|
|
|
| Authored by: complex_number on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 10:54 AM EDT |
It might do in the USA. Other parts of this planet have different leglislation
for this sort of thing.
not every TV programme comes with signing or captions. Perhaps they should sue
the TV networks first?
---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: qrider70 on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 06:27 PM EDT |
The challenge is whether content providers and distributors will consider the
needs of those who need assistance in accessing content without some sort of
intervention such as that being done now. This is likely just as valid a need
for
the blind as it is for those of us who are Deaf or hard of hearing. In some
respects, it is probably easier technically to meet the needs of blind
individuals than Deaf or hard of hearing folks.
Sadly, for many hearing people, the issue is more about their own profit or
their own comfort. From simply the dollar-and-cents perspective, it could be
seen as unprofitable to make things accessible. Similarly, the majority can feel
that subtitling is intrusive to their "peaceful screen experience."
However,
there are times in life when it is appropriate for the majority to set aside
some
of their comfort and privileges to think about those who may not have those
same privileges and use their power and privilege to support accessibility. If
companies would simply do this sort of thing as a normal cost of business
just because it is the right thing to do, we wouldn't need the ADA or any other
legislation to protect the needs and access of a minority from the indifference
of many in the majority. But when those needs are ignored or rejected, then
the minority has to fight for whatever means are necessary to create the
access they need.
I personally don't consider ADA the best way to handle things. But for now, it
is the best that we have to protect the needs and access of Deaf people (...
and other disabilities, of course, but I'm focusing at the moment on Deaf
needs).[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
That is, the content being distributed is very much "for profit",
created "for profit" at frankly astronomical costs compared to those
of the various aids.
I support that such aids should not be removed when present.
For amateurs, like youtube, where just a few friends get together to make a
video, we need a way to get the aids attached...that is, if someone wants to
interpret my youtube video of my dog, attaching it *should* not require me to
re-upload the video.
Of course, this is going to open things up to satire....consider the "Rocky
Horror Picture Show" for a minute...where the shout-outs from the audience
made the picture worth going to at all...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
