> Berkley [sic] decided to throw them away rather than remedy this, in a rather short sighted move reminiscent of cutting off one's nose to spite their face. I

> Berkley [sic] decided to throw them away rather than remedy this, in a rather short sighted move reminiscent of cutting off one's nose to spite their face. It's much more likely that the cost of making the lectures ADA-compliant was prohibitive. Universities aren't corporations who can appeal to equities holders/markets for funds when a need presents itself. So they did what they could ... a warning, well in advance, that the content would have to be withdrawn from public display, with the expectation that someone not subject to the ADA requirements would copy the lectures. In the future, such content will be created already ADA-compliant, but many of these lectures predate the ADA and were created in good faith. It would have been a shame to lose them, especially when you consider that current and future computer resources can provide on-the-fly subtitles (and translations) for those who want or need them.