Добірка наукової літератури з теми "Worldwide association of diving instructors"

Introduction: The aim of this study was to re-examine the mortality rate among participants in the Professional Association of Diving Instructors’ (PADI)’s Discover Scuba Diving (DSD) programme. Methods: Fatalities reported to PADI as having occurred during DSD scuba dives were counted for each year between 1992 and 2019. DSD participant registrations were also counted for each year. The data were conveniently divided into two equal 14-year periods, 1992−2005 (‘early’) and 2006−2019 (‘late’). To smooth out the year-to-year variation in raw rates, Monte Carlo simulations were performed on the mean rate per 100,000 participants per year during each period. Results: There were a total of 7,118,731 DSD participant registrations and 79 fatalities during the study period. The estimated overall mean mortality rate in the early period was 2.55 per 100,000 DSD registrations whereas the estimated rate of 0.87 per 100,000 DSD registrations was significantly lower in the late period (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: PADI’s contemporary Discover Scuba Diving introductory scuba experiences, at 0.87 fatalities per 100,000 participants, have a calculated mortality rate that is less than half that calculated for 1992−2008. The late period’s rate improvement appears due either to significant under-registration in the early period, or to significant safety-performance improvement in the late period or, more likely, some combination of the two.

Introduction: The current practice in Hong Kong is to have potential recreational divers complete a Recreational Scuba Training Council self-declared medical statement (RSTC form) prior to participation in diving. There are no reports in the literature on the usefulness of the Chinese version of the form. Methods: The Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI) RSTC form (Chinese version) was completed by 117 research participants who were then individually interviewed (without examination) to establish whether relevant information was not captured by the form. Any discrepancies or problems identified were recorded for further analysis. Results: Among participants, 15.4% expressed difficulty in completing the RSTC form. Less than one-third (28.2%) replied ‘all negative’ to the questions. Some health conditions that could impose diving risks were not elicited by the questionnaire alone. Nevertheless, there was good sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value with the exception of a few questions. However, significant discrepancies were identified when comparing the English and Chinese versions. There was also uncertainty with aspects of implementation, including attitudes of the user and provider, reliability of self-declaration answers and the handling of completed questionnaires. Conclusions: Health screening with a questionnaire for recreational divers remains practical and acceptable. Full revision of the RSTC form in Chinese is recommended in view of problems with the construct validity and translation. People should be informed about the non-prescriptive approach of health assessment for recreational divers. Further research on the implementation of the form may help to improve the screening strategy in the future.

TikTok has been one of the most used Social Networking Services (SNS) worldwide. It has grown into a platform with a broad range of content, including sports, fashion, performing arts, and education, encouraging learners to join the community. In this, this descriptive-correlational aimed to determine the relationship between TikTok Utilization and the Level of Engagement of BPeA students of the City College of Angeles. After gathering data from 103 respondents through an online survey, the findings revealed that the BPeA students undergoing online classes use the TikTok application moderately and responsibly. Also, the level of students' engagement during online classes was found to be very high. Furthermore, a significant positive relationship was observed between TikTok utilization and students' engagement. Based on the findings, the researchers recommend that the Institute of Education, Arts, and Sciences (IEAS), in partnership with the College Guidance Office (CGO), collaborate on providing webinars or trainings on how SNS such as TikTok can be a helpful tool or distraction at the level of engagement of the students. Additionally, instructors/professors may also use the TikTok application as an educational tool to provide a better and more engaging classroom environment. Moreover, conducting the same study with the addition of other degree programs offered by the college to determine if the results may support or refute the findings is highly recommended. Lastly, other variables may be added to this present study to understand further the relationship between TikTok consumption and students' engagement.

Scuba diving tourism is one of the tourism products that contributes to Malaysia's economic returns. There are three main issues underlying this research problem, namely the validity of Pangkor Island as a scuba diving tourism destination in Malaysia, the confusion about Pangkor Island's actual status as a scuba diving tourism destination in Malaysia based on tourism agency promotions and souvenir sales, and past studies conducted by local scholars. To obtain validity, several stakeholders were made respondents of the study, namely foreign tourists, local residents, and resort entrepreneurs. This study aims to identify the characteristics of tourist attractions on Pangkor Island based on the perceptions of foreign tourists and local communities, examine the involvement of local communities in tourism development, and the level of their knowledge about scuba diving tourism. Furthermore, it examines whether this activity is a characteristic attraction that drives international tourists to visit Pangkor Island based on the stated attraction characteristics and the scuba diving activity service offerings by hotel and resort entrepreneurs there. This study uses a quantitative approach and is supported by a qualitative approach. The research methods used are face-to-face interviews using questionnaires, observations, and in-depth interviews. The study's findings on 125 foreign tourists, 179 local communities, and 42 hotels and resorts show that Pangkor Island is not relevant as a scuba diving destination. All three stakeholders gave negative responses to this research problem. For foreign tourists, the main attraction stated is the beach and the sea, as well as the attractive natural environment, which is 71.4%. Local community interviews showed that Pangkor Island is not popular as a scuba diving destination, which is 52.0%, and resort analysis found that scuba diving package offerings are only offered by four out of 42 resorts and hotels on the island, and only if there is demand. The study's findings indicate that scuba diving is not popular as a tourist attraction there. Therefore, this study's findings reject the Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI) statement that places Pangkor Island as a scuba diving tourism destination. In conclusion, this research contributes to the academic discipline, particularly in service geography and tourism, and policy makers such as the Malaysian Ministry of Tourism.

Background The availability of formal academic training is essential to the development and professionalization of any discipline. Previous research described the worldwide availability of social marketing academic course offerings and their accompanying pedagogical approaches. This research has been demonstrably appreciated by the social marketing community, resulting in calls for its continuation. Focus of the Article We present an update to and expansion upon prior research, and identify patterns and trends observed over the past decade. Importance to the Social Marketing Field As social marketing continues to expand in its scope and uptake, an update to prior research has become increasingly relevant and necessary. Further, limited attention has been paid to social marketing pedagogical approaches. The patterns and trends identified through this research represent an updated baseline that can be used to assess and guide the discipline’s ongoing advancement. Methods Research was carried out via an online survey that was open between Fall 2019 and Fall 2021. In addition to general information about their university’s course offering(s), respondents were invited to share their course syllabi. The survey was promoted via online networks and academic conferences. Resulting data were cross-referenced with the outcomes of a prior study to identify patterns and trends. Results This research resulted in a listing of academic courses that can now be found on the Web site of the International Social Marketing Association (International Social Marketing Association, 2022). Over the past decade, we identified an upward trend in course availability alongside shifts in the disciplinary and other contexts associated with the courses. We also described instances where social marketing courses were eliminated or scaled back and the apparent reasons for those occurrences. Finally, geographic disparities were evident in course availability between Global North and Global South countries. Recommendations for Research or Practice Recommendations for increasing social marketing academic course offerings are presented within a systems framework focusing on targeted strategies for audiences and contexts such as university students, faculty, instructors, and administrators; accreditation bodies, and practitioner settings. We also call for increased collaboration between academics and practitioners in general, but specifically in the Global North and Global South in order to address issues of equity and diversity. Limitations A key limitation to this study is the fact that the survey was developed in English, thus introducing a bias towards Western academic settings. We also acknowledge the difficulty in searching online for courses using the term “social marketing” due to the pervasive confusion with “social media.” Finally, we only obtained 31 syllabi (from the total 104 courses reported via the survey), thus the pedagogical analysis should be considered incomplete and not fully representative of current practices.

