Accessibility is in the news again:
“Advocates for the deaf on Thursday filed federal lawsuits against Harvard and M.I.T., saying both universities violated antidiscrimination laws by failing to provide closed captioning in their online lectures, courses, podcasts and other educational materials.”
“Much of Harvard’s online content is either not captioned or is inaccurately or unintelligibly captioned, making it inaccessible for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, the complaint said, echoing language used in the M.I.T. complaint. Just as buildings without ramps bar people who use wheelchairs, online content without captions excludes individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing.”
“I’m also hopeful that Accessibility is the next big project to tackle for the engineering team. A 2.0 release, if you will. But more than anything, I am dismayed. I am dismayed that Accessibility was treated not even as a mere afterthought, but as something worth sacrificing completely for the sake of flashiness.”
- #WhatIBlewMyA11yBudgetOn hashtag
“Website owners, audio and video producers, event organizers, those considering careers in captioning and interpreting, and anyone interested in improving communication and information access will find this book useful and enlightening. It dispels common myths about deaf and hard-of-hearing people, describes my personal experiences with deafness, and shares some examples of quality captioning for various types of aural information that can be enjoyed by anyone, regardless of hearing abilities.”
Many organisations have made their websites accessible, but there’s many (us included) that need to add subtitles (known as closed captions in the USA) to all the videos they publish.
Hopefully, the case for accessibility will continue to pervade over the desire to use the latest flashy, inaccessible, technology.