I believe this happened at UC Berkeley as well. For what it's worth, neither institution was 'forced' to remove the content. They were obligated to offer the content equally to all users and they chose to not do so because it cost money to create accessible content. While I feel it's unfortunate access to information was lost, I respect and still stand behind the sentiment of the law. Just because you're doing something 'good' doesn't mean you can ignore access needs of protected classes. Especially considering these are institutions with billions of dollars of endowment, funding, and tuition, I'm certainly on the side of the those with disability.
> ...I'm certainly on the side of the those with disability.
In your mind, is it possible to be on the side of those with the disability and yet still against the ADA?
Put another way, given the two concrete examples mentioned (UCB and Stanford) did actual people with actual disabilities gain greater access to the content that was taken offline (in order to comply with the ADA)? Lots of laws have good intentions and bad effects. I think we should judge them by their effects, not their intentions.
If ADA compliant content requires more resources to produce, allowing something to remain in violation because it’s free seems like a great way to price ADA compliant content out of existence.
That said, perhaps an improvement to the ADA would be budget to help producers of free content to become ADA compliant.
