Re:A statement on online course content and accessibility
by arieskg on Saturday September 17, 2016 @08:50PM
(#12523344)
I respect several points you made, but there's no reason for me to rebuttal since the argument became unintelligible with your first sentence.
If you care, please read the 10-page letter. The statistics used were out of proportion backed by limited user stories, and why is UC Berkeley considering removing the content? Page 4-7 may have some clues. But I wouln't really know since I have no idea what I am talking about.
FYI, Harvard and MIT were received with the same letters few months ago. It was on the New York Times, but I could still be wrong since I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Re:A statement on online course content and accessibility
by extra88 on Saturday September 17, 2016 @10:50PM
(#12523703)
Harvard and MIT did not receive the same letter, they've actually been sued by the National Association for the Deaf. The DoJ and I think the DoEd. have also been involved. That case is also about freely offered online educational material but specifically video lacking quality captions.
Why UC Berkeley this time? I don't know, other than the complainants came to the DoJ about them, and not some other school.
The purpose of the letter is not to cost the University or to stop them making the materials available. The DoJ never suggests that, it's Berkeley that raised the idea on their own. The purpose is to explain how the University has been violating the law and what they can to correct it so ultimately what is offered can also be used by people with disabilities.