Image courtesy of Lipreading Mom
Another example where a video interpreting service would work effectively. It’s free, widely available on both the Internet and through a closed circuit television system. This would eliminate the expense to G.S.A., and serve the needs of the Deaf members. I recently did an interview on DeafInPrison.com with a young woman. The interview lasted 2 nights, for 1 hour each night. It was done via telephone through a video interpreting service. It worked beautifully, and allowed a Hearie like me an opportunity to carry on a rich and insightful conversation with a Deaf person.
As a person with hearing loss and a former Girl Scout, a recent story in the Chicago Tribune about a 12-year-old girl who is Deaf being denied sign language interpretation is disheartening. Her troop paid for an interpreter, then apparently was unable to continue doing so and disbanded. Now, the young girl’s parents are suing the troop. This is 2012, not 1982. Why should anyone have to sue to get a sign interpreter?
Sadly, litigation is the bold step that’s often needed to ensure accessibility for the deaf and hard of hearing, as well as everyone with unique physical challenges. Remember the lawsuit against Cinemark Theaters and its lack of captioned movie showings? Since then, the theater chain nationwide offers captioned movies. How about the lawsuits against CNN.com failing to provide captioned content? I blogged extensively about CNN a few months ago, and yet the news organization’s website still lacks…
View original post 164 more words