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

31–40 of 309 posts

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

#31

Post by jdreaver »

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.

Alright, then who will pay for it, either in time or money? You are free to go caption videos all you want, but why should people be forced to caption videos they make in their spare time?

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

#32

Post by [deleted] »

psychometry wrote: post #23
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.

[deleted]

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

#33

Post by libria »

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 generally agree with you, but the counter argument would be something like, If you opened a soup kitchen downtown to provide food for the homeless, should you be required to install accessibility facilities (ramps, elevator, bathroom, etc.)?

I know the law says yes, but is it what we want? Have the extra building codes discouraged potential altruists?

I wonder if there's a government subsidy for that part of it, and if so could a similar provision be allowed for educational institutions opening their courseware.

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

#34

Post by ProAm »

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,…

Is this because they offer certification or degrees through these programs? I think you create something on your own with no measurable achievement it wouldn't matter. That's the only reason I can see this being a suit.

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

#35

Post by vonmoltke »

harperlee wrote: post #29
sp332 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The wiki article then contradicts itself right in the next paragraph:

Not all discrimination is based on prejudice, however.

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

#36

Post by DocSavage »

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.

Actually, all consumers of free online courses are charity cases. Deaf people are suing because MIT's and Harvard's largesse doesn't always include them.

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

#37

Post by sp332 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #30
sp332 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The communication needs to be made accessible by the person or group who produces it. Not by some outside organization that goes around cleaning up other people's accessibility messes.

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

#40

Post by 6stringmerc »

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,…

When it comes to individual works, I don't see how this would have any bearing on your product. You're not beholden to the ADA in your creative works, from what I understand. Double the exemption for making something for free.

It's the institutionalization of education that is being called out here, in that Harvard et al receive compensation (advertisement is a form of compensation - see: radio airplay) for these products and do not maintain quality standards respective of existing laws. No musician has to include a print out of their lyrics in the liner notes, it's a completely voluntary transaction without stipulation of such ADA compliance, in that the terms of the relationship are different than this case where Harvard is a 'service provider' of sorts (the service being the transmission of knowledge).

This is different than the occasional lawsuit trolling where a person in a wheelchair finds small businesses not in compliance with the ADA and brings a case...this is...well, an educational institution with the resources and capability for compliance, but they aren't complying. Seems pretty workable from a high-level standpoint to me.

Post reply on HN