other side is receiving it.
And that's how TTYs work as well, except the TTYs work over
an antiquated Baudot, B-A-U-D-O-T, technology that forces turntaking,
whereas with Real Time Text, both sides can use voice and
text simultaneously to each other, and you can use it over regular mainstream
networks.
It's backward compatible with TTYs.
It allows access to 911 and access to TRS, and the exciting thing,
the incredible exciting thing is that it's here.
So, any of you who have the most updated iOS system on
your phones or have certain Samsung phones and are using Verizon,
NTT, or T-Mobile, you can now have a Real Time Text conversation with someone
else.
We have a couple of open proceedings on this, I'm going to skip that slide,
but just mention that on April 9, we are having a roundtable to talk about
how Real Time Text can be used with a refreshable braille.
So, I want to let you know this because I just want to get the word out,
spread the word that Real Time Text is available.
So, there are more performance objectives for people with other physical limitations.
For example, you have to provide one mode that does
not require fine motor control or simultaneous actions,
as well as is operable with limited reach and strength,
and have controls that are operable without requiring
body contact or close proximity and that's for people with prosthetic devices.
For people with speech disabilities, you also have to provide one mode
that doesn't require speech.
Finally, there is a performance objectives for people who
have limited cognition or need extra time.
So, you have to provide a mode that doesn't require
a response time or allow the response time be bypassed or adjusted.
This was originally written for IVR systems, Interactive Voice menu systems on telephones.
It's probably one of the performance objectives that
I don't think has been met as successfully as others have been but will
also require that whatever you're providing
should minimize the need for cognitive memory language and
learning skills by the user, and you must provide moving text in
at least one static mode at the option of the user.
Ian mentioned that in Europe, the standard, some of the standards are more
specific.
They're also more specific if some of you are familiar with Section 508.
There are technical standards.
At the FCC, the commissioner is preferred not to be specific for two reasons.
First of all, because they don't like to micromanage what the industries are doing,
and secondly because they feel that it's more beneficial to define
functionality and to allow flexibility especially
because technology's changed so often.
So, more often than not from our rules, you're not going to see very many specifics.
There are a couple exceptions to that like we do have
technical standards on hearing and compatibility and closed captioning display
standards.
I mentioned that the CVAA not only requires accessibility and compatibility,
it also requires something called usability.
Usability means basically that a person has to be able to use the product.
They have to have access to documentation, product manuals, instructions,
call centers, technical support, wherever it's offered including websites,
phone, support in stores, etc.
I'm going to go over the next slide really fast,
just to let you know that those of you who do have to comply,
we have record keeping obligations, and we found these to be really really helpful.
They add to the accountability of the law, we don't ask for you to submit
reports but we do ask for you to keep records.
And again you're going to see in this slide that you have to
keep information about your efforts to consult with people with disabilities.
If a complaint is filed, we're going to ask for that information.
So, not only do we say we think it's a good idea to consult,
you really have to consult with people with disabilities as it's going to be
checking up on you later on.
And we've had some instances where that occurs.
And you also have to keep information or records about the description of the
accessibility features and the compatibility of products,
and you have to file with us annually contact information
and certification of the record keeping.
The contact information is really important.
We have found that consumers come to us, want to contact the company,
and then we have it readily available, we don't have to go searching for it.
At the FCC, we have something that has worked absolutely phenomenally,
and not everything at the FCC works phenomenally I can promise you
that, but this has really worked well.
So, when we wrote the CDAA, we were very unhappy with the way
the enforcement had gone fOR Section 255, because under Section 255,
if a person wanted to file a complaint, if they filed an informal complaint and said
"This telephone is not accessible to me", more often than not
the telephone company would say "Okay don't use that one, here's another one."
It was a one off.
We didn't want that to happen, we wanted if somebody files
a complaint about a telephone not being accessible, or another device not being accessible,
we wanted that device be made accessible.
So, and we wanted the FCC to have more accountability.
