E-mail List Archives
Thread: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Really terrible."
Number of posts in this thread: 21 (In chronological order)
From: Bourne, Sarah (ITD)
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2012 8:16AM
Subject: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Really terrible."
No previous message | Next message →
"If websites must comply with the ADA, all hell will break loose." I am sitting here stunned after reading a post in today's arstechnica: "Will the Americans with Disabilities Act tear a hole in Internet law?" Apparently civil rights are not as important as protecting companies from having to make changes to their websites. And the misinformation! (Now rendered speechless...)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/will-the-americans-with-disabilities-act-tear-a-hole-in-internet-law/
Sarah E. Bourne
Director of Assistive Technology &
Mass.Gov Chief Technology Strategist
Information Technology Division
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
1 Ashburton Pl. rm 1601 Boston MA 02108
617-626-4502
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
http://www.mass.gov/itd
From: Pamela Riesmeyer
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2012 8:39AM
Subject: Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Really terrible."
← Previous message | Next message →
It's troubling, Sarah. The comments start off even worse, but there are
some voices of reason weighing in. I think we can only hope that the
dialogue continues and that people who have more information than the
author can get their points across.
Thanks for posting the link!
Pam Riesmeyer
On Wednesday, June 27, 2012, Bourne, Sarah (ITD) wrote:
> "If websites must comply with the ADA, all hell will break loose." I am
> sitting here stunned after reading a post in today's arstechnica: "Will the
> Americans with Disabilities Act tear a hole in Internet law?" Apparently
> civil rights are not as important as protecting companies from having to
> make changes to their websites. And the misinformation! (Now rendered
> speechless...)
>
>
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/will-the-americans-with-disabilities-act-tear-a-hole-in-internet-law/
>
> Sarah E. Bourne
> Director of Assistive Technology &
> Mass.Gov Chief Technology Strategist
> Information Technology Division
> Commonwealth of Massachusetts
> 1 Ashburton Pl. rm 1601 Boston MA 02108
> 617-626-4502
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <javascript:;><mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <javascript:;>
> >
> http://www.mass.gov/itd
>
> > > >
--
Pamela Riesmeyer
Web Accessibility Coordinator
Purdue University Calumet
219-989-2731/219-730-2751
SKYPE: pamela.riesmeyer
Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Site: http://webs.purduecal.edu/webaccessibility
<http://webs.purduecal.edu/webaccessibility>;
From: Karen Mardahl
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2012 8:46AM
Subject: Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Really terrible."
← Previous message | Next message →
OMG, Sarah. It gets even worse in the comments. "Costs imposed by disabled
people", for example!!!
Fortunately, there are a few sane souls who are commenting.
One of them wrote "The ADA is one of the things that separates a
civilization from barbarism."
And then there is "And it's not like this is a shrinking market: Baby
Boomers are turning on the captions in ever-larger numbers, as their
hearing fades. The deaf have nothing on the AARP when it comes to throwing
their political weight around." I had to cackle at that one, at the vision
of the AARP showing up on the scene like a member of The Avengers. The AARP
can be a figure in a turbo-charge wheelchair that can also fly. It'll be
accompanied by a service dog (who can also fly, of course) equipped with
various tools developed in secret by the new Q at James Bond's headquarters.
OK I got a bit carried away there... I needed the comic relief.
Regards, Karen Mardahl
http://flavors.me/kmdk
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Bourne, Sarah (ITD) <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> "If websites must comply with the ADA, all hell will break loose." I am
> sitting here stunned after reading a post in today's arstechnica: "Will the
> Americans with Disabilities Act tear a hole in Internet law?" Apparently
> civil rights are not as important as protecting companies from having to
> make changes to their websites. And the misinformation! (Now rendered
> speechless...)
>
>
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/will-the-americans-with-disabilities-act-tear-a-hole-in-internet-law/
>
> Sarah E. Bourne
> Director of Assistive Technology &
> Mass.Gov Chief Technology Strategist
> Information Technology Division
> Commonwealth of Massachusetts
> 1 Ashburton Pl. rm 1601 Boston MA 02108
> 617-626-4502
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> http://www.mass.gov/itd
>
From: Ryan Hemphill
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2012 9:28AM
Subject: Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Really terrible."
