DJ 202-36-0

NOV 24 1992

The Honorable Charles H. Crawford

Commissioner
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Human Services
Commission for the Blind
88 Kingston Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02111-2227

Dear Commissioner Crawford:

This letter responds to your inquiry regarding the content

of certain materials reportedly produced by a grantee of the
Department of Justice. You have not identified the grantee or
the materials in question.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) authorizes the

Department of Justice to provide technical assistance to
individuals and entities having rights or obligations under the
Act. This letter provides informal guidance to assist you in
understanding the ADA's requirements. However, it does not
constitute a legal interpretation or legal advice and it is not
binding on the Department of Justice.

Your letter expresses concern that certain technical

assistance materials containing a summary of compliance steps for
public entities do not discuss computer text files and
descriptive video as additional means of providing effective
means of communication to individuals with disabilities under the
ADA.

The ADA requires public entities to furnish appropriate

auxiliary aids and services to ensure that communication with
persons with disabilities is effective. The title II regulation
lists several examples of such auxiliary aids and services.
Although computer text files and descriptive video are not
specifically cited as examples, the list is not in any sense
intended to be exhaustive or all-inclusive. In fact, the portion
of the regulation addressing auxiliary aids and services that may
be required for persons with vision impairments is written

cc: Records; Chrono; Wodatch; Foran; McDowney; FOIA; MAF.

:udd:foran:crawford.policy
 -2-

broadly to include "other effective methods of making visually

delivered materials available to individuals with visual
impairments." 28 C.F.R. s 35.104.

In explaining the limited nature of the list of examples

included in the regulation, the Justice Department's interpretive
commentary or "preamble" to the regulation states:

A substantial number of commenters suggested that

additional examples be added to this list. The
Department has added several items to this list but
wishes to clarify the list is not an all-inclusive or
exhaustive catalogue of possible or available auxiliary
aids or services. It is not possible to provide an
exhaustive list, and such an attempt would omit new
devices which will become available with emerging
technology.

56 Fed. Reg. 35697.

The preamble to the regulation also specifically discusses

additional examples of aids and services for making visually
delivered materials accessible to persons with visual
impairments. As the preamble states, although these examples are
not included in the regulation, they would nonetheless be
considered auxiliary aids and services under the ADA.

Many commenters proposed additional examples such as

signage or mapping, audio description services,
secondary auditory programs, telebraillers, and reading
machines. While the Department declines to add these
items to the list, they are auxiliary aids and services
and may be appropriate depending on the circumstances.

56 Fed. Reg. 35697. For more information on auxiliary aid

requirements see section 35.104 of the enclosed federal
regulation at page 35717 and the additional discussion at page
35697 and pages 35711-35712.

I hope this information is useful to you in understanding

the requirements of the ADA.
 Sincerely,

John R. Dunne
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Enclosures (2)

-------------------------------------

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Executive Office of Human Services
Commission for the Blind
88 Kingston Street, Boston, MA 02111-2227

WILLIAM F. WELD DAVID P. FORSBERG

GOVERNOR SECRETARY
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI CHARLES H. CRAWFORD
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER

October 15, 1992

The Honorable William Pelham Barr

Attorney General of the United States
Department of Justice
Tenth and Constitution Avenues N.W.
Room 4400
Washington DC 20570

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

I am writing to convey my concern after speaking with a

person who operates with funding from the Department of Justice
on a project to advise the public with respect to obligations
under the Americans with Disabilities Act. I had an opportunity
to read a summary of compliance steps that public entities would
have to execute under the ADA and was surprised and disappointed
at the omission of important points relative to information
access for blind and otherwise print handicapped person.
 Rightfully, entities were advised that they would have to
provide information in an "equally effective" fashion and
consistent with the preferences of the person requesting the
information. Correctly, they went on to point out that print
materials could be made accessible through audio tapes, large
print, and Braille. Unfortunately, they omitted the critical
consideration of how print materials are generated and the
advantages associated with proper attention to computer based
text files as both a means of accommodating the information needs
of computer literate persons who are print handicapped, and the
ability of the text file to be easily printed in large print,
sent to Braille printers or even output to high quality speech
processors for audio tapes when such speech is acceptable to the
user. Moreover, the computer file is amenable to word processing
where the user is then able to use the source material much more
effectively than the passive reading of it.

In view of the thrust of the thrust of the current Administration along

with the platforms of all major contenders for the Presidency
endorsing increased automation, I am seriously concerned at the
lack of mentioning text files as a prime method of information
accessibility.

------------------------------------------

The Honorable William Pelham Barr

October 15, 1992
Page 2

The above is only worsened by the representation made to me

that the information had been reviewed by the Department of
Justice in advance of my reading it. If this is so, then an
immediate education process is in order at the Department to
avoid similar instances.

My other concern at the document was the rightful

articulation of "closed captioning" as a viable means of
information access for persons who are deaf and watching videos,
but no mention at all of the same type "descriptive video" access
for persons who cannot see what is happening on the screen.

I realize the difficulties associated with attempting to

implement a major piece of legislation which contains many
concepts not in the ordinary public discourse, however,
misinformation cannot be tolerated if we are to achieve our
common goal. If I can be of any further assistance in this
regard, please contact me at the above address or call (617)-727-
5550 extension 4503 to speak with me.

Sincerely,

Charles H. Crawford
Commissioner