Hacker News Reader

Comment by trendia | Hacker News Reader

I randomly picked a video [0] from their course list, jumped to the middle of the video, and compared the YouTube automatic closed captioning (CC) with the spoken word. I'd say CC was about 95% accurate.

In addition, the videos have slides, which would provide context to be able to figure out the remaining 5% that wasn't properly captioned.

So, my question is: who is served by this lawsuit? Surely there are deaf people who are quite alright with watching these videos with the auto CC, and believe they would be better off if the videos were available in their current form than not available at all. Just look at the list of courses [1] that will be removed.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3PF_vD2n4g&index=1&list=PL-...

[1] http://webcast.berkeley.edu/series#c,s

View on HN

Automated speech to text is still a pretty mixed bag. A lot depends on sound quality, speaker accent, nature of the material etc. I just (again) spent some time looking at various options for my podcast and decided pretty quickly to continue using human transcriptions because anything else just wasn't worth my time.

But, for this application, I would have thought the YouTube CC was pretty adequate. Especially given that, as you say, I'd expect most college courses on technical topics are going to have a lot of the content on the slides anyway.

Google officially stated that error rate is less than 50%, 95% is just making numbers up based on one or a few videos. When you look at the whole thing, there's still a lot to improve.

Who is served are people with disabilities that get quality educational content instead of half-baked educational content.

Well in this case they are getting nothing, like the rest of us, no?

But you got born in a civilization with access ramps, accessibility washrooms, semaphores with audio feedback , etc, just in case one day you may be incapacitated in some fashion. If such tragedy strikes, you can still be productive and somewhat happy/content. You can live, and occasionally, if you happen to be called Hawking, turn physics university upside down for benefits of the masses.

If it was left to the companies,they'd maximize profit and streets will look like 15 century London.

So, the society, in the current incarnation, will stongarm the misbehaving entities to ensure that the overall civilization benefits.

Most in this thread are not seeing this because they aren't looking at the big picture of what a society really is, and what values it upholds (sometimes even by force).

I'm not arguing against the ADA. I think disability benefits are important. But I think it isn't having the intended effect- getting UC Berkeley to improve the accessibility of these videos. I understand what the law is trying to accomplish and agree that we should optimize for that, but the practical effects might need a few edge cases hammered out. I think everyone can agree the better outcome would be one where somehow UC Berkeley is in a position to improve the accessibility of these existing videos.

Except that in this case the blind will no longer be able to listen to the audio recordings and the deaf will no longer be able to use the animations and automated closed captions.

They should have struck a deal where all new content will be ADA compliant and all courses will never depend/actively refer to the old material, but keep the old material still online for further research.

Of course UC needs to stay compliant. But that doesn't mean forcing it to take down old material will help anyone.

Harrison Bergeron.

So if something isn't offered in every language, transcribed, sign language overlay, CC, and let's say color blind mode... it's half baked educational content?

I'm asking honest where you draw the line.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com