Black and white photograph of a young woman dressed in a checked=A recent article in the New York Times highlighted a paid advertising campaign being pushed by agencies in 30 states that work with employment, health and human services aimed at citizens with disabilities (thanks to my friend Lindsay for passing it along!).

With an estimated $4 million budget, and hoping to raise $10 million for services, the ads are markedly different from traditional PSAs. Rather than moralizing, they use the humor of “normal” people’s eccentricities to argue that companies already hire people with various differences or disadvantages – so why not hire someone with a disability? There’s an emphasis on rejecting labels or stereotypes, as evidenced by the campaign’s website, Think Beyond the Label. The spots themselves show individuals including a girl who is “Pattern Deficient,” as well as a dancing man who is “Rhythm Impaired,” who are already hired and considered basically “normal. A television ad runs as follows:

a worker in a wheelchair points out her colleagues who “you could label as ‘different.’ ” Among them are a woman dressed in a nightmare wardrobe of clashing patterns, who is “fashion deficient”; a klutzy young man at the copier, who is “copy incapable”; and a shouting man who suffers from “volume control syndrome.”

The punch line of the commercial is that the worker in the wheelchair is different, too: Her skills at a basic office function are so bad that she is labeled “coffee-making impaired.”

The message, it seems, is one of tolerance – everyone is different in their own way, and we must accept others differences as potentially enriching (and at least irrelevant). The spots are aimed at HR professionals, managers, and other (presumably able-bodied) people with the power to influence hiring decisions. Disability, the spots imply, is just another quirky difference.

Though the ads may do a good job of cracking through public ignorance of the employment issues often faced by people with disabilities, and they have gotten positive responses from people with disabilities involved with the campaign, I doubt their potential to ameliorate workplace conditions. By placing disability on a level with various quirks, the realities of disability as a lived experience is erased. How will a hiring manager inspired by this campaign react when they realize that they hired someone who will need significant accommodations to succeed in the workplace? The question of ability or needs is conspicuously absent from the campaign, evidencing the desire to move beyond “labels” but not to address real physical or social challenges. Think Beyond the Label describes itself as “committed to making the business case for employing people with disabilities” – this is really similar to the dominant discourse on web accessibility (it can optimize your search engine results and bring new customers!). Where is the social justice case? The moral argument? The rights-based realities of the ADA and other legislation?

Plus, the ad can easily be read in reverse – rather than “people with disabilities are just different, like everyone else,” it could be seen to be asserting that the girl in mis-matched clothing is “disabled” – a move that minimizes the experience and voices of those who do face challenges due to disability. As Eva recently wrote about her experience being told “everyone’s retarded in their own way” – wow. There’s a sympathy toward disability in both instances, but the expression just doesn’t quite connect.

The commercial is set to run during most of the high-profile Sunday morning news shows, the web ads will appear at CNN.com, ESPN.com and WSJ.com, and the print ads will be in The Wall Street Journal, Time, and HR Magazine among other places. I’ll be keeping an eye out, and if you happen to come across one of these, I’d love it if you could send me a screenshot/video/etc!

P.S. The title is reference to Avenue Q song “Everyone’s a little bit racist” – not a serious question.

YouTube official logoYesterday, Google announced that it would deploying several new options for increasing the number and quality of closed captioned videos on the site. The New York Times reported on this as a first step to making videos available to deaf and hearing-impaired audiences, but it seems clear that there are a lot of potential beneficiaries – foreign language audiences (captions can be translated to 51 languages), those of us who can’t turn on the speakers at work, and anyone who wants to search the verbal content of a video.

So, how are they doing it? First, speech-to-text technology currently used by Google Voice is being applied to a small number of videos on the site (largely educational content) to produce captions automatically.

“Because the tools are not perfect, we want to make sure that we get feedback from the video owners and the viewers before we roll it out for the whole world,” Mr. Harrenstien said. “Sometimes the auto-captions are good. Sometimes they are not great, but they are better than nothing if you are hearing-impaired or don’t know the language.”

Presumably, if this works, speech-to-text will be rolled out more broadly. For now, you can take a look at how this works below. To see the captions, Google/YouTube explains – “Click on the menu button at the bottom right of the video player, then click CC and the arrow to its left, then click the new “Transcribe Audio” button.” I’ve picked a clip of PBS’s upcoming series This Emotional Life, focusing on Asperger’s.

Obviously, it’s not perfect – “Asperger’s syndrome” is transcribed as “Mister Gerson” – so I hope that speech-to-text improves before this initial stage is extended to other videos. This, however, leads to the second option that Google/YouTube have made available, which is to provide your own captions for videos you upload.

Now, after you upload a video, you can also upload a text file  – YouTube will combine the video and the text to create captions. Through “auto-timing,” YouTube will match a transcript (a file with only verbal content) to the video using speech recognition, or will match a caption file (which includes time codes for the text to appear) to the video. The help file on this seems fairly clear, and also includes tips like including bracketed information about non-verbal sounds [whistling], or using >> to indicate changing speakers inthe captions.

I gave it a try – not the easiest experience. They weren’t kidding when they said that clear speech works best, as my transcript file (no time code) was not able to be matched and displayed as captions. People singing to cats didn’t translate well. Thus, to get a captioned video, I had to try the old fashioned way, creating a .sub file with time codes. This quickly got me in a bit over my head – while I could do it, given the time, there’s a reason most people don’t caption their YouTube videos. It’s time intensive, there’s a learning curve involved, and the results may not seem important enough to justify the work.

This, of course, is exactly why forays into speech-to-text and auto-timing are so exciting. If captions could be created automatically, or from a simple text file, captions on user-created video would certainly become more common and make the world more accessible. While the tools as they are today aren’t anywhere near perfect, it’s certainly a first step in creating automatic accessibility features for participatory media.

