5 ms·

Another ADA disaster, along the same lines as when UC Berkeley was forced to get rid of all their free online course videos, because they didn't have the budget

Another ADA disaster, along the same lines as when UC Berkeley was forced to get rid of all their free online course videos, because they didn't have the budget to have someone write captions for them. You should never have to take something away from people who aren't disabled just because making it accessible isn't feasible.

infotainment 1mo ago
> You should never have to take something away from people who aren't disabled just because making it accessible isn't feasible. The ADA is a horribly-designed law precisely because it encourages this behavior. Reforming it is necessary, but doing so would be so politically toxic that it will probably never happen.
- ChickeNES 1mo ago
  Yeah the ADA can both be a good idea, while also having perverse incentives/externalities. Reform is the answer.
  - kaseijin 1mo ago
    Really just a case of needing common sense judges and enforcement or this law. Temporary event and with an accommodation solution for the minority of disabled guests shouldn't have to inconvenience everyone just because a few people "feel" inconvenciend for having to ask for the accommodation. It's not like this is a subway station, public building, or some other kind of venue where a permanent access solution is needed. I think some people who are disabled are just miserable people who go around trying to make everyone else miserable too. That's the only reason these lawsuits are filed.
AngryData 1mo ago
I agree but also is it really that difficult to use some sort of auto-caption program with maybe an asterick not assuring accuracy? I feel like it would be impossible to legislate the quality of captioning and it isn't like mistakes don't happen even with a human transcriber.
- tekla 1mo ago
  How does one auto-caption a white/black-board in a world before insanely cheap computer vision?
  - galleywest200 1mo ago
    Captions are for audio. I presume if someone is reading captions they can read the whiteboard. Now if you are talking about the blind then sure thats different but the blind don't need captions.
    - tekla 1mo ago
      Are you sure? When I went to college, the whiteboard was a supplement to the lecture, so either/or would not have worked. What if they are hard of sight and can't read the whiteboard or blackboard, even if they might be able to read a captioned video? Lord knows I remember barely being able to read some professors handwriting, even in person, or being able to understand what the hell a professor was saying in person. How many people are there that can efficiently caption complex mathematical equations?
- krackers 1mo ago
  Automatic Captions are not ADA compliant. https://www.speechpad.com/blog/ada-compliant-captions-vs-auto-captions https://www.speechpad.com/blog/ada-compliant-captions-vs-aut... If you have a risk of getting sued because someone notices a transcription error versus just not uploading videos, people will choose the latter.
  - professoretc 1mo ago
    That article (slash advertisement for Speechpad) spends a lot of words not explaining why human captioning is preferable in general to automated captioning. If I, a human, make a mistake in captioning my videos, am I any better off than if I'd used whisper and it messed up?
    - 1mo ago
susiecambria 1mo ago
Seems to me both are examples of institutions not complying with the rules (laws, regs, etc.) by choice. The Philadelphia government could have budgeted for ADA compliance and it chose not to, just as Berkeley could have budgeted for captioning. Budgets reflect our priorities. It is clear from both examples that meeting the needs of people with disabilities is not a priority.
- strken 1mo ago
  Why would Berkeley budget for captioning on a series of videos that they're giving to the public for free? Expecting them to accommodate everyone for loss-making global educational philanthropy is a ridiculous overreach. It has made the world poorer and entrenched the disadvantage of everyone not in the US. Thanks, disability advocates.
  - galleywest200 1mo ago
    Counter point is captions are also really cheap. I presume the lecturer read from a script, just use that.
    - strken 1mo ago
      They were archival footage of old lectures. But also, "really cheap" is only cheap when something is done for profit. When it's done as a charitable side gig then pretty much any expense is expensive.
      - galleywest200 1mo ago
        My response to that would be “Hey intern/grad student, enjoy your new assignment”
      - kube-system 1mo ago
        For many charitable activities it may be, but also, the University of California system has a 53.6 billion dollar budget. They could pay some people to caption them if they cared to do so.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
kube-system 1mo ago
The ADA isn't some surprise gotcha that crept up on any of these people, it has been around for 36 years. The problem is that 36 years later, people are still ignoring the fact that disabled people even exist. Whether or not we want to admit it, this stuff happens because people think and act like it is okay to disregard accessibility.
- kaseijin 1mo ago
  Already had accessibility. Now there's none.
- infamia 1mo ago
  > The ADA isn't some surprise gotcha that crept up on any of these people The ADA was written in an extremely non-specific way that allows unelected bureaucrats to reinterpret it every so often. To be honest, the US would probably have a more accessible society if the law was better written.
  - kube-system 1mo ago
    That's a problem with executive political appointees more so than the unelected bureaucrats. Career civil servants working in a regulatory capacity are typically very consistent experts who do a good job of taking vague shit that congress would otherwise fuck up trying to define more specifically and interpreting it in a way that makes practical sense to people who know what the fuck is actually going on. It's the political appointee leadership that tries to pull the creative reinterpretation nonsense you're talking about.
rpdillon 29d ago
This is exactly the case that came to mind when I saw the headline. They had gobs of course videos that they released online so that anybody could watch them. I was incredibly delighted to see a state funded school doing this. And they had to pull them all because they didn't have a feasible way of adding subtitles.

infotainment 1mo ago

> You should never have to take something away from people who aren't disabled just because making it accessible isn't feasible. The ADA is a horribly-designed law precisely because it encourages this behavior. Reforming it is necessary, but doing so would be so politically toxic that it will probably never happen.

