3 ms·

I think it is entirely different. Physical accessibility is virtually a one-time cost: install the rails, ramps, etc, and you're done. But meeting these stand

I think it is entirely different. Physical accessibility is virtually a one-time cost: install the rails, ramps, etc, and you're done. But meeting these standards [1] is surely cost-prohibitive, especially when the only person doing it is an already overburdened professor who's merely uploading videos of his lectures, slides, etc. It would increase the preparation time of every lecture, document, etc. by several times over. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13933826 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13933826

danso 10y ago
For a small business, a $10,000 lawsuit + construction fees is not a trivial cost, and may be cost-prohibitive enough to force the business to close shop. But "something is better than nothing " is not justification alone for not meeting ADA regulations. I don't think anyone believes that meeting ADA regulations is cheap; the fact that Berkeley (and Harvard and MIT [0]) are in this predicament shows that the cost of producing accessible video is non-trivial. But it's the law, and advocacy groups would argue that the burden shouldn't be on the individual professor, but on the institution, or rather, the federal agencies to provide adequate funding to meet the burden imposed by law. If institutions aren't forced to realize the costs, then they aren't incentivized to pressure government budget/policymakers to make ADA funding a priority, which neuters the protections that ADA was created for in the first place. Again, it's costly, but that's the monetary price our civic society pays when it decides to extend protections to those who are disabled. Presumably, the ADA was passed because legislators and constituents thought that the price was worth it. [0] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/2/25/harvard-lawsuit-deaf-proceed/ http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/2/25/harvard-lawsuit-...
- mjevans 10y ago
  I think that something /given away for free/ should have a different standard than something which is sold as a product or service.
DanBC 10y ago
> especially when the only person doing it is an already overburdened professor That over burdened professor was offered help, and s/he had to sign a declaration to say s/he was aware of the help provided by Berkeley, and that the content was accessible. https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08-30-UC-Berkeley-LOF.pdf https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08... Pages 3 and 4: > UC Berkeley’s faculty creates and publishes courses for the public on UC BerkeleyX. Faculty developing UC BerkeleyX courses can, but are not required to, develop courses in collaboration with the Berkeley Resource Center for Online Education (BRCOE). BRCOE follows best practices in design for accessibility and also has a quality assurance process that includes deploying various accessibility evaluators; remediating layout, page structure, downloadable or styling accessibility barriers; and obtaining transcripts of all audio and video files associated with a course. > Prior to July 1, 2015, UC Berkeley also allowed faculty and instructors to design, develop and publish courses through a self-service model, which did not include support from BRCOE. Beginning July 1, 2015, UC Berkeley advised the Department that all faculty using the selfservice model will be asked to sign off on a list of accessibility resource reviews prior to publishing the course. The sign-off statements include:

danso 10y ago

For a small business, a $10,000 lawsuit + construction fees is not a trivial cost, and may be cost-prohibitive enough to force the business to close shop. But "something is better than nothing " is not justification alone for not meeting ADA regulations. I don't think anyone believes that meeting ADA regulations is cheap; the fact that Berkeley (and Harvard and MIT [0]) are in this predicament shows that the cost of producing accessible video is non-trivial. But it's the law, and advocacy groups would argue that the burden shouldn't be on the individual professor, but on the institution, or rather, the federal agencies to provide adequate funding to meet the burden imposed by law. If institutions aren't forced to realize the costs, then they aren't incentivized to pressure government budget/policymakers to make ADA funding a priority, which neuters the protections that ADA was created for in the first place. Again, it's costly, but that's the monetary price our civic society pays when it decides to extend protections to those who are disabled. Presumably, the ADA was passed because legislators and constituents thought that the price was worth it. [0] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/2/25/harvard-lawsuit-deaf-proceed/ http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/2/25/harvard-lawsuit-...

mjevans 10y ago
I think that something /given away for free/ should have a different standard than something which is sold as a product or service.

DanBC 10y ago

> especially when the only person doing it is an already overburdened professor That over burdened professor was offered help, and s/he had to sign a declaration to say s/he was aware of the help provided by Berkeley, and that the content was accessible. https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08-30-UC-Berkeley-LOF.pdf https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08... Pages 3 and 4: > UC Berkeley’s faculty creates and publishes courses for the public on UC BerkeleyX. Faculty developing UC BerkeleyX courses can, but are not required to, develop courses in collaboration with the Berkeley Resource Center for Online Education (BRCOE). BRCOE follows best practices in design for accessibility and also has a quality assurance process that includes deploying various accessibility evaluators; remediating layout, page structure, downloadable or styling accessibility barriers; and obtaining transcripts of all audio and video files associated with a course. > Prior to July 1, 2015, UC Berkeley also allowed faculty and instructors to design, develop and publish courses through a self-service model, which did not include support from BRCOE. Beginning July 1, 2015, UC Berkeley advised the Department that all faculty using the selfservice model will be asked to sign off on a list of accessibility resource reviews prior to publishing the course. The sign-off statements include: