2 ms·

It certainly was a concern; Berkeley made the decision to ignore it. And yes, access means access for all.

• programmarchy 10y ago
  It's impossible to have access for all. Reductio ad absurdum: illiterate and mentally handicapped people exist, therefore, we should burn all books. There's likely a fairer way of doing this instead of denying access to all for the sake of a few. For example, a JIT system for accessibility. A disabled person, if interested, could make a request to have material translated to their preferred mode.
  • icebraining 10y ago
    Access is not being denied for all, UCB students will still be able to view all videos (it's in the article).
    • programmarchy 10y ago
      Thanks, I did read the article. I was responding to GP in a general sense. Still, I think it's a matter of interpretation. Access is being denied for all i.e. the public.
• Kadin 10y ago
  And when it's prohibitively expensive, you really prefer just not giving anyone access? The amount of video that is being produced and uploaded today makes a requirement to put traditional closed captioning on each one absolutely laughable and ridiculous. It's telling that the requirement was dreamed up in 1990, probably by people without a lot of vision for how cheap bandwidth might become and the amount of content that would be produced and shared within a few decades. The public is the loser, here. Institutions like Berkeley will have to pull down high-quality content, but amateur content isn't affected. So the overall quality of content available to the public just got worse. There is no way in which this is a win for the majority.