| ▲ | hackernewds 3 months ago |
| What a silly requirement? Since 1% cannot benefit, let's remove it for the 99% |
|
| ▲ | kleiba 3 months ago | parent | next [-] |
| Note that Berkeley is in theory not required to remove the video archive. It's just that by law, they are required to add captions. So, if they want to keep it up, that's what they could do. Except that it's not really a choice - the costs for doing so would be prohibitive. So, really, Berkeley is left with no choice: making the recording accessible or don't offer them at all means - in practice - "don't offer them at all". Clearly the result of a regulation that meant well. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It's a bit reminiscent of a law that prevents institutions from continually offering employees non-permanent work contracts. As in, after two fixed-term contracts, the third one must be permanent. The idea is to guarantee workers more stable and long-term perspectives. The result, however, is that the employee's contract won't get renewed at all after the second one, and instead someone else will be hired on a non-permanent contract. |
| |
| ▲ | freedomben 3 months ago | parent [-] | | > the road to hell is paved with good intentions The longer I live the more the truth of this gets reinforced. We humans really are kind of bad at designing systems and/or solving problems (especially problems of our own making). Most of us are like Ralph Wiggum with a crayon sticking out of our noises saying, "I'm helping!" |
|
|
| ▲ | Thorrez 3 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In the past, my university was publishing and mailing me a print magazine, and making it available in pdf form online. Then they stopped making the pdf available. I emailed them and asked why. They said it's because the pdf wasn't accessible. But the print form was even less accessible, and they kept publishing that... |
| |
|
| ▲ | 3abiton 3 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's one of those "to motivate the horse to run 1% faster, you add shit ton of weight on top of it" strategy. |
|
| ▲ | IanCal 3 months ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The problem is that having that rule results in those 1%s always being excluded. It's probably worth just going back and looking at the arguments for laws around accessibility. |
| |
| ▲ | mst 3 months ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, every time I try and figure out an approach that could've avoided this being covered by the rules without making it easy for everybody to screw over deaf people entirely I end up coming to the conclusion that there probably isn't one. I'm somewhat tempted to think that whoever sued berkeley and had the whole thing taken down in this specific case was just being a knob, but OTOH there's issues even with that POV in terms of letting precedents be set that will de facto still become "screw over deaf people entirely" even when everybody involved is doing their best to act in good faith. Hopefully speech-to-text and text-to-speech will make the question moot in the medium term. | | |
| ▲ | freedomben 3 months ago | parent [-] | | > Hopefully speech-to-text and text-to-speech will make the question moot in the medium term. I really think this and other tech advances are going to be our saviors. It's still early days and it sometimes gets things wrong, but it's going to get good and it will basically allow us to have our cake and eat it too (as long as we can prevent having automated solutions banned). | | |
| ▲ | mst 3 months ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, my hopes have the caveat of "this requires regulations to catch up to where technology is at rather than making everything worse" and in addition to my generally low opinion of politicians (the ones I've voted for absolutely included) there's a serious risk of a "boomers versus technology" incident spannering it even if everything else goes right ... but I can still *hope* even if I can see a number of possible futures where said hopes will turn out to be in vain. |
|
|
|
