3 ms·
> No, it is not bizarre that lawyers at a university for the deaf, precisely the population that one expects to notice this infraction and to also have the mone
by alphapapa 10y ago
> No, it is not bizarre that lawyers at a university for the deaf, precisely the population that one expects to notice this infraction and to also have the monetary resources to file a complaint, were the ones who filed a complaint. That's often how lawsuits come about.
Sorry if I was unclear. I meant how ironic it is for people who have devoted their lives to educating others to file a complaint causing freely available educational resources to be destroyed.
- danso 10y agoThat's one irony to note. Another irony worth noting is that a premier publicly-funded university, in the U.S. state that is among the most proactive in enforcing ADA regulations, expended taxpayer-funded resources to produce educational videos that did not meet ADA regulations. Those educational resources may have been "freely available" because they were posted on YouTube, but the folks who did the work of curating, editing, and producing those resources for YouTube are paid with public funds, and are thus obligated to follow the rules of ADA. If "well at least it's better than nothing" is the excuse for deprioritizing access to these resources, then the ADA's ability to protect the disenfranchised becomes effectively meaningless.