Remember this was before I went into the FCC.
So, we wanted the FCC to have to do certain things and so we said,
when people file complaints or when they do this
under 255 you could file a formal complaint to not get a one off,
but a formal complaint was like a litigation with discovery,
and you needed lawyers, and there were very few formal complaints
filed.
So, when we wrote the CDA we said, "Lets require the CDA to
respond to all complaints within 180 days with a written order explaining why or why
not accessibility was required."
When I got into the FCC, the enforcement bureau came to us and said
"You're crazy, there's no way we can do this within 180 days.
We've got to build in a front and procedure to
enable some kind of mediation or efforts at conciliation and dispute
resolution because there is no way we can do this in 180 days.
" And we were like, "No, we don't really want
to do that, we really want accountability",
but we said "All right, how about if we have this process?"
And we built it and it's called a request for dispute assistance.
Somebody now comes to us they can't file a complaint when they first come to us,
they have to request dispute assistance under the CDAA.
We then have 30 days to work with them and the company to achieve a resolution.
The consumer has the right to extend that 30 day period in 30 day increments,
the companies do not.
And then, if the consumer, if they can't reach a resolution,
only after they can't reach a resolution, only then does the complaint
go to our enforcement bureau and then they have 180 days to decide it.
We have had I'd say maybe around 70 complaints or
requests for dispute assistance, we have not had
a single one go to the enforcement bureau.
We have resolved every single one and some of these
are really major that have caused major companies to revamp
their entire accessibility systems and produced accessible products that
were never produced before.
And the sad thing about it is, I'm not allowed to tell you which those are,
which makes me crazy but it's all confidential.
But.
>> We won't tell anyone.
>> You're right, I'm only being videotaped.
It's like when those people go on TV and say "Don't tell anybody."
So, unfortunately I can't tell but you may want to look around and see what
suddenly becomes accessibility, I wonder if that went through the FCC process.
So, I'm now a convert I think that it really worked perfectly.
Okay.
The next thing I'm going to touch on and I won't spend too much time on it are
waivers.
As you know we had several waivers for the gaming industry.
In 2012, we granted a waiver for two years the industry however asked for eight
years.
Okay, so we gave two years for three classes of types of items,
Xconsoles, Distribution platforms, and gaming software.
In 2015, we extended that for only software for 15 months,
and in 2016, again only software for one year, and then in 2017, one more year.
So why don't we grant any waivers?
Well, because you weren't where you are now, the industry wasn't where it is now,
there were a lot of accessibility challenges, and we wanted to give the industry a chance
to apply the knowledge gained in making advanced communication services
and video programming accessible, remember all those other slides I showed you,
we wanted to give the industry an opportunity to take
that practical information and apply it to gaming.
There is a theory at the commission that we don't want to impede
innovation, so we felt we'll give
the waivers and allow the industry to work through
these various issues through the waiver period.
So, what qualifies for waiver?
You can only get a waiver if the product is designed to be used
with advanced communication services, and what we look at that,
we try to look at that and wait, let me just say it's actually a little tricky.
So, the product has to be able to be used for
ACS but ACS cannot be a primary or co-primary purpose, that's the
key.
So, this was difficult because in the beginning when we first started
this, gaming was used for
communications purposes but we felt not as much as to reach
the primary or co-primary level and that was the other reason that
we were able to grant the waiver.
In deciding that, we looked at how ACS features our firm,
and are advertised, and announced, and marketed, whether ACS functionality is
suggested to consumers as a reason for purchasing, or installing, or downloading the game,
and then we have a general waiver standard, Is it in the public interest to grant the
waiver.
We also looked at other factors, those factors that have to be considered,
we were also allowed to look at how much the manufacturer considered ACS in its market
research, are the ACS functions designed
to be used when the game is not being played outside of our gaming?
But one thing that we made very clear is that even
if communication is only being used for gamingM it's covered.
So, it didn't have to be used for outside purposes.
