It was worse than that. The court's decision acknowledged that most of the videos did have subtitles, but found that the subtitles were not 100% accurate, there

It was worse than that. The court's decision acknowledged that most of the videos did have subtitles, but found that the subtitles were not 100% accurate, there was a small number of errors, plus they did not provide subtitles and a description perfectly describing graphical content of the videos such as charts. Some videos also didn't have captions at all but merely having captions wasn't the issue. Among the problems that go beyond simple captioning of voice: "many videos did not provide an alternative way to access images or visual information (e.g., graphs, charts, animations, or urls on slides)" "videos containing text sometimes had poor color contrast" "information was sometimes conveyed using color alone" "some documents were not formatted properly for use with screen readers" "page structural elements were not always defined" "some tables did not have row and column headers defined" "math equations were not always defined in a comprehendible way" (Not sure if any math classes, texts, articles, etc at all pass are capable of passing this new court defined test for everyone.) "Many PDFs either did not have a tag structure defined or the tag structure was incorrect." "Some links were not keyboard accessible and did not indicate whether they were expandable or collapsible" So the court set a very high bar schools and perhaps others must pass in order to be legally allowed to post content on line. Content must not be merely accessible but must be what the government now calls "entirely accessible". By this decision this can be seen to cover a comprehensive set of ideals that go far beyond voice transcriptions, and which by the standards of the court seem to be required to be implemented perfectly without any errors or omissions to pass the standard required by their reading of the ADA.