Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 309 posts

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#11

Post by alistairSH »

Chevalier wrote: post #9
kelukelugames wrote: post #5

Does it really need to come to litigation?

Nope. My apologies on behalf of our profession. This is probably just a shakedown -- it'll be cheaper to settle than it will be to defend against this lawsuit, so the game is to find a mistake that could plausibly fall afoul of the ADA and file away. I hope they don't settle, to put it mildly. Few institutions are as well-equipped to combat trolls as Harvard.

I'm not sure this is a shakedown. The article mentions a previous case against Netflix that was settled with an agreement from Netflix to provide closed captioning in the near future.

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#12

Post by chrisabrams »

jdreaver wrote: post #8

I don't like this type of precedent. If I make a video wherein I teach some concept, but don't provide closed captions, and then distribute the video for free, am I discriminating against the deaf? If I knew I had to create closed captions, and then make a braille transcript, or maybe even make my video colorblind friendly, I just wouldn't make the video in the first place. I sympathize with folks with disabilities,…

I share a similar viewpoint. Wouldn't it be a better usage of funds to donate to these projects for caption support instead of using those funds to pay attorneys? Why is it so hard to be constructive?

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#13

Post by kelukelugames »

Chevalier wrote: post #9
kelukelugames wrote: post #5

Does it really need to come to litigation?

Nope. My apologies on behalf of our profession. This is probably just a shakedown -- it'll be cheaper to settle than it will be to defend against this lawsuit, so the game is to find a mistake that could plausibly fall afoul of the ADA and file away. I hope they don't settle, to put it mildly. Few institutions are as well-equipped to combat trolls as Harvard.

I really hope this is not a shakedown because I believe asking MIT and Harvard to caption their courses is good. But I can't believe two leading universities would willfully ignore that request.

On a related note, EEOC has been tweeting a lot of disability settlements. https://twitter.com/EEOCNews

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#14

Post by chrisabrams »

cordite wrote: post #7
saosebastiao wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. If I see a link to a video without a transcript or description or even a TLDR, I just won't bother. Maybe to some people I am just another impatient millenial, but I can't help but feel like I have better things to do than to sit through bad jokes, equipment problems, stuttering, and umm-ahhhs. I'm usually pretty critical of a lot of Amazon's culture, but one thing I think is absolutely brilliant is its relia…

Here's an idea, a transcript where you can click on a word in the transcript, and it jumps to the point in the presentation so you also have the context of the slide shown during speaking.

This would be such a great learning tool!

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#15

Post by Someone1234 »

I am a big supporter of accessibility (i.e. access for the blind, deaf, or otherwise disabled).

However unfortunately in this specific case I am conflicted. On one hand we have far more free content available to us because the "cost" of providing this content is relatively low. They just reproduce the course's normal materials, and have a camera rolling during lectures (and, yes, someone has to do basic editing, transcoding, and so on).

If someone has to go through every single lecture and transcribe it (since I assume auto-transcription wouldn't be acceptable) then they will likely just start pulling less popular/niche content because the viewership/return wouldn't be high enough to justify the cost.

And to be honest the niche content is far more interesting than the common stuff. You can find Computer Science 101 lectures all over the place, but want to watch a video on metallurgy for industrial tooling there is like one lecture several years old with just a hundred or so views.

So I really think if the Advocates for the deaf win here they'll gain a small victory but at a large-ish cost to the rest of society. And how long before YouTube is next?

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#16

Post by dougabug »

jdreaver wrote: post #8

I don't like this type of precedent. If I make a video wherein I teach some concept, but don't provide closed captions, and then distribute the video for free, am I discriminating against the deaf? If I knew I had to create closed captions, and then make a braille transcript, or maybe even make my video colorblind friendly, I just wouldn't make the video in the first place. I sympathize with folks with disabilities,…

No good deed goes unpunished...

This just makes it that much more likely that institutions will hesitate before offering free access to materials online.

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#17

Post by sp332 »

jdreaver wrote: post #8

I don't like this type of precedent. If I make a video wherein I teach some concept, but don't provide closed captions, and then distribute the video for free, am I discriminating against the deaf? If I knew I had to create closed captions, and then make a braille transcript, or maybe even make my video colorblind friendly, I just wouldn't make the video in the first place. I sympathize with folks with disabilities,…

Yes, of course that is discrimination. But it's only illegal in certain circumstances.

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#18

Post by kelukelugames »

alistairSH wrote: post #11
Chevalier wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. My apologies on behalf of our profession. This is probably just a shakedown -- it'll be cheaper to settle than it will be to defend against this lawsuit, so the game is to find a mistake that could plausibly fall afoul of the ADA and file away. I hope they don't settle, to put it mildly. Few institutions are as well-equipped to combat trolls as Harvard.

I'm not sure this is a shakedown. The article mentions a previous case against Netflix that was settled with an agreement from Netflix to provide closed captioning in the near future.

The government provides mediation and reconciliation before these things go to court. I don't think anyone disagrees on adding captions. They probably went a head with the suit because they couldn't settle on a dollar figure.

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#19

Post by jdreaver »

chrisabrams wrote: post #12
jdreaver wrote: post #8

I don't like this type of precedent. If I make a video wherein I teach some concept, but don't provide closed captions, and then distribute the video for free, am I discriminating against the deaf? If I knew I had to create closed captions, and then make a braille transcript, or maybe even make my video colorblind friendly, I just wouldn't make the video in the first place. I sympathize with folks with disabilities,…

I share a similar viewpoint. Wouldn't it be a better usage of funds to donate to these projects for caption support instead of using those funds to pay attorneys? Why is it so hard to be constructive?

Agreed. Really, I do applaud people going out of their way to accommodate others. If I had just one personal, direct request to create closed captions along with a "please," you bet I would try to help someone out. But making it illegal not to do so puts a sour taste in my mouth.

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#20

Post by [deleted] »

chrisabrams wrote: post #12
jdreaver wrote: post #8

I don't like this type of precedent. If I make a video wherein I teach some concept, but don't provide closed captions, and then distribute the video for free, am I discriminating against the deaf? If I knew I had to create closed captions, and then make a braille transcript, or maybe even make my video colorblind friendly, I just wouldn't make the video in the first place. I sympathize with folks with disabilities,…

I share a similar viewpoint. Wouldn't it be a better usage of funds to donate to these projects for caption support instead of using those funds to pay attorneys? Why is it so hard to be constructive?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN