2 ms·

Releasing video of academic lectures is showing contempt for people with disabilities?

DanBC 10y ago
Making the choice to deliberately exclude people with disabilities, even though there's a nearly thirty year old law mandating accessibility is treating people with contempt.
- PeterisP 10y ago
  As properly transcribing a video lecture is more expensive than making the lecture in the first place, it's a reasonable choice to gift something to many but not all people at a small fraction of what the cost would be if it had to be more accessible. Accomodations are reasonable if they require a small adjustment to the product - like automated speech-to-text transcriptions would be, or making navigation so that it's possible to use with screen-readers for blind people. However, if the required adjustment effort overwhelms the original product, then I'd say that "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" applies - yes, the content isn't perfect, and it's not suitable for many uses, but it's a gift; if you don't want it, then don't take it and it shouldn't be anybody's duty to make that gift differently.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    ...and this is why just about fuck all has been done for accessibility over the last 30 years and we still have major services that are very hard for people with disabilities to use. People tried asking nicely, and were ignored. Now people are taking action. We can't say we weren't warned. We were warned 30 years ago when the law was passed.
- setr 10y ago
  You could make that claim if they made such a decision, and you could assume they did if they had to go out of their way to disable CC. But of course, they have to go out of their way to include CC (in time, money and effort) so its entirely absurd to name it "contempt". At best, its negligence, and at worst, its reasonable (the video lectures aren't really related to the school's operations, it just happens to be easy to do). Really, you could turn it around and call it contempt on the disabled's part, for suing with no clear benefit to anyone

DanBC 10y ago

Making the choice to deliberately exclude people with disabilities, even though there's a nearly thirty year old law mandating accessibility is treating people with contempt.

PeterisP 10y ago
As properly transcribing a video lecture is more expensive than making the lecture in the first place, it's a reasonable choice to gift something to many but not all people at a small fraction of what the cost would be if it had to be more accessible. Accomodations are reasonable if they require a small adjustment to the product - like automated speech-to-text transcriptions would be, or making navigation so that it's possible to use with screen-readers for blind people. However, if the required adjustment effort overwhelms the original product, then I'd say that "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" applies - yes, the content isn't perfect, and it's not suitable for many uses, but it's a gift; if you don't want it, then don't take it and it shouldn't be anybody's duty to make that gift differently.
- DanBC 10y ago
  ...and this is why just about fuck all has been done for accessibility over the last 30 years and we still have major services that are very hard for people with disabilities to use. People tried asking nicely, and were ignored. Now people are taking action. We can't say we weren't warned. We were warned 30 years ago when the law was passed.
setr 10y ago
You could make that claim if they made such a decision, and you could assume they did if they had to go out of their way to disable CC. But of course, they have to go out of their way to include CC (in time, money and effort) so its entirely absurd to name it "contempt". At best, its negligence, and at worst, its reasonable (the video lectures aren't really related to the school's operations, it just happens to be easy to do). Really, you could turn it around and call it contempt on the disabled's part, for suing with no clear benefit to anyone