Declaring the 1990's asThe Decade of the Brainput the field of neuroscience at the forefront of public attention, with the nervous system becoming a subject of increasing interest in popular media. Although this has generally brought large swaths of the public closer to neuroscience, most current research is published and disseminated in a single language: English. This is unsurprising as English is indeed the lingua franca in scientific circles, but people around the world communicate in many other languages. To make neuroscience accessible to a larger audience, we share an initiative to translate the Knowing Neurons platform into a second language: Spanish. This collaborative project integrates Humanities and STEM academic programs to make use of bilingual university students, in association with professional linguists and neuroscientists, to translate scientific content into a relatable format to Spanish speakers regardless of their country of origin. The translation effort was piloted within the framework of undergraduate outreach courses at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and is coupled with outreach components targeting the Spanish-speaking community to promote this new resource. This project aims to foster an environment where the neuroscientific interests of the public, college students, instructors, and researchers coalesce in a unified space. We hope that opening new lines of communication with traditionally underrepresented communities might help combat the persistent lack of diversity in neuroscience (and STEM) that is currently seen in academia. We also provide an outline to inspire others to translate these, and similar resources, into other languages.Significance statementDespite the rise in neuroscience-related news in the past few decades, barriers to the integration of neuroscience in social discourse still exist. Scientific illiteracy stemming from the lack of resources generated for public consumption is compounded when considering they are mostly only available in English. Because of this, neuroscience remains an unfamiliar topic to many individuals. Additionally, the Humanities and STEM have traditionally been siloed in distinct academic departments providing little opportunity for interdisciplinary collaboration. Our project provides an outline for how to integrate these disciplines to translate neuroscience into a second language, increasing accessibility to a worldwide audience. For the collaborative nature and impact of this project, we were honored with the 2022 Society for Neuroscience Next Generation Award.

Photo by Mikael Kristenson on Unsplash ABSTRACT Students represent a vulnerable population within faculty-led research at universities because of the incentivized extra credit option. Therefore, other forms of participation in should be offered, to ensure that their choice to undergo becoming a student participant is fully their autonomous choice. INTRODUCTION Extra credit— two words college students love hearing. As an undergraduate student, I was no different. Ranging from subjects like chemistry to psychology to political science, there was no lack of extra credit opportunities in the courses I took to fulfill my social science major and pre-medical requirements. Participating in my professors’ research studies seemed to be a mutually beneficial opportunity at first glance; I would receive a few extra points to buffer my grade in case I did poorly on an exam, and my professors would be able to easily recruit the participants they needed to churn out scientific findings. BACKGROUND Social sciences research, especially psychology research, which has been labeled “the science of the behavior of the college sophomore,” routinely includes students. For instance, 77 percent of all articles in two major psychology journals included research done with students.[1] There is literature describing how common recruitment of students from undergraduate or medical school classes in the US is, a practice documented since the 1920s.[2] Indeed, students enrolled in the Psychology 10 course at UCLA, for example, are not just incentivized to do so, but in fact, are “required to serve as psychological research subjects for a total of six hours or write three abstracts on articles from psychology journals, or do a combination of both.” [3] Professors widely use student participants in academic research because of their accessibility, convenience, and willingness to participate. However, such prevalent recruitment of undergraduate students as study subjects poses several ethical questions, necessitating more stringent regulation. ANALYSIS Incentivizing research participation with rewards may unduly influence students, tempting them to participate in research they would otherwise not want to engage. According to the Association for Clinical Research Professionals, undue influence “implies that individuals will agree to participate in research without a rational consideration of the information provided in the informed consent process”.[4] Undue influence typically involves providing financial incentives to individuals in great need of money, but undue influence pertains to non-financial incentives as well. For instance, my general chemistry professor offered authorship promises to students who could travel to Mexico and bring back samples of alcohol served at resorts for his study, which aimed to analyze the chemical content of resort alcohol. More often, professors use extra credit as an incentive. Though such an incentive may not seem highly harmful, students who are worried or anxious about their grades are in a particularly vulnerable position and may very well fail to deeply consider the risks or implications of participating in research that offers extra credit. Especially in intensive courses that may be graded on a curve, additional credit may seem like an unspoken requirement rather than an option. This was the case in some of my undergraduate courses; my organic chemistry professor offered extra credit to students who completed writing assignments designed to measure whether writing explanations of chemical reactions affected student understanding and performance in the course. Unsurprisingly, the majority of students participated in the research study, seeing it as integral to their grades. Furthermore, students are subject to an inherent, unbalanced power dynamic between themselves and their instructors. A student’s academic or professional standing may rely on the professor, who may boost grades or agree to write a letter of recommendation. Academic faculty members are on a payroll and thus retain a primary fiduciary responsibility to teach, educate, and protect their students.[5] However, many faculty members also advance and develop new scientific and academic knowledge through research positions. In studies that have student participants, professors can experience a conflict of interest while exercising their roles as researchers and instructors. These dual roles are especially risky in a study when a student participant must divulge personal information, which is then accessible to the professor. Students ought to participate in research out of their own volition, without the added pressure of benefits and risks reflected in their grades, recommendations, or professor relationships. It is also essential to consider the ethical principle of justice in this space and whether findings from the research using student samples are meant to be implemented in policy or clinical efforts within a broader, more diverse population. A 2010 study published in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences found that two-thirds of subjects in American psychology research were undergraduates studying psychology.