← Previous message | Next message →
I read that post. That is disgusting. The fact that the title is what it
is shows an incredibly callous attitude. It's a weird situation. If that
guy saw a blind man who needed help to cross the street, he'd help - but
when he thinks about "Blind People" in the abstract, helping them is seen
as nothing but an unfair burden. The move from singular to plural seems to
create a mental gap in empathy.
There are such strange people in this world.
- Ryan
From: Susan Grossman
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2012 10:43AM
Subject: Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Really terrible."
← Previous message | Next message →
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Ryan Hemphill < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> wrote:
> I read that post. That is disgusting. The fact that the title is what it
> is shows an incredibly callous attitude. It's a weird situation. If that
> guy saw a blind man who needed help to cross the street, he'd help - but
> when he thinks about "Blind People" in the abstract, helping them is seen
> as nothing but an unfair burden. The move from singular to plural seems to
> create a mental gap in empathy.
>
> There are such strange people in this world.
>
>
> - Ryan
>
Am getting some of these kinds of words and push back from some clients now
too. They call it big government and Welfare for cripples - yeah you read
that correctly, and in a corporate meeting. Luckily the PM jumped in and
stopped that line of talk by simply saying it's a requirement, just like
the Flash they wanted - both in the original RFP.
This seems to be a side effect of a big symptom - not helping others, even
to cross the street, and is very disturbing.
I don't get how so many people bought into this ugliness in the comments,
and bolstered each other into saying very very nasty things, as if it was
all OK.
--
*Susan R. Grossman*
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: Ryan Hemphill
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2012 11:24AM
Subject: Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Really terrible."
← Previous message | Next message →
I didn't know people would talk that way in public.
I guess the only thing about this that is a 'good thing' is that it points
out something that needs to change, like racism. Extreme behavior like
this is something most people would object to, and for that reason alone I
will probably be bringing your experience up in conversation going forward.
- Ryan
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Susan Grossman
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Ryan Hemphill <
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > wrote:
>
> > I read that post. That is disgusting. The fact that the title is what
> it
> > is shows an incredibly callous attitude. It's a weird situation. If
> that
> > guy saw a blind man who needed help to cross the street, he'd help - but
> > when he thinks about "Blind People" in the abstract, helping them is seen
> > as nothing but an unfair burden. The move from singular to plural seems
> to
> > create a mental gap in empathy.
> >
> > There are such strange people in this world.
> >
> >
> > - Ryan
> >
>
> Am getting some of these kinds of words and push back from some clients now
> too. They call it big government and Welfare for cripples - yeah you read
> that correctly, and in a corporate meeting. Luckily the PM jumped in and
> stopped that line of talk by simply saying it's a requirement, just like
> the Flash they wanted - both in the original RFP.
>
> This seems to be a side effect of a big symptom - not helping others, even
> to cross the street, and is very disturbing.
>
> I don't get how so many people bought into this ugliness in the comments,
> and bolstered each other into saying very very nasty things, as if it was
> all OK.
>
> --
> *Susan R. Grossman*
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > >
--
Shipping is a Feature...Perhaps the Most Important Feature.
From: Léonie Watson
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2012 11:51AM
Subject: Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Reallyterrible."
← Previous message | Next message →
Ryan Hemphill wrote:
" I guess the only thing about this that is a 'good thing' is that it points
out something that needs to change, like racism."
By a strange coincidence, this is something I'll be talking about next week.
http://lanyrd.com/2012/post-ict-for-disabled-people/
These are the notes for a couple of my slides. Hope you don't mind me
sharing...
The world has come a long way since Emmeline Pankhurst refused to accept
that women were second class citizens, and in doing so kicked off the
women's' rights movement of the early 1900s.
It's been more than half a century since Rosa Parks refused to give up her
bus seat, and in doing so sparked the civil rights movement of the mid 20th
century.
Yet we live in a time when many disabled people are refused access to the
digital world. This isn't a question of technology, of budget, or even of
capability.
It is simply a matter of digital liberty.
Léonie.
From: Bim Egan
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2012 11:57AM
Subject: Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Reallyterrible."
