|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 10:44 AM EDT |
While I don't know the details of this lawsuit and I know
that the ADA is often used as an unreasonably blunt
instrument, there are 3 subcategories of demands, the first
two of which are reasonable, the third one not:
1. That the technical presentation of NetFlix own website
contents (help, listings, billing, user interface etc.)
meets the existing written standards for ensuring websites
are compatible with any quality accessibility tools a
disabled user might be using. This is similar to demanding
that big newly built stores meet the officially codified
rules for level access, width of door openings etc. to allow
standard sized wheelchairs to be used by those who might be
bringing such with them.
2. That any movies whose offline original form include
closed captioning, spoken scene descriptions or other
accessibility aids, include those same accessibility aids
when accessed through Netflix. In other words, a demand
that they don't remove or disable those aids, and that to
the extent they replace the standard accessible playback
equipment with their own technology that they bear the cost
of replicating the accessibility that would be available
when the standard form was used with compatible equipment of
the sort that a disabled person would have. Put another way
a demand that NetFlix DRM does not harm already disabled
users.
3. But demanding that accessibility supplements are manually
(automation doesn't work) created for contents that don't
have it is a different demand altogether. It is as
unreasonable as demanding level access and wide doors be
added to a historical site.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
