Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by lovelearning » Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 6:38 PM UTC

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.

All public online videos published by Harvard and MIT, including such gems as "video of students welcoming Lady Gaga to the Harvard campus".

[1]: http://nad.org/news/2015/2/nad-sues-harvard-and-mit-discrimi...

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

#42

Post by dhbradshaw » Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 6:38 PM UTC

This can use a software fix: 1) everyone agrees that having captions and transcripts is a good thing 2) requiring schools to have them is problematic because it increases the cost of producing the videos--we want the cost to be low because the videos are a social good and we want more of them. 3) with software maybe we can make it inexpensive to add transcripts and captions to videos. Suddenly the world is a better place

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

#43

Post by Agustus » Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 6:38 PM UTC

libria wrote: post #33

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, an…

Absolutely, people will not buy / old buildings in buildings older than ADA passage date because there is so much money that needs to be spent to retrofit it to code. Building a new building is cheaper long term, but how can you start a soup kitchen to gauge demand.

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

#44

Post by jdreaver » Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 6:39 PM UTC

6stringmerc wrote: post #40

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 pro…

I understand that the law may not strictly apply to me. I am making a statement on the principle of the situation. I don't think MIT or Harvard should be forced to provide captions for their videos either.

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

#45

Post by Agustus » Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 6:40 PM UTC

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?

Then how would the attorneys keep their job and fund their lavish lifestyle?

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

#46

Post by rtkwe » Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 6:41 PM UTC

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.

It sounds like it's talking about their MOOC offerings but it very ambiguous and could really be either.

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

#47

Post by 6stringmerc » Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 6:42 PM UTC

jdreaver wrote: post #44

6stringmerc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pro…

I understand that the law may not strictly apply to me. I am making a statement on the principle of the situation. I don't think MIT or Harvard should be forced to provide captions for their videos either.

Well, I think you're misapplying your principle in this instance. I think Harvard or MIT should have to provide captions in the spirit of the law that exists. It's not like the ADA was passed last year, so to think that the physical Harvard/MIT facilities would be ADA compliant but online facilities would not strikes me as a necessary coming to grips with the law as it's written. Hence the lawyers will fight this out and we'll probably get an answer.

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

#48

Post by Agustus » Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 6:43 PM UTC

sueders101 wrote: post #24

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.

"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 heari…

That's always the request, but then when you admit fault, there are follow up lawsuits.

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

#49

Post by fps » Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 6:44 PM UTC

erok wrote: post #21

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.

On EdX.org, where Harvard and MIT put many online courses for free, all course videos already are professionally captioned and accessible. The cited videos in the lawsuit aren't even course videos, they're promotional videos or streaming versions of conferences. Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, President Obama and Lady Gaga visiting campus for an event. - see http://creeclaw.org/online-content-lawsuit-harvard-mit/

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

#50

Post by pekk » Thu, Feb 12, 2015, 6:45 PM UTC

As someone who makes free content, this is scary. I understand the Harvard has a lot more money to take care of accessibility than I do, but why would that exempt me? What is the legal formula determining who is in danger from lawsuits about whether they provided an accessible alternative to a completely free thing?

If there isn't a strong protection here then it means you might as well not offer any free content at all unless you have the money to make it accessible to everyone (and for lawyers to defend yourself). That would be an astonishingly broad chilling effect.