National Association of the Deaf and Netflix
In recent years the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) has filed lawsuits against Netflix, M.I.T, and Harvard for ineffectively captioning their content. NAD has taken action and is creating change to make a more accessible world for the Deaf (Lewin T. 2015, NAD 2011).
In 2011 NAD announced in U.S District Court that they were filing a major lawsuit against Netflix, charging them with violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for the inability to provide closed captioning for its movies and television streamed on the internet. The Deaf community has expressed concern to Netflix about their closed captioning failure and inability to provide accessibility. Stated directly in the ADA is "all places of entertainment provide full and equal enjoyment for people with disabilities."
On the NAD website, in the comments section an individual posted their opinion stating that people should not be attacking Netflix because they have "a lot on their plate" and that Netflix promised to cover 80% of their content with captions by the end of 2011, to which someone replied with "how would you feel if Netflix told the public they will begin streaming 70% to 80% of their videos without sound." The viewpoint that many must understand is that Netflix should be a service that is 100% accessible to the public. Finally Netflix agreed to have 100% of their content closed captioned by 2014 (NAD, 2011).
Watch the message from NAD below:
In recent years the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) has filed lawsuits against Netflix, M.I.T, and Harvard for ineffectively captioning their content. NAD has taken action and is creating change to make a more accessible world for the Deaf (Lewin T. 2015, NAD 2011).
In 2011 NAD announced in U.S District Court that they were filing a major lawsuit against Netflix, charging them with violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for the inability to provide closed captioning for its movies and television streamed on the internet. The Deaf community has expressed concern to Netflix about their closed captioning failure and inability to provide accessibility. Stated directly in the ADA is "all places of entertainment provide full and equal enjoyment for people with disabilities."
On the NAD website, in the comments section an individual posted their opinion stating that people should not be attacking Netflix because they have "a lot on their plate" and that Netflix promised to cover 80% of their content with captions by the end of 2011, to which someone replied with "how would you feel if Netflix told the public they will begin streaming 70% to 80% of their videos without sound." The viewpoint that many must understand is that Netflix should be a service that is 100% accessible to the public. Finally Netflix agreed to have 100% of their content closed captioned by 2014 (NAD, 2011).
Watch the message from NAD below:
NAD and M.I.T, and Harvard
Both M.I.T and Harvard have failed to closed caption their online lectures, courses, podcasts and other educational materials. Most of the universities' content is not captioned at all or inaccurately captioned making it impossible for Deaf and hard of hearing students to access these materials. The M.I.T complaint stated "Just as buildings without ramps bar people who use wheelchairs, online content without captions excludes individuals who are Deaf or hard of hearing."
Both MIT and Harvard are known for using different materials online such as youtube, iTunes, Harvard@Home and online courses. These materials having no captions or incorrect captions is a direct violation of the ADA in the same way that Netflix violated the act.
NAD filed the lawsuit and are seeking class-action status, because the universities were one of the first to begin using online educational materials it is important they change their practices. If Harvard and M.I.T correct their behaviour, it would have a profound impact on other colleges and universities to follow suit and ensure all of their teaching materials are 100% accessible (Lewin T. 2015).
See the full article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/education/harvard-and-mit-sued-over-failing-to-caption-online-courses.html?_r=0
Both M.I.T and Harvard have failed to closed caption their online lectures, courses, podcasts and other educational materials. Most of the universities' content is not captioned at all or inaccurately captioned making it impossible for Deaf and hard of hearing students to access these materials. The M.I.T complaint stated "Just as buildings without ramps bar people who use wheelchairs, online content without captions excludes individuals who are Deaf or hard of hearing."
Both MIT and Harvard are known for using different materials online such as youtube, iTunes, Harvard@Home and online courses. These materials having no captions or incorrect captions is a direct violation of the ADA in the same way that Netflix violated the act.
NAD filed the lawsuit and are seeking class-action status, because the universities were one of the first to begin using online educational materials it is important they change their practices. If Harvard and M.I.T correct their behaviour, it would have a profound impact on other colleges and universities to follow suit and ensure all of their teaching materials are 100% accessible (Lewin T. 2015).
See the full article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/education/harvard-and-mit-sued-over-failing-to-caption-online-courses.html?_r=0