← Previous message | Next message →
Most of the hurtful comments seem to be down to selfish ignorance, though I
didn't have the patience to read them all. Does anyone know if it's been
pointed out that disabled people aren't responsible for their condition and
that it could happen to anyone at any time? Statistically one in six of
those people making light of the needs of disabled people could at some
point in their lives experience those needs for themselves.
Bim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Hemphill" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling.
Reallyterrible."
>I didn't know people would talk that way in public.
>
> I guess the only thing about this that is a 'good thing' is that it points
> out something that needs to change, like racism. Extreme behavior like
> this is something most people would object to, and for that reason alone I
> will probably be bringing your experience up in conversation going
> forward.
>
>
> - Ryan
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Susan Grossman
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Ryan Hemphill <
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > I read that post. That is disgusting. The fact that the title is what
>> it
>> > is shows an incredibly callous attitude. It's a weird situation. If
>> that
>> > guy saw a blind man who needed help to cross the street, he'd help -
>> > but
>> > when he thinks about "Blind People" in the abstract, helping them is
>> > seen
>> > as nothing but an unfair burden. The move from singular to plural
>> > seems
>> to
>> > create a mental gap in empathy.
>> >
>> > There are such strange people in this world.
>> >
>> >
>> > - Ryan
>> >
>>
>> Am getting some of these kinds of words and push back from some clients
>> now
>> too. They call it big government and Welfare for cripples - yeah you
>> read
>> that correctly, and in a corporate meeting. Luckily the PM jumped in and
>> stopped that line of talk by simply saying it's a requirement, just like
>> the Flash they wanted - both in the original RFP.
>>
>> This seems to be a side effect of a big symptom - not helping others,
>> even
>> to cross the street, and is very disturbing.
>>
>> I don't get how so many people bought into this ugliness in the comments,
>> and bolstered each other into saying very very nasty things, as if it was
>> all OK.
>>
>> --
>> *Susan R. Grossman*
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> >> >> >>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Shipping is a Feature...Perhaps the Most Important Feature.
> > >
From: Don Mauck
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2012 12:25PM
Subject: Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Reallyterrible."
← Previous message | Next message →
Yes.
From: Morin, Gary (NIH/OD) [E]
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2012 12:52PM
Subject: Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Really terrible."
← Previous message | Next message →
This is the one that struck me really oddly: "This is what happens when one values equality over the costs imposed by disabled people." Sorry, but yes, equality is of higher value than "costs," just as civil rights aren't up for vote. Aren't there costs of exclusion that can't be measured in dollars/Pounds Sterling/Euros and the like?
I recently saw a cartoon of an individual drowning, while a crowd of people around him all stood there videoing the accident on their cell-phones, rather than helping or even calling for help. As my grandmother would say, after coming to America from the old country, "only in America."
I know I'll be criticized for being "off-topic," but remember that we are living in a time in this country where people in public are calling for the death of homosexuals - see http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/how-could-you-boycott-a-cookie - for example. With the safety of the internet, people seem to feel free to be mean-spirited and to say things they normally wouldn't. People who have traditionally been the arbiters of the haves and have-nots are losing their power and assumed-authority, and they and their wallets seem to be threatened. So, criticizing the decision that streaming videos must be captioned seems fairly tame. Even Oliver Wendell Holmes 'advocated' for eugenics or forced sterilization of "defectives."
NOT A REPRESENTAION OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS DEPARTMENTS OR AGENCIES. RESPOND TO ME PRIVATELY AT = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = IF YOU WISH TO.
Gary
From: Lucy Greco
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2012 1:13PM
Subject: Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Really terrible."
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi:
I am glad you said all this. The one thing that bothers me about the
constant saying it costs too much! Is if more people did it would not.
Supply and demand. That's the economics here. And hay what is the problem
with putting more people to work? Just think of all the work in captioning
the archives of the library of congress . If they really want to make jobs
then start making access a priority smile
Lucia Greco
Web Access Analyst
IST-Campus Technology Services
University of California, Berkeley
http://webaccess.berkeley.edu
From: Bevi Chagnon
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2012 2:16PM
Subject: Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Reallyterrible."
