The obvious answer is that you grandfather in existing content, and only require accessibility for content created after a certain date. That way, actual courses are accessible, and the roughly 7 billion human beings who don't go to Berkeley can still access the old content.
The content only exists because it's cheap to put online. If you require that someone transcribe it for closed captioning, it is like putting a tax on video uploads. They just won't be uploaded.
Barring some public funding to make it possible for institutions to caption videos, which would be the reasonable solution, the demand for captioning vastly raises the barriers towards putting content online.
The content only exists because it's cheap to put online. If you require that someone transcribe it for closed captioning, it is like putting a tax on video uploads. They just won't be uploaded.
Because it's prohibitively expensive, or because they can't be arsed?
I used to assume the prohibitively expensive angle, but DEF CON has had live closed captioning for 3 or 4 years now, and is done so the recorded material can be used in classrooms with accessibility requirements. If DT can afford it, I have little regard for people who pretend to be committed to educating the masses and still don't bother.
DEFCON also has a budget of millions of dollars to host a 4 day event, as well as a very loyal and dedicated team of volunteers. What value is there in comparing such a vastly different organization?
Why are Americans with disabilities more important than people from other nations?
This is entirely separate from your examples, as people in india arent taking american buses or elevators - but they most certainly are taking advantage of american educational content that is publicly available.
Basically. Or at least, giving stuff away was cool, because it cost very little. But once it becomes expensive, why divert resources from paying students?
Some wider implications are very alarming. Consider all of the video content that libraries hold. If it's not ADA-compliant, having it available to the general public is arguably discriminatory.
Widely available for what video? For popular stuff, sure. For torrented movies, it's often crowd sourced, and often almost inscrutable. If you mean software for transcribing audio, that was judged not good enough.
uhh, we are commenting on a post about a school who had to pull all of their videos because they were sued that the closed captioning was not accurate enough.
try harder? did you forget an /s?
