8 ms·

Do they all have accurate captions/transcripts? It's kind of an odd situation that if no student in the class has a need for them they wouldn't have to be made

Do they all have accurate captions/transcripts? It's kind of an odd situation that if no student in the class has a need for them they wouldn't have to be made but then you can't publish it for a larger audience.

elteto 5y ago
Why can’t you publish it for a larger audience without transcripts?
- myle 5y ago
  Some institutes/large orgs have similar policies.
- gugagore 5y ago
  The National Association for the Deaf sued MIT and Harvard https://accessibility.mit.edu/captioning/mit-nad-agreement https://accessibility.mit.edu/captioning/mit-nad-agreement > New Content: Content posted 60 or more days following the effective date (effective date is July 21, 2020) must be captioned upon posting.
  - analognoise 5y ago
    Are these are the same people who ruined Berkeley's open courseware?
    - gumby 5y ago
      Although I am not deaf I don’t see why this is considered “ruining” it. These accommodations are required by law.
      - analognoise 5y ago
        Some jerks ruined Berkeley's Webcast/Open courseware content: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-berkeley-delete-publicly-available-educational-content https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-... Then there's this: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/21/magazine/americans-with-disabilities-act.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/21/magazine/americans-with-d... I think the ADA sucks, and hope it gets gutted.
        gumby 5y ago
        That is very short sighted. The ADA ultimately benefits everyone. When I’ve had knee and leg injuries I found ramps valuable, for example.
        8589934591 5y ago
        If ramps are not available, does shutting down the building's access to the general public justify it? Does this benefit everyone/anyone in any way? I think that's the point the parent comment is trying to make. I'm not from USA so I don't know how the law works there. I feel that the law should enable/empower/assist institutes like OCW/UCB to incentivise or help them to create captions for the groups that the law is campaigning for. What good is going to come out of punishing access to general public is something I don't understand. When someone does something out of their goodwill using their time and money you should at least help them to enhance their goodwill for your cause, in this case, the govt or NAD employing people who can transcribe the videos for a fee. I feel the law is doing more harm than good to the general public.
        gumby 5y ago
        > I feel the law is doing more harm than good to the general public. Seems like you don’t know how the law works (see below). In terms of “good to the general public”: there are meant developers whose code you depend on who have various sensory restrictions. Since this is an Internet site, I’ll give an example of Vint Cerf. Aren’t you glad he was able to be productive, attend university etc? > If ramps are not available, does shutting down the building's access to the general public justify it? The ADA does not work that way. Nobody has to make prospective changes. But if you build a new building, or do significant renovation, then you must do that work up the the modern code, which includes ADA accommodation. If you rebuild the building entrance you must include ramps, modern crash bars etc. That doesn’t also mean you must add elevators, to other floors, etc. This is common in other countries I’ve lived in as well. There’s an additional wrinkle: unlike MIT (the original OCW), the UCs are government institutions (specifically of California) and that adds more stringent requirements. A private business (like MIT) have more nuance: they both has to serve anyone yet can refuse service “for any reason” (modulo some constraints). Taxpayer dollars are supposed to be spent on things that benefit everyone. There are limits (ballots don’t have to be printed in Aramaic; speed limit signs don’t have to be printed in Braille) but it’s a good fundamental assumption. And all the UCs can afford to support their mission; it’s their choice to make a petulant point by withdrawing the OCW site.

elteto 5y ago

Why can’t you publish it for a larger audience without transcripts?

myle 5y ago
Some institutes/large orgs have similar policies.
gugagore 5y ago
The National Association for the Deaf sued MIT and Harvard https://accessibility.mit.edu/captioning/mit-nad-agreement https://accessibility.mit.edu/captioning/mit-nad-agreement > New Content: Content posted 60 or more days following the effective date (effective date is July 21, 2020) must be captioned upon posting.
- analognoise 5y ago
  Are these are the same people who ruined Berkeley's open courseware?
  - gumby 5y ago
    Although I am not deaf I don’t see why this is considered “ruining” it. These accommodations are required by law.
    - analognoise 5y ago
      Some jerks ruined Berkeley's Webcast/Open courseware content: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-berkeley-delete-publicly-available-educational-content https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-... Then there's this: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/21/magazine/americans-with-disabilities-act.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/21/magazine/americans-with-d... I think the ADA sucks, and hope it gets gutted.
      - gumby 5y ago
        That is very short sighted. The ADA ultimately benefits everyone. When I’ve had knee and leg injuries I found ramps valuable, for example.
        8589934591 5y ago
        If ramps are not available, does shutting down the building's access to the general public justify it? Does this benefit everyone/anyone in any way? I think that's the point the parent comment is trying to make. I'm not from USA so I don't know how the law works there. I feel that the law should enable/empower/assist institutes like OCW/UCB to incentivise or help them to create captions for the groups that the law is campaigning for. What good is going to come out of punishing access to general public is something I don't understand. When someone does something out of their goodwill using their time and money you should at least help them to enhance their goodwill for your cause, in this case, the govt or NAD employing people who can transcribe the videos for a fee. I feel the law is doing more harm than good to the general public.
        gumby 5y ago
        > I feel the law is doing more harm than good to the general public. Seems like you don’t know how the law works (see below). In terms of “good to the general public”: there are meant developers whose code you depend on who have various sensory restrictions. Since this is an Internet site, I’ll give an example of Vint Cerf. Aren’t you glad he was able to be productive, attend university etc? > If ramps are not available, does shutting down the building's access to the general public justify it? The ADA does not work that way. Nobody has to make prospective changes. But if you build a new building, or do significant renovation, then you must do that work up the the modern code, which includes ADA accommodation. If you rebuild the building entrance you must include ramps, modern crash bars etc. That doesn’t also mean you must add elevators, to other floors, etc. This is common in other countries I’ve lived in as well. There’s an additional wrinkle: unlike MIT (the original OCW), the UCs are government institutions (specifically of California) and that adds more stringent requirements. A private business (like MIT) have more nuance: they both has to serve anyone yet can refuse service “for any reason” (modulo some constraints). Taxpayer dollars are supposed to be spent on things that benefit everyone. There are limits (ballots don’t have to be printed in Aramaic; speed limit signs don’t have to be printed in Braille) but it’s a good fundamental assumption. And all the UCs can afford to support their mission; it’s their choice to make a petulant point by withdrawing the OCW site.