← Previous message | Next message →
Lucia wrote: "And hay what is the problem with putting more people to work?
Just think of all the work in captioning the archives of the library of
congress. If they really want to make jobs then start making access a
priority."
Great idea, Lucia.
Why not write a short message to these folks in Washington. They're the ones
who either make or break legislation and policy.
It's an election year and I think these "neighbors" of mine need a good
swift kick in the pants to do SOMETHING useful for society rather than
debate endlessly about government regulations and tax breaks for the rich.
The White House
http://www.whitehouse.gov/
The Speaker of the House (GOP Boehner)
http://www.speaker.gov/
House Majority Leader (GOP Cantor)
http://majorityleader.gov/
House Majority Whip (GPO McCarthy)
http://www.majoritywhip.gov/#
House Minority Leader (DEM Pelosi)
http://www.democraticleader.gov/
House Minority Whip (DEM Hoyer)
http://www.democraticwhip.gov/
Your 1 representative: www.house.gov
Senate President (DEM Inouye)
http://www.inouye.senate.gov/
Senate Majority Leader (DEM Reid)
http://www.reid.senate.gov/
Senate Majority Whip (DEM Durbin)
http://www.durbin.senate.gov/public/
Senate Minority Leader (GOP McConnell)
http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/
Senate Minority Whip (GOP Kyl)
http://www.kyl.senate.gov/
Your 2 senators: www.senate.gov
- Bevi
(in Washington, DC)
-----------------------------------------------------
Bevi Chagnon | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
PubCom - Trainers, consultants, designers, and developers
Print | Web | Acrobat | XML | eBooks | Section 508
-----------------------------------------------------
Classes: www.PubCom.com/classes
Publishing Blog: www.pubcom.com/blog
-----------------------------------------------------
*** It's our 31st Year! ***
From: Elle
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2012 2:24PM
Subject: Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Really terrible."
← Previous message | Next message →
For what it's worth, captioning is not a very expensive process, especially
compared to other accessibility initiatives. Costs range from $4-$6 a
minute (per Glenda Sims and other wise folks). Of course, even if it were
$500 a minute, I'd still argue that it's a requirement on the basis of
civil rights alone. What will be costly are lawsuits for companies who
disregard people with disabilities in their digitial production process.
Respectfully,
Elle
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Lucy Greco < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi:
> I am glad you said all this. The one thing that bothers me about the
> constant saying it costs too much! Is if more people did it would not.
> Supply and demand. That's the economics here. And hay what is the problem
> with putting more people to work? Just think of all the work in captioning
> the archives of the library of congress . If they really want to make jobs
> then start making access a priority smile
>
>
> Lucia Greco
> Web Access Analyst
> IST-Campus Technology Services
> University of California, Berkeley
> http://webaccess.berkeley.edu
>
>
>
From: Lucy Greco
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2012 2:25PM
Subject: Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling.Reallyterrible."
← Previous message | Next message →
Grin. I don't think U.S politicians listen to a Canadian or I would smile
but when I go back home I will write parliament hill smile
Lucia Greco
Web Access Analyst
IST-Campus Technology Services
University of California, Berkeley
http://webaccess.berkeley.edu
From: John E Brandt
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2012 3:06PM
Subject: Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Really terrible."
← Previous message | Next message →
This is interesting...I just finished reading the original blog entry on
attorney Goldman's personal blog and then read the Arstechnica version. I
noticed that the Arstechnica version, not the original, appears to have been
amended with the following:
"Update: Although I believe the statute and case law make it clear that ADA
does not apply to websites, I also believe that responsible websites should
voluntarily undertake extra efforts to accommodate users with disabilities.
In many cases, doing so will actually increase profits by expanding the
userbase; and even where it isn't, it's a good business decision both as a
matter of corporate ethics and for providing extra utility to all users."
Not exactly sure what that means...
The author Goldman also states (in both versions):
"Finally, Netflix argued that the Twenty-First Century Communications and
Video Accessibility Act of 2010 ("CVAA") and associated FCC regulations
preempted the ADA's application to Netflix's service. I don't know anything
about the CVAA, but it's clearly topical to the issue of close-captioning
(sic) online video. The court says that Netflix (and presumably other sites
covered by the CVAA) gets the pleasure of complying with both the ADA and
the CVAA. Yay for duplicative and overlapping regulations!"
