4 ms·
How do you judge which content then is released uncaptioned because it was impossibly expensive, and which because the creator prefers to keep their money? How
by prawn 10y ago
How do you judge which content then is released uncaptioned because it was impossibly expensive, and which because the creator prefers to keep their money? How many venues or historical buildings would have wheelchair ramps and lifts if they didn't have to or because it came down only to whether they could justify the cost?
- jedberg 10y agoYou don't, that's why it's tough. I truly feel bad for those who need these accessibility options and don't get them, but I also feel bad for those who need this content and don't get it. It's really a no-win situation.
- gumby 10y agoIt's no different from the ADA requirements for buildings: you don't need to retrofit, but if you do a remodel over size X, or a new build, ADA support is required. And ADA support doesn't just help the permanently disabled, but also people on crutches etc. The approach typically applies to retrofits for fueling stations, coal power plants, etc. This content is new enough (by 15-22 years by UCB's count) tht it should have had support for everyone. They just didn't notice or didn't care. In a few years perhaps it can come back for everyone through a new tool. In fact they could spend some of the captioning money on a better autocaptioner than youtube. In fact I am surprised that KLH's auto-captioner didn't already do this since the letter says this material is on youtube.
- Kadin 10y agoOr they could just do nothing, not spend any money, and not share the content. That's the zero-cost option, and almost certainly what they'll do. The benefit was to the public to have access to the material, much less so to Berkeley. By putting the onus on Berkeley to caption the videos, they've (very reasonably) just pulled them down, and the public loses.
- gumby 10y ago> and the public loses. You mean some of the public loses. Others in the public never had access to lose. People said the same thing when the government decided buildings should have ramps, public bathrooms, etc. Things worked out OK.
- jedberg 10y ago> They just didn't notice or didn't care. I don't think it's either one. If I'm a prof and I want to make my lectures more accessible, I'm going to put them online, and be glad that 95% of the population can see it. If I have time and budget, maybe I'll hire someone to caption it. But still, I'd rather have it out there for 95% of the world to see than not at all. > In fact I am surprised that KLH's auto-captioner didn't already do this since the letter says this material is on youtube. They were sued because the auto-captioner was wrong enough to be considered harmful.
- iopq 10y agoThen just don't force it on people.
- strken 10y agoThe obvious answer is that you grandfather in existing content, and only require accessibility for content created after a certain date. That way, actual courses are accessible, and the roughly 7 billion human beings who don't go to Berkeley can still access the old content.
- x0x0 10y agoThe ADA was passed in 1990. What's Berkeley's excuse here.
- mulmen 10y agoLack of funding and content that was created before 1990.
- x0x0 10y agofta: legacy content that is 3-10 years old
- mulmen 10y agoThen I guess we are just left with a lack of funding.
- mirimir 10y agoBasically. Or at least, giving stuff away was cool, because it cost very little. But once it becomes expensive, why divert resources from paying students? Some wider implications are very alarming. Consider all of the video content that libraries hold. If it's not ADA-compliant, having it available to the general public is arguably discriminatory.
- x0x0 10y agoClose captions for video are widely available. Try harder.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]