[6] This finding raises the question of how such a disproportionate sampling has impacted the effect of clinical psychology on populations who may not have similar levels of education or socioeconomic status as the average college student. In general, student samples have historically been much more homogenous than non-student samples, which often leads to difficulties in replicating findings in the general population.[7] Nevertheless, researchers have an obligation to society to produce equitable results, and their research designs and sampling methods ought to reflect that. l. Counterarguments and Benefits of Student Research Granted, there is undoubtedly valuable research that seeks to study student populations exclusively, resulting in data relevant to student populations specifically. Additionally, critics may contend that research involving student subjects rarely poses major risks that call beneficence into question. One may also argue that research participation can be a helpful, behind-the-scenes learning experience for students to experience how to conduct research. Some studies and research designs involving students provide tangible benefits to students. For instance, studies that supplement current course material would provide valuable insight into key concepts and, thus, be acceptable. ll. Recommendations So how can institutions and individuals better regulate and ensure ethical practices within this area which has gone relatively unchecked? First, researchers should make an effort to randomly select a diverse sample if they intend the research to have far-reaching implications. Student participants are certainly easier to obtain and more accessible, but as the Belmont Report states, “the selection of research subjects needs to be scrutinized in order to determine whether some classes are being systematically selected simply because of their easy availability, their compromised position, or their manipulability, rather than for reasons directly related to the problem being studied.”[8] Academia must seriously re-evaluate whether students are being “systematically selected” simply because of their accessibility, through additional training modules or educational videos upon hire. This isn’t to say that research should completely exclude student participation; rather, researchers should make more of an active effort to recruit a variety of participants without solely targeting students through student-specific incentives like extra credit. There are unique ethical dilemmas that arise with power imbalances and convenient sampling. Thus, research that necessitates student-specific sampling must be carried out and regulated carefully. Research incentives can still be offered, but any incentive involving extra credit should be coupled with a diverse range of alternatives that take a similar amount of time to complete. The ability to participate in and contribute to research is a privilege; working students may not be able to take time off to participate in research, so researchers should offer them some other compensated work that suits their schedules. Also, students and non-students should receive similar compensation, something impossible if extra credit is the form of compensation. To avoid a conflict of interest, professors should avoid recruiting current students for their personal research. Separating roles may also address some pressing concerns about the confidentiality of subjects, who might feel more comfortable answering research questions without the fear of having their own professor read or listen to them. A much better method for enrolling student participants is to randomly assign students who have voluntarily signed up through an online platform to studies run by professors who are not directly related to the student. During studies that use student participants, informed consent and attention to general research ethics are essential. From the start, students should be educated about informed consent and how power may alter the voluntariness of their consent. Students should also be clear about the incentives available to them, the risks of participating in such research, the ensured confidentiality of their responses, and their ability to opt-out of the study at any time. Even after the study concludes, students should be able to voice any concerns through an anonymous survey or hotline. Simultaneously, researchers and professors should debrief participants. Ultimately, these post-study efforts would increase the transparency of research involving student subjects while furthering the field of academia by identifying areas of ethical improvement. CONCLUSION Currently, most universities and IRBs have guidelines for research involving student subjects and there are various federal and state regulations protecting research subjects.[9],Yet students remain susceptible to a host of ethical issues, including undue influence, lack of justice, and the sense they would be penalized for opting out. With increased and standardized oversight initiatives such as the ones outlined above, universities can work towards ensuring a more ethical space for students to participate in and learn from the research efforts of faculty members. - [1] Burnett JJ, Dune PM. An appraisal of the use of student subjects in Marketing Research. Journal of Business Research. 1986;14(4):329-343. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(86)90024-x [2] Prescott HM. Using the student body: College and university students as research subjects in the United States during the Twentieth Century. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences. 2002;57(1):3-38. doi:10.1093/jhmas/57.1.3 [3] “Sona Instructions for Undergraduate Participants • UCLA Department of Psychology.” UCLA Department of Psychology, 14 Sept. 2021, https://www.psych.ucla.edu/undergraduate/subject-pool-experiment-participation/sona-instructions-for-undergraduate-participants/. [4] Borasky, David, et al. “Paying Subjects to Take Part in Research: A New Perspective on Coercion and Undue Influence.” ACRP, 13 Mar. 2019, https://acrpnet.org/2019/03/12/paying-subjects-to-take-part-in-research-a-new-perspective-on-coercion-and-undue-influence/. [5] Ferguson, Linda M., et al. “Students' Involvement in Faculty Research: Ethical and Methodological Issues.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 3, no. 4, 2004, pp. 56–68., https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690400300405. [6] Giridharadas, Anand. “A Weird Way of Thinking Has Prevailed Worldwide.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 25 Aug. 2010, https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/world/americas/26iht-currents.html. [7] Peterson, Robert A. “On the Use of College Students in Social Science Research: Insights from a Second-Order Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 28, no. 3, 2001, pp. 450–461., https://doi.org/10.1086/323732. [8] Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). “The Belmont Report.” HHS.gov, 16 June 2021, https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html#xbenefit. [9] U. S. department of education protection of human subjects. Home. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/humansub.html. Published August 4, 2020; Students as Subjects. Massachusetts Institute of Technology COUHES. https://couhes.mit.edu/guidelines/students-subjects. Accessed December 2, 2021. Accessed November 28, 2021.

