5 ms·
> But in this case, the complaint was that the transcription wasn’t perfect. This is a falsehood. The complaint was that some videos had no transcription at al
by BeetleB 11mo ago
> But in this case, the complaint was that the transcription wasn’t perfect.
This is a falsehood. The complaint was that some videos had no transcription at all.
There were other complaints, BTW - it wasn't just subtitles. There were complaints about blind people not being able to read the docs.
Edit: I think one of the (multiple) complaints was poor transcription. What I meant by "falsehood" was actually referring to an earlier comment that said something to the effect of "they provided subtitles". In some cases they did not provide subtitles.
- raw_anon_1111 11mo agoJust doing a little research - I haven’t looked too deeply into- Google live caption has been built into Chrome since 2021 and there have been third party tools for accessibility since 2016. But the overall question, is the world a better place now that the information isn’t available to anyone?
- BeetleB 11mo ago> But the overall question, is the world a better place now that the information isn’t available to anyone? Sorry, but the question is: Is the world a better place if organizations feel they need not comply with this law? If the answer is yes, then go fix the law. Stop picking on the little guys.
- raw_anon_1111 11mo agoThe organization did comply with the law - they gave everyone the same access - none