3 ms·

Now they have the same level of access: none.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago
Yeah, this is the bad case. But this sort of policy also has an effect on other situations: Suppose it costs $100 to make a video accessible for those with hearing impairments. Furthermore, suppose this video is really important - the university is willing to spend up to $20,000 on making it, but fortunately only has to spend $15,000. Without being a dick about "deaf accessible or you can't publish", the university would get $5000 of producer surplus and the hearing impaired lose out. With this rule, the university gets $4900 worth of producer surplus, and the hearing impaired can actually watch this very important video. It's really easy to forget about the cases that aren't getting fought over but are still subject to the rule. If you've got an idea for a better rule that lets Berkeley publish these videos, but still keeps universities from pretending that they can't afford to make videos accessible when they actually can, I'm all ears.
- andrenth 10y ago
  I have no idea if your cost assumptions make sense or not so I don't know whether they are pretending. Either way, I have a better idea: no rules. They are releasing high quality content online for free to a large segment of the world's population. Just let them do it! Here's another idea: The people who are so concerned about accessibility could join their efforts and provide a transcription. In multiple languages, by the way. We don't want to exclude anyone.
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    I guess the same argument could be made in regards to not providing accessibility accommodations to buildings: that there should be "no rules", and if a building is built without accessibility accommodations at least access to such building "is free to a large segment of the world's population. Just let them do it!" It's pretty clear that such arguments lost with the passage of the ADA.
    - andrenth 10y ago
      That's a completely different situation. The online classes are an "extra" in the sense that the university's core product are the classroom courses. They're simply being nice for releasing the videos. Furthermore I have never heard of a building being closed until accessibility accommodations are built.
      - Thrillington 10y ago
        So where, exactly and precisely, is the line between "extra" and "normal"? If you think about it critically for just a second you realize there is no line. Accessibility is an absolute in the United States. If you disagree then I wish you the best of luck in your campaign to repeal the ADA.
        andrenth 10y ago
        Oh my, interventionists are so cliché. Passive-aggressive hyperbole and all. Should they provide transcriptions to satisfy the transcription validation committee, I'm sure you'd be demanding the videos to be taken down because they are not also transcripted in Spanish or dubbed in French, or some other excuse that would prevent the majority of people to have access to the content (including those who could be interested in working on transcriptions instead of complaining online).

Yeah, this is the bad case. But this sort of policy also has an effect on other situations: Suppose it costs $100 to make a video accessible for those with hearing impairments. Furthermore, suppose this video is really important - the university is willing to spend up to $20,000 on making it, but fortunately only has to spend $15,000. Without being a dick about "deaf accessible or you can't publish", the university would get $5000 of producer surplus and the hearing impaired lose out. With this rule, the university gets $4900 worth of producer surplus, and the hearing impaired can actually watch this very important video. It's really easy to forget about the cases that aren't getting fought over but are still subject to the rule. If you've got an idea for a better rule that lets Berkeley publish these videos, but still keeps universities from pretending that they can't afford to make videos accessible when they actually can, I'm all ears.

andrenth 10y ago
I have no idea if your cost assumptions make sense or not so I don't know whether they are pretending. Either way, I have a better idea: no rules. They are releasing high quality content online for free to a large segment of the world's population. Just let them do it! Here's another idea: The people who are so concerned about accessibility could join their efforts and provide a transcription. In multiple languages, by the way. We don't want to exclude anyone.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  I guess the same argument could be made in regards to not providing accessibility accommodations to buildings: that there should be "no rules", and if a building is built without accessibility accommodations at least access to such building "is free to a large segment of the world's population. Just let them do it!" It's pretty clear that such arguments lost with the passage of the ADA.
  - andrenth 10y ago
    That's a completely different situation. The online classes are an "extra" in the sense that the university's core product are the classroom courses. They're simply being nice for releasing the videos. Furthermore I have never heard of a building being closed until accessibility accommodations are built.
    - Thrillington 10y ago
      So where, exactly and precisely, is the line between "extra" and "normal"? If you think about it critically for just a second you realize there is no line. Accessibility is an absolute in the United States. If you disagree then I wish you the best of luck in your campaign to repeal the ADA.
      - andrenth 10y ago
        Oh my, interventionists are so cliché. Passive-aggressive hyperbole and all. Should they provide transcriptions to satisfy the transcription validation committee, I'm sure you'd be demanding the videos to be taken down because they are not also transcripted in Spanish or dubbed in French, or some other excuse that would prevent the majority of people to have access to the content (including those who could be interested in working on transcriptions instead of complaining online).