Re:Ask HN: Which Berkeley Courses Should I Archive?
by DanBC on Wednesday March 15, 2017 @07:59AM
(#13875471)
Making those 20,000 videos accessible now would be expensive.
But since the law had been in place at least 15 years before these videos were created Berkeley should have just complied with the law, and stopped their employees from lying about complying with the law, when the content was created.
All the videos created before 2015 were "self certified" - someone had to sign a bit of paper to say "I've read the Berkeley stuff on accessibility, and this content is accessible".
> I see far more promise in working on automated transcription
That only fixes the subtitling issue. While in this case the complainant were people with hearing impairment the DoJ letter is clear that the content is not accessible to people with hearing impairment, or visual impairment, or manual disability.
> Could this all potentially just boil down to a couple of professors who didn't have the budget to transcribe what they wanted from free videos thinking if they shook down UC Berkeley with the DOJ they would get it done by UC Berkeley for them, but the scheme went very awry?
Interesting that you use the term "shook down", when it's Berkeley that was not complying with either the law or its own policies.
The problem here was all the people signing Berkeley documents saying they had complied with Berkeley polices and the law when they were ignoring the law.
But since the law had been in place at least 15 years before these videos were created Berkeley should have just complied with the law, and stopped their employees from lying about complying with the law, when the content was created.
All the videos created before 2015 were "self certified" - someone had to sign a bit of paper to say "I've read the Berkeley stuff on accessibility, and this content is accessible".
> I see far more promise in working on automated transcription
That only fixes the subtitling issue. While in this case the complainant were people with hearing impairment the DoJ letter is clear that the content is not accessible to people with hearing impairment, or visual impairment, or manual disability.
> Could this all potentially just boil down to a couple of professors who didn't have the budget to transcribe what they wanted from free videos thinking if they shook down UC Berkeley with the DOJ they would get it done by UC Berkeley for them, but the scheme went very awry?
Interesting that you use the term "shook down", when it's Berkeley that was not complying with either the law or its own policies.
The problem here was all the people signing Berkeley documents saying they had complied with Berkeley polices and the law when they were ignoring the law.