Introduction Children are beginning to use digital technologies at younger and younger ages. The emerging trend of very young children (babies, toddlers and pre-schoolers) using Internet connected devices, especially touch screen tablets and smartphones, has elicited polarising opinions from early childhood experts. At present there is little actual research about the risks or benefits of tablet and smartphone use by very young children. Current usage recommendations, based on research into passive television watching which claims that screen time is detrimental, is in conflict with advice from education experts and app developers who commend interactive screen time as engaging and educational. Guidelines from the health professions typically advise strict time limits on very young children’s screen-time. Based for the most part on policy developed by the American Academy of Paediatrics, it is usually recommended that children under two have no screen time at all (Brown), and children over this age have no more than two hours a day (Strasburger, et al.). On the other hand, early childhood education guidelines promote the development of digital literacy skills (Department of Education). Further, education-based research indicates that access to computers and the Internet in the preschool years is associated with overall educational achievement (Bittman et al.; Cavanaugh et al; Judge et al; Neumann). The US based National Association for Education of Young Children’s position statement on technology for zero to eight year-olds declares that “when used intentionally and appropriately, technology and interactive media are effective tools to support learning and development” (NAEYC). This article discusses the notion of Digitods—a name for those children born since the introduction of the iPhone in 2007 who have ready access to touchscreen technologies since birth. It reports on the limited availability of evidence-based research about these children’s ICT use concluding that current research and recommendations are not grounded in the everyday life of very young children and their families. The article then reports on the beginnings of a research project funded by the Australian Research Council entitled Toddlers and Tablets: exploring the risks and benefits 0-5s face online. This research project recognises that at this stage it is parents who “are the real experts in their toddlers’ use of screen technologies. Accordingly, the project’s methodological approach draws on parents, pre-schoolers and their families as communities of practice in the construction of social meaning around toddlers’ use of touch screen technology. Digitods In 2000 Bill Gates introduced the notion of Generation I to describe the first cohort of children raised with the Internet as a reality in their lives. They are those born after the 1990s and will, in most cases; have no memory of life without the Net. [...] Generation I will be able to conceive of the Internet’s possibilities far more profoundly than we can today. This new generation will become agents of change as the limits of the Internet expand to include educational, scientific, and business applications that we cannot even imagine. (Gates)Digitods, on the other hand, is a term that has been used in education literature (Leathers et al.) to describe those children born after the introduction of the iPhone in 2007. These children often begin their lives with ready access to the Internet via easily usable touch screen devices, which could have been designed with toddlers’ touch and swipe movements in mind. Not only are they the youngest group of children to actively engage with the Internet they are the first group to grow up with a range of mobile Internet devices (Leathers et al.). The difference between Digitods and Gates’s Generation I is that Digitods are the first pre-verbal, non-ambulant infants to have ready access to digital technologies. Somewhere around the age of 10 months to fourteen months a baby learns to point with his or her forefinger. At this stage the child is ready to swipe and tap a touch screen (Leathers et al.). This is in contrast to laptops and PCs given that very young children often need assistance to use a mouse or keyboard. The mobility of touch screen devices allows very young children to play at the kitchen table, in the bedroom or on a car trip. These mobile devices have, of course, a myriad of mobile apps to go with them. These apps create an immediacy of access for infants and pre-schoolers who do not need to open a web browser to find their favourite sites. In the lives of these children it seems that it has always been possible to touch and swipe their way into games, books and creative and communicative experiences (Holloway et al. 149). The interactivity of most pre-school apps, as opposed to more passive screen activities such as watching television shows or videos (both offline or online), requires toddlers and pre-schoolers to pay careful attention, think about things and act purposefully (Leathers et al.). It is this interactivity which is the main point of difference, one which holds the potential to engage and educate our youngest children. It should be noted within this discussion about Digitods that, while the trope Digital Natives tends to homogenise an entire generation, the authors do not assume that all children born today are Digitods by default. Many children do not have the same privileged opportunities as others, or the (parental) cultural capital, to enable access, ease of use and digital skill development. In addition to this it is not implied that Digitods will be more tech savvy than their older siblings. The term is used more to describe and distinguish those children who have digital access almost since birth—in order to differentiate or tease out everyday family practices around these children’s ICT use and the possible risks and benefits this access affords babies, toddlers and pre-schoolers. While the term Digital Native has also been criticised as being a white middle class phenomenon this is not necessarily the case with Digitods. In the Southeast Asia and the Pacific region developed countries like Japan, Korea, New Zealand and Singapore have extremely high rates of touchscreen use by very young children (Child Sciences; Jie; Goh; Unantenne). Other countries such as the Philippines and Indonesia have moved to a high smart phone usage by very young children while at the same time have only nascent ICT access and instruction within their education systems (Unantenne). The Digitod Parent Parents of Digitods are usually experienced Internet users themselves, and many are comfortable with their children using these child-friendly touch screen devices (Findahl). Digital technologies are integral to their everyday lives, often making daily life easier and improving communication with family and friends, even during the high pressure parenting years of raising toddlers and pre-schoolers. Even though many parents and caregivers are enabling very young children’s use of touch screen technologies, they are also concerned about the changes they are making. This is because very young children’s use of touch screen devices “has become another area where they fear possible criticism and in which their parental practices risk negative evaluation by others” (Holloway et al). The tensions between expert advice regarding young children’s screen-time and parents’ and caregivers’ own judgments are also being played out online. Parenting blogs, online magazines and discussion groups are all joining in the debate: On the one hand, parents want their children to swim expertly in the digital stream that they will have to navigate all their lives; on the other hand, they fear that too much digital media, too early, will sink them. Parents end up treating tablets like precision surgical instruments, gadgets that might perform miracles for their child’s IQ and help him win some nifty robotics competition—but only if they are used just so. (Rosin)Thus, with over 80 000 children’s apps marketed as educational in the Apple App Store alone, parents can find it difficult to choose apps that are worth purchasing (Yelland). Nonetheless, recent research regarding Australian children shows that three to five year olds who access touch screen devices will typically have five or more specific apps to choose from (5.23 on average) (Neumann). With little credible evidence or considered debate, parents have been left to make their own choices about the pros and cons of their young children’s access to touch screens. Nonetheless, one immediate benefit that comes to mind is toddlers and pre-schoolers video chatting with dispersed family member—due to increased globalisation, guest worker arrangements, FIFO (fly-in fly-out) workforces and family separation or divorce. Such clear benefits around sociability and youngsters’ connection with significant others