As someone who studies accessibility and internet media, I’m constantly torn between getting excited about social/participatory media and being disappointed in their access options. This WordPress blog I’m using is notoriously terrible in its implementation of image alt text, for instance. Blogging has given so many people an outlet to write and connect, but if they want to make a blog accessible, it takes additional research and effort. Attempts to build accessibility features in automatically are, in my opinion, game-changers when they’re done well. I’ll withhold judgment on this YouTube move for now – it has potential – but I’ll be watching to see whether it develops .

Representations of disability on television are fairly rare (and usually seem to be male – which is another post), and it is even rarer for these parts to be played by an actor with a disability. As Anna at FWD/Forward notes, this “crip drag” can make for problematic representations and can further exclude disabled actors. When a character with a disability is played by an actor with a disability, it is worthy of some attention, and thus I offer a clip of Brothers – a FOX sitcom almost certainly not long for this world.

Darryl “Chill” Mitchell was a comic actor in the 1990s (you may remember him from Veronica’s Closet, Galaxy Quest or as the teacher in the film 10 Things I Hate About You) who was paralyzed in a motorcycle accident in 2001. Since then, he has used a wheelchair in both his personal and professional life, first on Ed and now on Brothers. The show focuses on Mitchell, his parents, and his brother (Michael Strahan), who is a former NFL star and whom Michell’s character blames for his accident.

While I don’t want to exaggerate the possible causality here, the fact that his character’s disability is treated as a fact of life that can be joked about is a welcome antidote to common storylines of disability as tragedy or inspiration for able-bodied characters, and may be tied to the lived experience Mitchell brings to the role. Certainly, he is aware of the risks and possible rewards involved in the representation of an African-American man with a disability on network TV, telling The Atlantan:

“And I’m not only part of an African-American family, I’m a person who uses a wheelchair. I’m not pitching for one community. I’m pitching for two. This isn’t just a TV show. It’s a movement.”

Brothers, however, has had terrible ratings, is not particularly funny, and is rumored to be already quietly canceled by FOX.

Turning to a brother on a different low-budget series, Make It or Break It on ABC Family focuses on four teenage girls who are also elite gymnasts. Our protagonist, Emily, has a younger brother who uses a wheelchair. Yet, Brian’s health is never discussed, and he seems to be a peripheral character within the series and his own family, dominated as it is by his sister’s gymnastics, his mother’s sexuality, and the family’s poverty. In fact, Brian seems to perpetuate the representation of PWD as saintly characters who take care of and inspire those around them. So far, Brian is practically a contemporary Tiny Tim, preserving his family’s optimism in the face of other challenges and minimizing his own needs. For whatever it’s worth, Brian is not played by an actor with disabilities. And, of course, this tween-focused dramedy is far from well-written on any level.

Yet, the contrast between Brothers and Make It or Break It is notable for their very different approaches to fairly similar stories of sibling, elite athletics and disability. Apart from the presentations of brothers with disabilities, I find their athletic siblings an interesting counterpoint. To some extent, the same contrast between athletics and disability is present in Friday Night Lights, as well. Why are disabled bodies invoked in these series, in particular? One possibility is that these characters are an attempt to to humanize their physically impressive siblings, bringing them “down to earth” from elite athletics by showing interactions with “pitiable” or “vulnerable” people with disabilities. Related to this, the contrast in bodily representation seems to underscore the skills of the non-disabled athletes by presenting them in connection with a perceived Other; Emily leaps across the uneven bars at nationals and Brian watches her on television while sitting in his chair, at home. Make It or Break It will be back for another season this winter – let’s hope that the characterization of Brian can take a page from Chill and present a somewhat less cliched family dynamic around disability.

For more reading on disability in the media (because I certainly won’t post often enough to keep you up to date!) the series of posts on disability in media and popular culture at FWD/Forward has been fascinating reading lately. I was particularly impressed with Ouyang Dan’s post on House, as well as posts on Torchwood and Joan of Arcadia, and heartily recommend the series and the blog.

Last week my Twitter feed was burning up with w00tstock 2009, versions 1.0 and 1.01 in San Francisco, and version 1.1 in Los Angeles. Featuring Adam Savage (of Mythbusters), Wil Wheaton (of ST:TNG and superblog WWDN: In Exile) and comedy musicians Paul and Storm, as well as various special guests, the festival honored the cultural rise of the geek/nerd.

Here, Wheaton kicks things off, making fun of and celebrating his own geek status. W00tstock also happened to coincide with the geek-gasm of Wheaton’s appearance (as himself) on The Big Bang Theory on CBS.

But one of the most interesting elements of the LA performance was the popularity of Felicia Day, who has become an icon of the geek world in the past year through gaming-themed web series The Guild. Below, she and her castmates perform an acoustic version of their hit promotional music video “Do You Wanna Date My Avatar?

Day has had a speedy rise to near-fame – from bit roles on television to starring in Dr. Horrible’s Sing Along Blog, and writing/producing/starring in The Guild, and appearing in the best-received (and never aired) episode of Dollhouse season one. She’s a gamer, she’s part of the Joss-verse, and throughout, she’s used social media to build her star image and interact with fans. Day’s Twitter feed is more popular than Wheaton’s; her Goodreads account makes her reading habits public; she’s run a personal blog for nearly three years; and she’s on Flickr, Facebook, and delicious, to name a few. I’m watching her use of social media and her rising star pretty closely – could she be the first person to turn social media success  into a bona fide subcultural stardom?

P.S. Tila Tequila is not a star.