And just to what extent the communication is being
used for the individual to enhance the game, that was one of the other things that we looked
at.
For example, if this was taken away from the game,
would the person still be able to play the game?
And also to what extent ACS is used in similar devices or services?
Okay, so, as I said we still have one waiver in effect,
it's for the class of, "Playable games on any hardware or
online platform including game applications that are built into operating system software",
and that's the defined class that's covered.
However, we decided not to extend that past this next year,
we said "That's it," we're giving this to you for
this is the last year, why?
Because we felt like the landscape had changed, Port is a good example.
It's changed significantly and consumer reliance on the ability to
communicate during online games has grown, and so the scale if you look at the public
interest in granting the waiver versus
denying it started to change.
We also required both in the 2016 waiver and in this year a major progress report from
ESA, the Electronic Software Association.
What did we look at?
We looked at things like Microsoft, all of the things that Ian was talking about.
We looked at Microsoft's software development kit for
X Box One and Windows 10 devices with text to speech.
For example, Halo Wars and this is when I start getting in trouble.
So, if I say that sounds, "Why is she talking like this?"
Its because this is where I started getting into my uncomfortable territory
of talking about games and when I should really pass the baton to all of you,
but Halo Wars 2, I understand is currently utilizing
the accessibility options available through its development kit.
Nintendo smartphone app provides near real-time voice chat functionality,
moshing, am I pronouncing that right?
Has added a text to speech feature for Minecraft.
So I mean those are the kinds of things we like them,
and I didn't do this, I had my staff, we have one of the people on
our staff that's a blind Attorney, and he helped with all of this stuff.
>> Okay.
So, let me go on.
I'm almost done.
So, the mid-year waiver report has to look at,
it has to tell us what efforts and innovations and
progress has been achieved, provide examples of games
with successful accessibility solutions, a list of disability organizations
that ESA consulted with during the waiver period.
Again, you've got to consult, consult, consult, consult and also efforts to conduct
outreach and consultation with members of the community during the waiver
period.
So, I'm going to stop there and just let you know I have a couple of other slides,
but I've been asked to address a few specific questions.
So, I wanted to just go over.
Do I still have time or should I take questions?
I still have a cou- Okay.
So, I've been asked to answer just a few case examples
of what our requirements actually mean.
I'm going to just throw out a few of these.
So, if there are three possible routes to navigate through
the menus of a game to the communications functionality,
do all three need to be accessible?
The answer is it depends.
Basically, if the functions are redundant and the goal is
just to get to communications accessibility, then you might be able to just do it one way.
But if the three different paths are going to affect the game planning
and game playing and that communication, then, yes, you'd have to do it all three ways.
So, if you think about why you would want communication,
maybe you're trying to join a team of people that are already
playing or you want to start a team or you want to just turn on settings to enable
a chat, if each of these different paths
allow you to do these different functions, then, yes, you're going to have to make
them all accessible.
So, it's very hard to answer this as an absolute yes or no.
But just think about what the goal is.
If the functions are redundant to access the same thing three different ways,
it may not be necessary.
But if you're going to be creating barriers for
the player through certain routes used by the game,
it's potentially a problem if you don't provide accessibility all three
ways.
Next question.
If an Xbox only platform, for example, and I'm not picking on Xbox,
but the funny thing is that I want to applaud Xbox,
the Xbox developers for doing what they did because
what you all did was what Apple did.
Well, I was telling somebody this before I began.
When they'd added captioning to cell phones and it enabled us to
say that video programming shown on cell phones and small devices can allow
captioning.
Once it's done by one, it's kind of achievable by all.
So, thank you for doing that because you broke the mold.
So, if an Xbox only platform allows real time transcription between text and speech,
do you need to worry about the CVAA if you're not using Xbox?
You need to worry about CVAA more because of Xbox.
It's been done.
So, it shows that it can be done.
So, even if text-to-speech or speech-to-text features
aren't supported by the platform, the software manufacturer may still have to
achieve it.
