(unknown charset) Re: ADA Compliance - Links to Third Party Websites

Okay, I understand.
Speaking only for myself, my thoughts are these.
first, is the university providing access to this content elsewhere as  an 
alternative?  If not, why?
I bring this up because the third party locations you reference have their 
own rites of access, some of which might be rather costly.  For example to 
reach your university materials on Facebook, a person must be willing  to 
risk their privacy, not to mention be able to use   that platform too.
With YouTube, there is the ability to use in the same fashion of others, 
will YouTube be providing captioning  for example if needful?
How does  placing content on Facebook or YouTube serve your university's 
educational mandate?
I took a class once where the institution put class materials on YouTube. 
They also provided transcripts of the material though, on their own class 
site, so I did not have to use YouTube at all.
To my mind the more doors you have to the content  the more choices you 
provide, the more you serve all of your students regardless of their 
needs.
Further using YouTube and Facebook should be  well the best way to 
educate, not a trendy way to share stuff.
does that make sense?
If I were our student I would take issue with all the  barriers between me 
and university materials, especially if that would be the only place they 
would be found.
Karen



On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Dan Paguirigan, Jr wrote:

> @Sean Murphy
> Yes, we would be able to modify the content. However, only to a certain
> extent as we won't have access to the actual code of the website. Yeah, the
> policy is so fuzzy haha.
>
> @Karen Lewellen
> Yes, that is correct. Specifically, the organization is a University
> Institution, and the content creators using third party
> applications/websites such as YouTube are either "agents" of the university
> or faculty.
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:17 PM Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
> wrote:
>
>> I resonate that this is an interesting question.
>> I too am hoping I understand the situation.
>> The content in question was created by the organization in the first
>> place.  The organization opts to display the content they created on a
>> third party platform.
>> So you are wondering if the organization created content must still be
>> accessible if displayed on a third party platform?
>> Am I correct?
>> Karen
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Sean Murphy (seanmmur) wrote:
>>
>>> If I understand your question. What you are asking is if the owner of
>> the web site in ADA law has full ownership of the content regardless of
>> where the content originates from. If my understanding is correct, this is
>> very interesting in deed.
>>>
>>> Question: Are you technically able to modify the content before it is
>> shown on your web site or not? As I would suspect this would be the bases
>> of the argument on if the organisation or third-party organisation is
>> responsible in ensuring the web content is accessible. If you cannot modify
>> it due to license agreements or something along those lines. Then the
>> ownership should fall back on the third-party organisation.
>>>
>>> I am not a Lawyer. Looking this at a logical way. ☺
>>>
>>> On a side note. I heard via 2nd hand an individual in FL USA was
>> successful in suing the organisation owner of the web site plus the
>> developer. If this is true, then who knows in relation to your question.
>> Has it been tested in court as this will truly determine an organisation
>> liability and risk.
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Dan Paguirigan, Jr <danp@hawaii.edu>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 17 July 2018 10:14 AM
>>> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>>> Subject: ADA Compliance - Links to Third Party Websites
>>>
>>> Aloha Everyone,
>>>
>>> Regarding ADA / WCAG compliance, if an organization/institution website
>> has a link to an external website like YouTube, Facebook, etc. with content
>> that was created and used for by the organization (How to videos,
>> documentation, etc.). Will that content have to be accessible?
>>>
>>> If so, who would be responsible for the content in the case of legal
>> issues?
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>