make previous screen-related guidelines out of date and no longer contextually relevant. Little Research Attention Family ownership of tablet devices as well as touch screen phones has risen dramatically in the last five years. With very young children being loaned these technologies by mum or dad, and a tendency in Australia to rely on market-orientated research regarding ownership and usage, there is very little knowledge about touch screen usage rates for very young Australian children. UK and US usage figures indicate that over the last few years there has been a five-fold increase in tablet uptake by zero to eight year olds (Ofcom; Rideout). Although large scale, comparative Australian data is not available, previous research regarding older children indicates that Australia is similar to high use countries like some Scandinavian nations and the UK (Green et al.). In addition to this, two small research projects in Australia, with under 160 participant families each, indicate that two thirds of these children (0-5) use touchscreen devices (Neumann; Coenenna et. al.). Beyond usage figures, there is also very limited evidence-based research about very young children’s app use. Interactive technologies available via touch screen technologies have been available domestically for a very short time. Consequently, “valid scientific research has not been completed and replicated due to [the lack of] available time” (Leathers el al. 129) and longitudinal studies which rely on an intervention group (in this case exposure to children’s apps) and a control group (no exposure) are even fewer and more time-consuming. Interestingly, researchers have revisited the issue of passive screen viewing. A recent 2015 review of previous 2007 research, which linked babies watching videos with poor language development, has found that there was statistical and methodological issues with the 2007 study and that there are no strong inferences to be drawn between media exposure and language development (Ferguson and Donellan). Thus, there seems to be no conclusive evidence-based research on which to inform parents and educators about the possible downside or benefits of touch screen use. Nonetheless, early childhood experts have been quick to weigh in on the possible effects of screen usage, some providing restrictive guidelines and recommendations, with others advocating the use of interactive apps for very young children for their educational value. This knowledge-gap disguises what is actually happening in the lives of real Australian families. Due to the lack of local data, as well as worldwide research, it is essential that Australian researchers obtain a comprehensive understanding about actual behaviour around touch screen use in the lives of children aged between zero and five and their families. Beginning Research While research into very young children’s touch screen use is beginning to take place, few results have been published. When researching two to three year olds’ learning from interactive versus non-interactive videos Kirkorian, Choi and Pempek found that “toddlers may learn more from interactive media than from non-interactive video” (Kirkorian et al). This means that the use of interactive apps on touch screen devices may hold a greater potential for learning than passive video or television viewing for children in this age range. Another study considered the degree to which the young children could navigate to and use apps on touch screen devices by observing and analysing YouTube videos of infants and young children using touch screens (Hourcade et al.). It was found that between the ages of 12 months and 17 months the children filmed seemed to begin to “make meaningful use of the tablets [and] more than 90 per cent of children aged two [had] reached this level of ability” (1923). The kind of research mentioned above, usually the preserve of psychologists, paediatricians and some educators, does not, however, ground very young children’s use in their domestic context—in the spaces and with those people with whom most touch screen usage takes place. With funding from the Australian Research Council Australian, Irish and UK researchers are about to adopt a media studies (domestication) approach to comprehensively investigate digital media use in the everyday lives of very young children. This Australian-based research project positions very young children’s touch screen use within the family and will help provide an understanding of the everyday knowledge and strategies that this cohort of technology users (very young children and their parents) have already developed—in the knowledge vacuum left by the swift appropriation and incorporation of these new media technologies into the lives of families with very young children. Whilst using a conventional social constructionist perspective, the project will also adopt a co-creation of knowledge approach. The co-creation of knowledge approach (Fong) has links with the communities of practice literature (Wegner) and recognises that parents, care-givers and the children themselves are the current experts in this field in terms of the everyday uses of these technologies by very young children. Families’ everyday discourse and practices regarding their children’s touch screen use do not necessarily work through obvious power hierarchies (via expert opinions), but rather through a process of meaning making where they shape their own understandings and attitudes through experience and shared talk within their own everyday family communities of practice. This Toddlers and Tablets research is innovative in many ways. It seeks to capture the enthusiasm of young children’s digital interactions and to pioneer new ways of ‘beginnings’ researching with very young children, as well as with their parents. The researchers will work with parents and children in their broad domestic contexts (including in and out-of-home activities, and grandparental and wider-family involvement) to co-create knowledge about young children’s digital technologies and the social contexts in which these technologies are used. Aspects of these interactions, such as interviews and observations of everyday digital interactions will be recorded (audio and video respectively). In addition to this, data collected from media commentary, policy debates, research publications and learned articles from other disciplinary traditions will be interrogated to see if there are correlations, contrasts, trends or synergies between parents’ construction of meaning, public commentary and current research. Critical discourse tools and methods (Chouliaraki and Fairclough) will be used to analyse verbatim transcripts, video, and all written materials. Conclusion Very young children are uniquely dependent upon others for the basic necessities of life and for the tools they need, and will need to develop, to claim their place in the world. Given the ubiquitous role played by digital media in the lives of their parents and other caregivers it would be a distortion of everyday life for children to be excluded from the technologies that are routinely used to connect with other people and with information. In the same way that adults use digital media to renew and strengthen social and emotional bonds across distance, so young children delight in ‘Facetime’ and other technologies that connect them audio-visually with friends and family members who are not physically co-present. Similarly, a very short time spent in the company of toddlers using touch screens is sufficient to demonstrate the sheer delight that these young infants have in developing their sense of agency and autonomy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXV-yaFmQNk). Media, communications and cultural studies are beginning to claim a space for evidence based policy drawn from everyday activities in real life contexts. Research into the beginnings of digital life, with families who are beginning to find a way to introduce these technologies to the youngest generation, integrating them within social and emotional repertoires, may prove to be the start of new understandings into the communication skills of the preverbal and preliterate young people whose technology preferences will drive future development – with their parents likely trying to keep pace. Acknowledgment This research is supported under Australia Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (project number DP150104734). References Bittman, Michael, et al. "Digital Natives? New and Old Media and Children's Outcomes." Australian Journal of Education 55.2 (2011): 161-75. Brown, Ari. "Media Use by Children Younger than 2 Years." Pediatrics 128.5 (2011): 1040-45. Burr, Vivien. Social Constructionism. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2003. Cavanaugh, Cathy, et al. "The Effects of Distance Education on K–12 Student Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis." Naperville, Ill.: Learning Point Associates, 2004. 