As someone claiming he "teaches and researches in the areas of Internet Law,
Intellectual Property and Advertising & Marketing Law," perhaps he needs to
do his homework with regard to CVAA (see
http://www.ericgoldman.org/biography.html ) .
~j
John E. Brandt
www.jebswebs.com
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
207-622-7937
Augusta, Maine, USA
From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Thu, Jun 28 2012 8:41AM
Subject: Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling.Reallyterrible."
← Previous message | Next message →
When I read the article, it seemed to me that it was written on impulse. It seems to start out by insinuating that the judgment was for Netflix to caption its video. If I understand the ruling correctly, the judge only ruled that the ADA applies to Netflix as a place of public accommodation--not that it has to caption the videos. That piece is yet to be determined.
When I read the comments, I was offended but not surprised. I suspect that the real resistance to accessibility springs from society's view on people with disabilities.
I think society still views people with disabilities much like a photographic negative image. That is society defines someone with a disability by what they are not or what they cannot do rather than by who they are or what they can do.
How do you design for a negative? How do you market to a negative? How do you relate to a negative? You don't.
I think that might be why some of the more successful accessibility arguments tend to be legal or related to the other benefits of accessibility. In the legal argument, you design to a specification or you fail to conform. With the other benefits, you design to make it work on mobile or for SEO. Neither argument really requires you to alter your view of people with disabilities.
But hopefully, once you start working on accessibility that view can change. But until that view changes, there will be people who see accessibility as a great burden or a waste of resources to benefit people who don't benefit society.
I think that is an important thing not to forget when discussing accessibility with others. If you are going to persuade them, I think it is important to understand that some of their inability to understand or resistance to change has to do with the view of disability they hold. To be successful, you have either to alter that view or persuade them based on some issue that doesn't fly in the face of what they believe.
From: Kroon, Kurtis
Date: Thu, Jun 28 2012 11:06AM
Subject: Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Reallyterrible."
← Previous message | Next message →
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Fri, Jun 29 2012 8:08AM
Subject: Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Reallyterrible."
← Previous message | Next message →
As a counterbalance to the ARSTechnica post and others like it: http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility/2012/06/ruling-on-accessibility-and-the-ada.html
In short, I think it can be said that we disagree...
AWK
From: John E Brandt
Date: Fri, Jun 29 2012 9:33AM
Subject: Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Reallyterrible."
← Previous message | Next message →
Great job, Andrew (as usual)!
~j
John E. Brandt
www.jebswebs.com
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
207-622-7937
Augusta, Maine, USA
From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Sat, Jun 30 2012 10:03AM
Subject: Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Really terrible."
← Previous message | Next message →
> Costs range from $4-$6 a
> minute (per Glenda Sims and other wise folks).
Actually Elle, there is a company who is covered by a GSA contract
that has lower prices than that.
--
Ryan E. Benson
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Elle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> For what it's worth, captioning is not a very expensive process, especially
> compared to other accessibility initiatives. Costs range from $4-$6 a
> minute (per Glenda Sims and other wise folks). Of course, even if it were
> $500 a minute, I'd still argue that it's a requirement on the basis of
> civil rights alone. What will be costly are lawsuits for companies who
> disregard people with disabilities in their digitial production process.
>
>
> Respectfully,
> Elle
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Lucy Greco < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> Hi:
>> I am glad you said all this. The one thing that bothers me about the
>> constant saying it costs too much! Is if more people did it would not.
>> Supply and demand. That's the economics here. And hay what is the problem
>> with putting more people to work? Just think of all the work in captioning
>> the archives of the library of congress . If they really want to make jobs
>> then start making access a priority smile
>>
>>
>> Lucia Greco
>> Web Access Analyst
>> IST-Campus Technology Services
>> University of California, Berkeley
>> http://webaccess.berkeley.edu
>>
>>
>>
From: Karl Groves
Date: Sun, Jul 01 2012 7:12AM
Subject: Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Reallyterrible."
← Previous message | No next message
>