5 ms·

I believe that was s/Stanford/Berkeley. Automated text to speech is so cheap now though. Lectures could be uploaded to YouTube and Google would do it for them.

booi 7y ago
so that google can make money on their content?
- rckoepke 7y ago
  Context is important. This is Berkeley. They can do text to speech at an inconsequential cost. Other websites probably not so much. It's important to acknowledge economic/technical realities separately from value systems. We can disagree on whether a society should provide for their blind members. But it's harder to disagree on the proposition that Stanford can definitely provide subtitles for these videos without sacrificing anything of consequence on their end. It's also difficult to disagree on the proposition that requiring this of all individual bloggers would be an onerous requirement on them. It's also important that Berkeley is a public school, so a question is "should the government, or parts of the government, be inaccessible to blind people". Right now it's hard to know what the current legal requirements even are, so we tend to only argue over what they should be. And that's more of a discussion of value than fact.
jolmg 7y ago
I still believe they shouldn't be obligated. It's stuff they're giving away for free. It's like giving a beggar a sandwich and then having to compensate the beggar for having included cheese in the sandwich I gifted them when they're lactose-intolerant. I'd just not give away sandwiches in the future, then.
- rckoepke 7y ago
  Most people would agree we need clearer legal framework around this. I like a business vs home analogy. If you build a storefront, it needs to be wheelchair accessible. That seems reasonable to me. If I build a home in the middle of nowhere, my own home does not have to be wheelchair accessible but if I want to build a home in a city, that city may require my home to be wheelchair accessible. I suspect Berkeley thought they were building an addition on their home, not their business. Still, it's clear that my analogy is NOT how it works in the real world. There's a critical lack of clarity here, and answers are needed especially for blogs and personal sites. I personally strongly believe that when we build things for people with disabilities, they become so much easier for people without disabilities to use. I'd personally like to see websites easier to use with screenreaders and other 3rd party aides. But I don't think it should apply to personal webpages or small blogs. It doesn't really matter what I think though. The legal requirements today are quite unknown.
- HarryHirsch 7y ago
  The analogy fails. Consider instead a charity kitchen in a town with a fairly substantial Jewish or Muslim community, but the charity kitchen insists on serving pork. Here are some statistics about hearing loss: https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick-statistics-hearing https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick-statistics... They are enlightening. 25 % of people between 65 and 75 are hearing-impaired, rising to 50 % of people over 75. What exactly is the argument for excluding the aged from Berkeley's online offerings? It would be wiser to argue in favour of accommodation for disabilities because it may be that you will need them sometime in the future.
  - ta999999171 7y ago
    > Consider instead a charity kitchen in a town with a fairly substantial Jewish or Muslim community, but the charity kitchen insists on serving pork. ...less sympathetic than GP's example, religion is a choice.
    - HarryHirsch 7y ago
      religion is a choice That's true for both sides. Why someone would do charity but leave a well-defined group out of it is a mystery.
      - jolmg 7y ago
        How about, instead of a charity kitchen, it's a restaurant that gives away its leftovers? If they only have pork leftovers, should they not give those away to those in need? By disallowing them, their choice would either be to throw the food in the trash or obtain other food to give away in addition to the pork. Of course, most businesses would just shrug and throw it away.
  - zweep 7y ago
    Are you seriously suggesting that a charity kitchen dispensing pork should be illegal?
natalyarostova 7y ago
Maybe Stanford too, but the case I know was Berkeley.
- rckoepke 7y ago
  Edited mine to correct this. I think the Berkeley case has had a chilling effect on other universities, such as Stanford. They also have not released lecturers since then as far as I can tell. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
  - natalyarostova 7y ago
    It's super depressing. My friend made the impolite and glib comment that perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to have math classes online either because the mentally disabled can't understand them. Emotionally, it's a pretty bad argument. But it definitely stuck with me as an interesting point...

booi 7y ago

so that google can make money on their content?

rckoepke 7y ago
Context is important. This is Berkeley. They can do text to speech at an inconsequential cost. Other websites probably not so much. It's important to acknowledge economic/technical realities separately from value systems. We can disagree on whether a society should provide for their blind members. But it's harder to disagree on the proposition that Stanford can definitely provide subtitles for these videos without sacrificing anything of consequence on their end. It's also difficult to disagree on the proposition that requiring this of all individual bloggers would be an onerous requirement on them. It's also important that Berkeley is a public school, so a question is "should the government, or parts of the government, be inaccessible to blind people". Right now it's hard to know what the current legal requirements even are, so we tend to only argue over what they should be. And that's more of a discussion of value than fact.

jolmg 7y ago

I still believe they shouldn't be obligated. It's stuff they're giving away for free. It's like giving a beggar a sandwich and then having to compensate the beggar for having included cheese in the sandwich I gifted them when they're lactose-intolerant. I'd just not give away sandwiches in the future, then.

rckoepke 7y ago
Most people would agree we need clearer legal framework around this. I like a business vs home analogy. If you build a storefront, it needs to be wheelchair accessible. That seems reasonable to me. If I build a home in the middle of nowhere, my own home does not have to be wheelchair accessible but if I want to build a home in a city, that city may require my home to be wheelchair accessible. I suspect Berkeley thought they were building an addition on their home, not their business. Still, it's clear that my analogy is NOT how it works in the real world. There's a critical lack of clarity here, and answers are needed especially for blogs and personal sites. I personally strongly believe that when we build things for people with disabilities, they become so much easier for people without disabilities to use. I'd personally like to see websites easier to use with screenreaders and other 3rd party aides. But I don't think it should apply to personal webpages or small blogs. It doesn't really matter what I think though. The legal requirements today are quite unknown.
HarryHirsch 7y ago
The analogy fails. Consider instead a charity kitchen in a town with a fairly substantial Jewish or Muslim community, but the charity kitchen insists on serving pork. Here are some statistics about hearing loss: https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick-statistics-hearing https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick-statistics... They are enlightening. 25 % of people between 65 and 75 are hearing-impaired, rising to 50 % of people over 75. What exactly is the argument for excluding the aged from Berkeley's online offerings? It would be wiser to argue in favour of accommodation for disabilities because it may be that you will need them sometime in the future.
- ta999999171 7y ago
  > Consider instead a charity kitchen in a town with a fairly substantial Jewish or Muslim community, but the charity kitchen insists on serving pork. ...less sympathetic than GP's example, religion is a choice.
  - HarryHirsch 7y ago
    religion is a choice That's true for both sides. Why someone would do charity but leave a well-defined group out of it is a mystery.
    - jolmg 7y ago
      How about, instead of a charity kitchen, it's a restaurant that gives away its leftovers? If they only have pork leftovers, should they not give those away to those in need? By disallowing them, their choice would either be to throw the food in the trash or obtain other food to give away in addition to the pork. Of course, most businesses would just shrug and throw it away.
- zweep 7y ago
  Are you seriously suggesting that a charity kitchen dispensing pork should be illegal?

natalyarostova 7y ago

Maybe Stanford too, but the case I know was Berkeley.

rckoepke 7y ago
Edited mine to correct this. I think the Berkeley case has had a chilling effect on other universities, such as Stanford. They also have not released lecturers since then as far as I can tell. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
- natalyarostova 7y ago
  It's super depressing. My friend made the impolite and glib comment that perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to have math classes online either because the mentally disabled can't understand them. Emotionally, it's a pretty bad argument. But it definitely stuck with me as an interesting point...