5 Mar. 2009 ‹http://www.ncrel.org/tech/distance/index.html›. Child Sciences and Parenting Research Office. Survey of Media Use by Children and Parents (Summary). Tokyo: Benesse Educational Research and Development Institute, 2014. Coenena, Pieter, Erin Howiea, Amity Campbella, and Leon Strakera. Mobile Touch Screen Device Use among Young Australian Children–First Results from a National Survey. Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA. 2015. Chouliaraki, Lilie and Norman Fairclough. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1999. Department of Education. "Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia." Australian Government, 2009. Ferguson, Christopher J., and M. Brent Donnellan. "Is the Association between Children’s Baby Video Viewing and Poor Language Development Robust? A Reanalysis of Zimmerman, Christakis, and Meltzoff (2007)." Developmental Psychology 50.1 (2014): 129. Findahl, Olle. Swedes and the Internet 2013. Stockholm: The Internet Infrastructure Foundation, 2013. Fong, Patrick S.W. "Co-Creation of Knowledge by Multidisciplinary Project Teams." Management of Knowledge in Project Environments. Eds. E. Love, P. Fong, and Z. Irani. Burlington, MA: Elsevier, 2005. 41-56. Gates, Bill. "Enter 'Generation I': The Responsibility to Provide Access for All to the Most Incredible Learning Tool Ever Created." Instructor 109.6 (2000): 98. Goh, Wendy W.L., Susanna Bay, and Vivian Hsueh-Hua Chen. "Young School Children’s Use of Digital Devices and Parental Rules." Telematics and Informatics 32.4 (2015): 787-95. Green, Lelia, et al. "Risks and Safety for Australian Children on the Internet: Full Findings from the AU Kids Online Survey of 9-16 Year Olds and Their Parents." Cultural Science Journal 4.1 (2011): 1-73. Holloway, Donell, Lelia Green, and Carlie Love. "'It's All about the Apps': Parental Mediation of Pre-Schoolers' Digital Lives." Media International Australia 153 (2014): 148-56. Hourcade, Juan Pablo, Sarah Mascher, David Wu, and Luiza Pantoja. Look, My Baby Is Using an iPad! An Analysis of YouTube Videos of Infants and Toddlers Using Tablets. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2015. Jie S.H. "ICT Use Statistics of Households and Individuals in Korea." 10th World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Meeting (WTIM-12). Korea Internet & Security Agency (KISA), 25-7 Sep. 2012.Judge, Sharon, Kathleen Puckett, and Sherry Mee Bell. "Closing the Digital Divide: Update from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study." The Journal of Educational Research 100.1 (2006): 52-60. Kirkorian, H., K. Choi, and Pempek. "Toddlers' Word Learning from Contingent and Non-Contingent Video on Touchscreens." Child Development (in press). Leathers, Heather, Patti Summers, and Desollar. Toddlers on Technology: A Parents' Guide. Illinois: AuthorHouse, 2013. NAEYC. Technology and Interactive Media as Tools in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8 [Position Statement]. Washington: National Association for the Education of Young Children, the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College, 2012. Neumann, Michelle M. "An Examination of Touch Screen Tablets and Emergent Literacy in Australian Pre-School Children." Australian Journal of Education 58.2 (2014): 109-22. Ofcom. Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report. London, 2013. Rideout, Victoria. Zero to Eight: Children’s Media Use in America 2013. San Francisco: Common Sense Media, 2013. Rosin, Hanna. "The Touch-Screen Generation." The Atlantic, 20 Apr. 2013. Strasburger, Victor C., et al. "Children, Adolescents, and the Media." Pediatrics 132.5 (2013): 958-61. Unantenne, Nalika. Mobile Device Usage among Young Kids: A Southeast Asia Study. Singapore: The Asian Parent and Samsung Kids Time, 2014. Wenger, Etienne. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Wenger, Etienne. "Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems." Organization 7.2 (2000): 225-46. Yelland, Nicola. "Which Apps Are Educational and Why? It’s in the Eye of the Beholder." The Conversation 13 July 2015. 16 Aug. 2015 ‹http://theconversation.com/which-apps-are-educational-and-why-its-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder-37968›.

Writing in the American Annals of the Deaf in 1931, Emil S. Ladner Jr, a Deaf high school student, predicted the invention of words on screen to facilitate access to “talkies”. He anticipated:Perhaps, in time, an invention will be perfected that will enable the deaf to hear the “talkies”, or an invention which will throw the words spoken directly under the screen as well as being spoken at the same time. (Ladner, cited in Downey Closed Captioning)This invention would eventually come to pass and be known as captions. Captions as we know them today have become widely available because of a complex interaction between technological change, volunteer effort, legislative activism, as well as increasing consumer demand. This began in the late 1950s when the technology to develop captions began to emerge. Almost immediately, volunteers began captioning and distributing both film and television in the US via schools for the deaf (Downey, Constructing Closed-Captioning in the Public Interest). Then, between the 1970s and 1990s Deaf activists and their allies began to campaign aggressively for the mandated provision of captions on television, leading eventually to the passing of the Television Decoder Circuitry Act in the US in 1990 (Ellis). This act decreed that any television with a screen greater than 13 inches must be designed/manufactured to be capable of displaying captions. The Act was replicated internationally, with countries such as Australia adopting the same requirements with their Australian standards regarding television sets imported into the country. As other papers in this issue demonstrate, this market ultimately led to the introduction of broadcasting requirements.Captions are also vital to the accessibility of videos in today’s online and streaming environment—captioning is listed as the highest priority in the definitive World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guideline’s (WCAG) 2.0 standard (W3C, “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0”). This recognition of the requirement for captions online is further reflected in legislation, from both the US 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) (2010) and from the Australian Human Rights Commission (2014).Television today is therefore much more freely available to a range of different groups. In addition to broadcast channels, captions are also increasingly available through streaming platforms such as Netflix and other subscription video on demand providers, as well as through user-generated video sites like YouTube. However, a clear discrepancy exists between guidelines, legislation and the industry’s approach. Guidelines such as the W3C are often resisted by industry until compliance is legislated.Historically, captions have been both unavailable (Ellcessor; Ellis) and inadequate (Ellis and Kent), and in many instances, they still are. For example, while the provision of captions in online video is viewed as a priority across international and domestic policies and frameworks, there is a stark contrast between the policy requirements and the practical implementation of these captions. This has led to the active development of a solution as part of an ongoing tradition of user-led development; user-generated captions. However, within disability studies, research around the agency of this activity—and the media savvy users facilitating it—has gone significantly underexplored.Agency of ActivityInformation sharing has featured heavily throughout visions of the Web—from Vannevar Bush’s 1945 notion of the memex (Bush), to the hacker ethic, to Zuckerberg’s motivations for creating Facebook in his dorm room in 2004 (Vogelstein)—resulting in a wide agency of activity on the Web. Running through this development of first the Internet and then the Web as a place for a variety of agents to share information has been the hackers’ ethic that sharing information is a powerful, positive good (Raymond 234), that information should be free (Levey), and that to achieve these goals will often involve working around intended information access protocols, sometimes illegally and normally anonymously. From the hacker culture comes the digerati, the elite of the digital world, web users who stand out by their contributions, success, or status in the development of digital technology. In the context of access to information for people with disabilities, we describe those who find these workarounds—providing access to information through mainstream online platforms that are not immediately apparent—as the disability digerati.An acknowledged mainstream member of the