The American Foundation for the Blind and the Communication Service for the Deaf issued a call yesterday to require higher levels of accessibilty to text messaging by people with disabilities.

Karen Peltz Strauss, a legal consultant for the Communication Service for the Deaf stated: "Just as other forms of text-based services, including faxes and TTY transmissions provided over wireline and wireless networks, must be accessible by people with disabilities under this section of the Act, we want to make sure that text messaging remains accessible to and usable by people with disabilities."

For details of yesterday's public appeal, see the articles in the Washington Post and Computerworld below:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2008/04/for_months_consumer_advocates.html?nav=rss_blog

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyId=13&articleId=9077679&intsrc=hm_topic

What's your view? Do you use text messaging regularly, and do you regard it as a critical means of communication?

RCR Wireless News provides a little more background to how the issue of screening text messages by cell phone carriers developed. It began when the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) asked Verizon for permission to send wireless alerts to its supporters. This requires applying for a "short code" from the wireless carrier. At first Verizion denied the application, but then reversed its decision. 

Later, several wireless carriers denied a short code application submitted by Rebtel, a firm that provides low-cost Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service for international calling on mobile phones. The basis for the denial was that Rebtel was viewed as a competitor.

Read more at the link below:

http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080328/FREE/756969106/10

Count me among those who do NOT believe the govt should be able to compell any innovator to make that innovation immediately accessible to everyone. Sounds a little Socialist.... Frankly, this type of mindset may discourage/suppress (because of added "required accessibility cost") innovations that could naturally, collaterally improve the disabled lifestyle. Economic principles cannot be ignored because we want all communication inclusive. My wife WANTS an IBot, does she NEED it?  Because it exists, she "deserves"?  

Not that mfgrs should shun the disabled.  I think we've established in focus groups that improvements in tech that aid the disabled collaterally assist the "able-bodied" in oh so many cases.

Findable options in menus,Usable buttons, Quality speakerphone, etc.   Many features/innovations crossover at NO additional "cost" to specify handicapped accessible.

So what fixes text messaging so it complies with this demand?   A phone that speaks text (or email) on an easy to find command.

Now....Would this be marketable to the physically intact Michael Phelps? You bet... If you drive a car and try to simultaneously READ text  (I've done it) , you can crash.  If the phone reads incoming text to Michael, he lives to swim another day - all without the ACLU?!!  My example might help the blind and Mr Phelps, but why is the deaf representative upset about text messaging? It's seems like an ideal medium for their disability?