ChickeNES 1mo ago
Yeah the ADA can both be a good idea, while also having perverse incentives/externalities. Reform is the answer.
- kaseijin 1mo ago
  Really just a case of needing common sense judges and enforcement or this law. Temporary event and with an accommodation solution for the minority of disabled guests shouldn't have to inconvenience everyone just because a few people "feel" inconvenciend for having to ask for the accommodation. It's not like this is a subway station, public building, or some other kind of venue where a permanent access solution is needed. I think some people who are disabled are just miserable people who go around trying to make everyone else miserable too. That's the only reason these lawsuits are filed.

AngryData 1mo ago

I agree but also is it really that difficult to use some sort of auto-caption program with maybe an asterick not assuring accuracy? I feel like it would be impossible to legislate the quality of captioning and it isn't like mistakes don't happen even with a human transcriber.

tekla 1mo ago
How does one auto-caption a white/black-board in a world before insanely cheap computer vision?
- galleywest200 1mo ago
  Captions are for audio. I presume if someone is reading captions they can read the whiteboard. Now if you are talking about the blind then sure thats different but the blind don't need captions.
  - tekla 1mo ago
    Are you sure? When I went to college, the whiteboard was a supplement to the lecture, so either/or would not have worked. What if they are hard of sight and can't read the whiteboard or blackboard, even if they might be able to read a captioned video? Lord knows I remember barely being able to read some professors handwriting, even in person, or being able to understand what the hell a professor was saying in person. How many people are there that can efficiently caption complex mathematical equations?
krackers 1mo ago
Automatic Captions are not ADA compliant. https://www.speechpad.com/blog/ada-compliant-captions-vs-auto-captions https://www.speechpad.com/blog/ada-compliant-captions-vs-aut... If you have a risk of getting sued because someone notices a transcription error versus just not uploading videos, people will choose the latter.
- professoretc 1mo ago
  That article (slash advertisement for Speechpad) spends a lot of words not explaining why human captioning is preferable in general to automated captioning. If I, a human, make a mistake in captioning my videos, am I any better off than if I'd used whisper and it messed up?
  - 1mo ago

susiecambria 1mo ago

Seems to me both are examples of institutions not complying with the rules (laws, regs, etc.) by choice. The Philadelphia government could have budgeted for ADA compliance and it chose not to, just as Berkeley could have budgeted for captioning. Budgets reflect our priorities. It is clear from both examples that meeting the needs of people with disabilities is not a priority.

strken 1mo ago
Why would Berkeley budget for captioning on a series of videos that they're giving to the public for free? Expecting them to accommodate everyone for loss-making global educational philanthropy is a ridiculous overreach. It has made the world poorer and entrenched the disadvantage of everyone not in the US. Thanks, disability advocates.
- galleywest200 1mo ago
  Counter point is captions are also really cheap. I presume the lecturer read from a script, just use that.
  - strken 1mo ago
    They were archival footage of old lectures. But also, "really cheap" is only cheap when something is done for profit. When it's done as a charitable side gig then pretty much any expense is expensive.
    - galleywest200 1mo ago
      My response to that would be “Hey intern/grad student, enjoy your new assignment”
    - kube-system 1mo ago
      For many charitable activities it may be, but also, the University of California system has a 53.6 billion dollar budget. They could pay some people to caption them if they cared to do so.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

kube-system 1mo ago

The ADA isn't some surprise gotcha that crept up on any of these people, it has been around for 36 years. The problem is that 36 years later, people are still ignoring the fact that disabled people even exist. Whether or not we want to admit it, this stuff happens because people think and act like it is okay to disregard accessibility.

kaseijin 1mo ago
Already had accessibility. Now there's none.
infamia 1mo ago
> The ADA isn't some surprise gotcha that crept up on any of these people The ADA was written in an extremely non-specific way that allows unelected bureaucrats to reinterpret it every so often. To be honest, the US would probably have a more accessible society if the law was better written.
- kube-system 1mo ago
  That's a problem with executive political appointees more so than the unelected bureaucrats. Career civil servants working in a regulatory capacity are typically very consistent experts who do a good job of taking vague shit that congress would otherwise fuck up trying to define more specifically and interpreting it in a way that makes practical sense to people who know what the fuck is actually going on. It's the political appointee leadership that tries to pull the creative reinterpretation nonsense you're talking about.

rpdillon 29d ago

This is exactly the case that came to mind when I saw the headline. They had gobs of course videos that they released online so that anybody could watch them. I was incredibly delighted to see a state funded school doing this. And they had to pull them all because they didn't have a feasible way of adding subtitles.