digerati, Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, articulated a vision for the Web and its role in information sharing as inclusive of everyone:Worldwide, there are more than 750 million people with disabilities. As we move towards a highly connected world, it is critical that the Web be useable by anyone, regardless of individual capabilities and disabilities … The W3C [World Wide Web Consortium] is committed to removing accessibility barriers for all people with disabilities—including the deaf, blind, physically challenged, and cognitively or visually impaired. We plan to work aggressively with government, industry, and community leaders to establish and attain Web accessibility goals. (Berners-Lee)Berners-Lee’s utopian vision of a connected world where people freely shared information online has subsequently been embraced by many key individuals and groups. His emphasis on people with disabilities, however, is somewhat unique. While maintaining a focus on accessibility, in 2006 he shifted focus to who could actually contribute to this idea of accessibility when he suggested the idea of “community captioning” to video bloggers struggling with the notion of including captions on their videos:The video blogger posts his blog—and the web community provides the captions that help others. (Berners-Lee, cited in Outlaw)Here, Berners-Lee was addressing community captioning in the context of video blogging and user-generated content. However, the concept is equally significant for professionally created videos, and media savvy users can now also offer instructions to audiences about how to access captions and subtitles. This shift—from user-generated to user access—must be situated historically in the context of an evolving Web 2.0 and changing accessibility legislation and policy.In the initial accessibility requirements of the Web, there was little mention of captioning at all, primarily due to video being difficult to stream over a dial-up connection. This was reflected in the initial WCAG 1.0 standard (W3C, “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0”) in which there was no requirement for videos to be captioned. WCAG 2.0 went some way in addressing this, making captioning online video an essential Level A priority (W3C, “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0”). However, there were few tools that could actually be used to create captions, and little interest from emerging online video providers in making this a priority.As a result, the possibility of user-generated captions for video content began to be explored by both developers and users. One initial captioning tool that gained popularity was MAGpie, produced by the WGBH National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM) (WGBH). While cumbersome by today’s standards, the arrival of MAGpie 2.0 in 2002 provided an affordable and professional captioning tool that allowed people to create captions for their own videos. However, at that point there was little opportunity to caption videos online, so the focus was more on captioning personal video collections offline. This changed with the launch of YouTube in 2005 and its later purchase by Google (CNET), leading to an explosion of user-generated video content online. However, while the introduction of YouTube closed captioned video support in 2006 ensured that captioned video content could be created (YouTube), the ability for users to create captions, save the output into one of the appropriate captioning file formats, upload the captions, and synchronise the captions to the video remained a difficult task.Improvements to the production and availability of user-generated captions arrived firstly through the launch of YouTube’s automated captions feature in 2009 (Google). This service meant that videos could be uploaded to YouTube and, if the user requested it, Google would caption the video within approximately 24 hours using its speech recognition software. While the introduction of this service was highly beneficial in terms of making captioning videos easier and ensuring that the timing of captions was accurate, the quality of captions ranged significantly. In essence, if the captions were not reviewed and errors not addressed, the automated captions were sometimes inaccurate to the point of hilarity (New Media Rock Stars). These inaccurate YouTube captions are colloquially described as craptions. A #nomorecraptions campaign was launched to address inaccurate YouTube captioning and call on YouTube to make improvements.The ability to create professional user-generated captions across a variety of platforms, including YouTube, arrived in 2010 with the launch of Amara Universal Subtitles (Amara). The Amara subtitle portal provides users with the opportunity to caption online videos, even if they are hosted by another service such as YouTube. The captioned file can be saved after its creation and then uploaded to the relevant video source if the user has access to the location of the video content. The arrival of Amara continues to provide ongoing benefits—it contains a professional captioning editing suite specifically catering for online video, the tool is free, and it can caption videos located on other websites. Furthermore, Amara offers the additional benefit of being able to address the issues of YouTube automated captions—users can benefit from the machine-generated captions of YouTube in relation to its timing, then download the captions for editing in Amara to fix the issues, then return the captions to the original video, saving a significant amount of time when captioning large amounts of video content. In recent years Google have also endeavoured to simplify the captioning process for YouTube users by including its own captioning editors, but these tools are generally considered inferior to Amara (Media Access Australia).Similarly, several crowdsourced caption services such as Viki (https://www.viki.com/community) have emerged to facilitate the provision of captions. However, most of these crowdsourcing captioning services can’t tap into commercial products instead offering a service for people that have a video they’ve created, or one that already exists on YouTube. While Viki was highlighted as a useful platform in protests regarding Netflix’s lack of captions in 2009, commercial entertainment providers still have a responsibility to make improvements to their captioning. As we discuss in the next section, people have resorted extreme measures to hack Netflix to access the captions they need. While the ability for people to publish captions on user-generated content has improved significantly, there is still a notable lack of captions for professionally developed videos, movies, and television shows available online.User-Generated Netflix CaptionsIn recent years there has been a worldwide explosion of subscription video on demand service providers. Netflix epitomises the trend. As such, for people with disabilities, there has been significant focus on the availability of captions on these services (see Ellcessor, Ellis and Kent). Netflix, as the current leading provider of subscription video entertainment in both the US and with a large market shares in other countries, has been at the centre of these discussions. While Netflix offers a comprehensive range of captioned video on its service today, there are still videos that do not have captions, particularly in non-English regions. As a result, users have endeavoured to produce user-generated captions for personal use and to find workarounds to access these through the Netflix system. This has been achieved with some success.There are a number of ways in which captions or subtitles can be added to Netflix video content to improve its accessibility for individual users. An early guide in a 2011 blog post (Emil’s Celebrations) identified that when using the Netflix player using the Silverlight plug-in, it is possible to access a hidden menu which allows a subtitle file in the DFXP format to be uploaded to Netflix for playback. However, this does not appear to provide this file to all Netflix users, and is generally referred to as a “soft upload” just for the individual user. Another method to do this, generally credited as the “easiest” way, is to find a SRT file that already exists for the video title, edit the timing to line up with Netflix, use a third-party tool to convert it to the DFXP format, and then upload it using the hidden menu that requires a specific keyboard command to access. While this may be considered uncomplicated for some, there is still a certain amount of technical knowledge required to complete this action, and it is likely to be too complex for many users.However, constant developments in technology are assisting with making access to captions an easier process. Recently, Cosmin Vasile highlighted that the ability to add captions and subtitle tracks can still be uploaded providing that the older