WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Really terrible."

for

From: Lucy Greco
Date: Jun 27, 2012 1:13PM

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


-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Morin, Gary
(NIH/OD) [E]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:52 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling. Really
terrible."

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 REMOVED> IF YOU
WISH TO.

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: Bim Egan [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:57 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] NAD v. Netflix: "This is a bad ruling.
Reallyterrible."

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 REMOVED> >
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < <EMAIL 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 REMOVED> >wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Ryan Hemphill <
>> <EMAIL 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 REMOVED>
>> >> >> list messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Shipping is a Feature...Perhaps the Most Important Feature.
> > > list messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>


messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>