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

21–30 of 309 posts

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

#21

Post by erok »

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 agree. There goes free online courses from MIT and Harvard due to the impending legal fees implied. Thank you National Association of the Deaf.

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

#22

Post by harperlee »

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?

To play devil's advocate, if you fund the captioning, fewer people will do it for free. But yes, the current option is distasteful.

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

#23

Post by psychometry »

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,…

The article doesn't specify who is suing them, whether it's a MOOC user or an enrolled student, and what lectures they're suing over. There's a big difference between a MOOC lecture lacking captions and required online lecture for an undergraduate course lacking caption.

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

#24

Post by sueders101 »

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.

"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."

Unless I'm mistaken, the article says that National Association of the Deaf requested Harvard and MIT provide options accessible to the deaf on multiples occasions. They're seeking comparable materials for the hearing impaired, not millions of dollars.

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

#25

Post by sp332 »

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?

Deaf people aren't a charity case. The content needs to be accessible from the beginning, not as an afterthought.

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

#26

Post by kiranb13 »

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.

Someone at MIT's User Interface Design group is working on something like this, with a searchable transcript -- http://juhokim.com/lecturescape/

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

#27

Post by notadocta »

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 agree. Perhaps someone should step in and make the closed captions, braille transcript -- a third party.

This is why we can't have nice things.

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

#28

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#29

Post by harperlee »

sp332 wrote: post #17
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.

Well, I don't agree [1]. Neither does Wikipedia:

  "Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination)
Note the prejudice part.

[1] Not in this context; of course a visual communication discriminates among those who can and can not receive it, but what prejudice is there in just recording yourself talking?

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

#30

Post by Someone1234 »

sp332 wrote: post #25
chrisabrams wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Deaf people aren't a charity case. The content needs to be accessible from the beginning, not as an afterthought.

That's a confusing sentiment. So deaf people shouldn't be given something for free, but they should get something for free "from the beginning?" Which is it?
Post reply on HN