Silverlight plug-in is used for playback instead of the new HTML5 player. Others add that it is technically possible to access the hidden feature in an HTML5 player, but an additional Super Netflix browser plug-in is required (Sommergirl). Further, while the procedure for uploading the file remains similar to the approach discussed earlier, there are some additional tools available online such as Subflicks which can provide a simple online conversion of the more common SRT file format to the DFXP format (Subflicks). However, while the ability to use a personal caption or subtitle file remains, the most common way to watch Netflix videos with alternative caption or subtitle files is through the use of the Smartflix service (Smartflix). Unlike other ad-hoc solutions, this service provides a simplified mechanism to bring alternative caption files to Netflix. The Smartflix website states that the service “automatically downloads and displays subtitles in your language for all titles using the largest online subtitles database.”This automatic download and sharing of captions online—known as fansubbing—facilitates easy access for all. For example, blog posts suggest that technology such as this creates important access opportunities for people who are deaf and hard of hearing. Nevertheless, they can be met with suspicion by copyright holders. For example, a recent case in the Netherlands ruled fansubbers were engaging in illegal activities and were encouraging people to download pirated videos. While the fansubbers, like the hackers discussed earlier, argued they were acting in the greater good, the Dutch antipiracy association (BREIN) maintained that subtitles are mainly used by people downloading pirated media and sought to outlaw the manufacture and distribution of third party captions (Anthony). The fansubbers took the issue to court in order to seek clarity about whether copyright holders can reserve exclusive rights to create and distribute subtitles. However, in a ruling against the fansubbers, the court agreed with BREIN that fansubbing violated copyright and incited piracy. What impact this ruling will have on the practice of user-generated captioning online, particularly around popular sites such as Netflix, is hard to predict; however, for people with disabilities who were relying on fansubbing to access content, it is of significant concern that the contention that the main users of user-generated subtitles (or captions) are engaging in illegal activities was so readily accepted.ConclusionThis article has focused on user-generated captions and the types of platforms available to create these. It has shown that this desire to provide access, to set the information free, has resulted in the disability digerati finding workarounds to allow users to upload their own captions and make content accessible. Indeed, the Internet and then the Web as a place for information sharing is evident throughout this history of user-generated captioning online, from Berner-Lee’s conception of community captioning, to Emil and Vasile’s instructions to a Netflix community of captioners, to finally a group of fansubbers who took BRIEN to court and lost. Therefore, while we have conceived of the disability digerati as a conflation of the hacker and the acknowledged digital influencer, these two positions may again part ways, and the disability digerati may—like the hackers before them—be driven underground.Captioned entertainment content offers a powerful, even vital, mode of inclusion for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Yet, despite Berners-Lee’s urging that everything online be made accessible to people with all sorts of disabilities, captions were not addressed in the first iteration of the WCAG, perhaps reflecting the limitations of the speed of the medium itself. This continues to be the case today—although it is no longer difficult to stream video online, and Netflix have reached global dominance, audiences who require captions still find themselves fighting for access. Thus, in this sense, user-generated captions remain an important—yet seemingly technologically and legislatively complicated—avenue for inclusion.ReferencesAnthony, Sebastian. “Fan-Made Subtitles for TV Shows and Movies Are Illegal, Court Rules.” Arstechnica UK (2017). 21 May 2017 <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/fan-made-subtitles-for-tv-shows-and-movies-are-illegal/>.Amara. “Amara Makes Video Globally Accessible.” Amara (2010). 25 Apr. 2017. <https://amara.org/en/ 2010>.Berners-Lee, Tim. “World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Launches International Web Accessibility Initiative.” Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) (1997). 19 June 2010. <http://www.w3.org/Press/WAI-Launch.html>.Bush, Vannevar. “As We May Think.” The Atlantic (1945). 26 June 2010 <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/1969/12/as-we-may-think/3881/>.CNET. “YouTube Turns 10: The Video Site That Went Viral.” CNET (2015). 24 Apr. 2017 <https://www.cnet.com/news/youtube-turns-10-the-video-site-that-went-viral/>.Downey, Greg. Closed Captioning: Subtitling, Stenography, and the Digital Convergence of Text with Television. Baltimore: John Hopkins UP, 2008.———. “Constructing Closed-Captioning in the Public Interest: From Minority Media Accessibility to Mainstream Educational Technology.” Info: The Journal of Policy, Regulation and Strategy for Telecommunications, Information and Media 9.2/3 (2007): 69–82.Ellcessor, Elizabeth. “Captions On, Off on TV, Online: Accessibility and Search Engine Optimization in Online Closed Captioning.” Television & New Media 13.4 (2012): 329-352. <http://tvn.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/10/24/1527476411425251.abstract?patientinform-links=yes&legid=sptvns;51v1>.Ellis, Katie. “Television’s Transition to the Internet: Disability Accessibility and Broadband-Based TV in Australia.” Media International Australia 153 (2014): 53–63.Ellis, Katie, and Mike Kent. “Accessible Television: The New Frontier in Disability Media Studies Brings Together Industry Innovation, Government Legislation and Online Activism.” First Monday 20 (2015). <http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/6170>.Emil’s Celebrations. “How to Add Subtitles to Movies Streamed in Netflix.” 16 Oct. 2011. 9 Apr. 2017 <https://emladenov.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/how-to-add-subtitles-to-movies-streamed-in-netflix/>.Google. “Automatic Captions in Youtube.” 2009. 24 Apr. 2017 <https://googleblog.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/automatic-captions-in-youtube.html>.Jaeger, Paul. “Disability and the Internet: Confronting a Digital Divide.” Disability in Society. Ed. Ronald Berger. Boulder, London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2012.Levey, Steven. Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. North Sebastopol: O’Teilly Media, 1984.Media Access Australia. “How to Caption a Youtube Video.” 2017. 25 Apr. 2017 <https://mediaaccess.org.au/web/how-to-caption-a-youtube-video>.New Media Rock Stars. “Youtube’s 5 Worst Hilariously Catastrophic Auto Caption Fails.” 2013. 25 Apr. 2017 <http://newmediarockstars.com/2013/05/youtubes-5-worst-hilariously-catastrophic-auto-caption-fails/>.Outlaw. “Berners-Lee Applies Web 2.0 to Improve Accessibility.” Outlaw News (2006). 25 June 2010 <http://www.out-law.com/page-6946>.Raymond, Eric S. The New Hacker’s Dictionary. 3rd ed. Cambridge: MIT P, 1996.Smartflix. “Smartflix: Supercharge Your Netflix.” 2017. 9 Apr. 2017 <https://www.smartflix.io/>.Sommergirl. “[All] Adding Subtitles in a Different Language?” 2016. 9 Apr. 2017 <https://www.reddit.com/r/netflix/comments/32l8ob/all_adding_subtitles_in_a_different_language/>.Subflicks. “Subflicks V2.0.0.” 2017. 9 Apr. 2017 <http://subflicks.com/>.Vasile, Cosmin. “Netflix Has Just Informed Us That Its Movie Streaming Service Is Now Available in Just About Every Country That Matters Financially, Aside from China, of Course.” 2016. 9 Apr. 2017 <http://news.softpedia.com/news/how-to-add-custom-subtitles-to-netflix-498579.shtml>.Vogelstein, Fred. “The Wired Interview: Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg.” Wired Magazine (2009). 20 Jun. 2010 <http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/mark-zuckerberg-speaks/>.W3C. “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0.” W3C Recommendation (1999). 25 Jun. 2010 <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/>.———. “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0.” 11 Dec. 2008. 21 Aug. 2013 <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/>.WGBH. “Magpie 2.0—Free, Do-It-Yourself Access Authoring Tool for Digital Multimedia Released by WGBH.” 2002. 25 Apr. 2017 <http://ncam.wgbh.org/about/news/pr_05072002>.YouTube. “Finally, Caption Video Playback.” 2006. 24 Apr. 2017 <http://googlevideo.blogspot.com.au/2006/09/finally-caption-playback.html>.