It's not one or the other.
It's really what the end result is.
If the requirements don't apply to game, just again I'll read on it, if the requirements
don't apply to gameplay, if the interface is unrelated to
ACS except to the extent however that the interfaces needed to locate,
identify, or operate the ACS feature, can you offer voice chat
for people who are blind and visually impaired and
text chat for people who are deaf and hard of hearing or do you need
a real time way for two-way transcription between voice and text?
Well, think about the way people who don't need accessibility use these features.
Do they need real time communication feature?
If they do, then the answer is you need to provide a real time feature.
So, really what you're doing is just saying to the extent that
people who don't need accessibility have access to communications,
that is what you have to provide.
Let's see.
I'm going to give you one more.
Does a blind person have to be able to navigate through
menus to reach the communications functionality?
I think we all know the answer to that.
Yes, unless it's not achievable, but we think it's achievable.
I think it's achievable.
Case by case, that's the other thing.
Case by case, we'd have to look at if we get complaints,
we'll just look at individual situations.
Just to let you know, as I mentioned when, we wrote the CVAA,
those of us who wrote it we're not in the FCC.
So, we created a requirement for biannual report which we curse every year
now that we're in the FCC but we do put
out a biannual report in case any of you are interested in it.
It covers the level of compliance by industries, and our next report is coming up this October.
We also have, and this is really, really important, we have annual awards for advancement and
accessibility by our Chairman and this has been
carried forward now by three different chairmen.
I will say that Chairman Pi is very supportive of disability issues here.
Let us continue on track and we are making tremendous gains.
Just in the last year, we increased the amount of requirements
for video description by 75 percent, adopted new rules for volume control on cell
phones, and, as I mentioned, after the election,
after he was born and we adopted the rules on real-time tests.
So, we're very lucky to be able to continue our agenda and every year, we recognize individuals,
organizations, researchers, government agencies, that develop innovations for accessibility.
I really encourage you to keep an eye on these awards.
We love to award them to innovators especially small companies,
but we've done big companies as well I think Microsoft has gotten a couple of award AT&T;
has, and we announce the winners
at each year as M-Enabling conference, which some of you may be familiar with.
It's held right outside the Washington DC area
and the awards are always for the year prior.
So, we're going to be doing that in June of this year.
I also wanted to just mention to you that we
have a disability advisory committee.
We renew every two years.
Renewal will come up next January.
If any of you are interested in sitting on that advisory committee,
we'll be putting out a call for nominations.
Since this is new to our arena at the FCC, we encourage you to apply,
and it's a large group but they've developed tremendous recommendations that
we've carried forward on.
They were the ones that really pretty much wrote the rules for real time text.
We've followed very much what they had suggested and here is some contact information
from me.
So, I am done with my presentation, and thank you again for the opportunity to
speak to you.
Other time for questions?
Is there a time?
>> No, not right now.
>> Not right now.
Okay, I'm going to be around at least for a while longer
and maybe here during lunch as well as the beginning of the reception later.
So, thank you again.
For more infomation >> Snow near the Valley for New Year's Eve - Duration: 2:18. 
For more infomation >> AdAmAn Club summits Pikes Peak, preparing for fireworks show - Duration: 0:35. 
For more infomation >> Elizabeth Warren Is Running For President - Duration: 9:15. 
For more infomation >> Old Sacramento Prepares For Spectacular New Year's Eve - Duration: 1:08. 
For more infomation >> Scott Spielman leaves Kern DA's office for new job in Tulare County - Duration: 0:31. 
For more infomation >> Reset your 'food clock' for a healthy New Year - Duration: 1:57. 
For more infomation >> Mountainburg Restaurant Nominated for Arkansas Food Hall of Fame (KNWA) - Duration: 0:36. 
For more infomation >> Funeral plans set for Newman officer killed - Duration: 0:45. 
For more infomation >> How Sacramento prepares for a New Year's Eve Sky Spectacular - Duration: 1:27. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét