Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 309 posts

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#111

Post by DanBC »

Kalium wrote: post #100
jamesbrownuhh wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you've got a script then software like CMU Sphinx (open source) can use voice recognition to align the words of the script with the time of the soundtrack. Services like YouTube will even do that for you, if you can provide the bare minimum of a transcript. If even that sounds too hard, you can let YouTube's automatic subtitling produce an initial transcript - sometimes this can be surprisingly good, depending on…

Bluntly, when I make and release content for free I'm generally not very interested in paying for small boost in user numbers. Especially since for most videos, that 7-15% boost is maybe ten views.

It's weird that some sections of HN obsess over AB testing the colours of buttons and are happy to pay for that, but putting captions on a video and it's fuck those deaf people.

And they don't seem to realise that it's not just deaf people that benefit from captions. There are a bunch of situations where I could really do with captions -- coffee shops; planes; late nights; etc etc.

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#112

Post by jamesbrownuhh »

hga wrote: post #107
jamesbrownuhh wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you've got a script then software like CMU Sphinx (open source) can use voice recognition to align the words of the script with the time of the soundtrack. Services like YouTube will even do that for you, if you can provide the bare minimum of a transcript. If even that sounds too hard, you can let YouTube's automatic subtitling produce an initial transcript - sometimes this can be surprisingly good, depending on…

Perhaps you're getting down voted because of who's pocket you want this "access" to come out of? Perhaps because you can't conceive that one inevitable result of this is that whole lot less material with audio is going to be published by US institutions going forward? Especially if a legal regime has to be set up to vet everything posted in any formal way by a member of these communities? In the case of MIT students,…

My single and only point is that access is good. I'm not talking about costs, because it doesn't NEED to cost ANY money - and even when it does, the below-sweatshop rate card of $1/minute is hardly going to break the bank.

I'm saying that ultimately if you put things online for free, your motivation is probably that you want people to see them. Adding captions substantially increases the number of people who can, and will.

Under NO circumstances should anything be pulled or not published at all purely because it isn't captioned. Captions are good but obviously if they're not there, they're not there.

I don't see why I'm being systematically downvoted for saying that. It's not controversial, surely.

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#113

Post by jamesbrownuhh »

teraflop wrote: post #110
jamesbrownuhh wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a single native-language caption track is all that's necessary. Computers can already do a pretty good job of translating that into the hundreds of other possible languages.

This is extremely dependent on which languages you're talking about. For instance, my experience with automatic translation between Japanese and English varies from "jumbled, but conveys the gist of the original text" to "entirely incoherent". (Bing seems to do slightly better than Google, incidentally.)

Accepted. Far better than nothing at all (in most cases) though, I'd suggest.

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#114

Post by Bootvis »

kelukelugames wrote: post #18
alistairSH wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure this is a shakedown. The article mentions a previous case against Netflix that was settled with an agreement from Netflix to provide closed captioning in the near future.

The government provides mediation and reconciliation before these things go to court. I don't think anyone disagrees on adding captions. They probably went a head with the suit because they couldn't settle on a dollar figure.

Or not basically you don't know and just stating this must be shakedown because mediation exists. A pretty weak argument IMO.

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#115

Post by Sanddancer »

erok wrote: post #21
jdreaver wrote: post #8

I don't like this type of precedent. If I make a video wherein I teach some concept, but don't provide closed captions, and then distribute the video for free, am I discriminating against the deaf? If I knew I had to create closed captions, and then make a braille transcript, or maybe even make my video colorblind friendly, I just wouldn't make the video in the first place. I sympathize with folks with disabilities,…

I agree. There goes free online courses from MIT and Harvard due to the impending legal fees implied. Thank you National Association of the Deaf.

Which means you'll have just as much access to the knowledge as deaf people. Accessibility should never be an add-on.

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#116

Post by [deleted] »

jdreaver wrote: post #19
chrisabrams wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I share a similar viewpoint. Wouldn't it be a better usage of funds to donate to these projects for caption support instead of using those funds to pay attorneys? Why is it so hard to be constructive?

Agreed. Really, I do applaud people going out of their way to accommodate others. If I had just one personal, direct request to create closed captions along with a "please," you bet I would try to help someone out. But making it illegal not to do so puts a sour taste in my mouth.

[deleted]

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#117

Post by Retra »

Sanddancer wrote: post #115
erok wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. There goes free online courses from MIT and Harvard due to the impending legal fees implied. Thank you National Association of the Deaf.

Which means you'll have just as much access to the knowledge as deaf people. Accessibility should never be an add-on.

You have a good point, but I would point out that deaf people watching a silent un-captioned video is more access to knowledge than watching no video at all.

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#118

Post by balls187 »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #73
6stringmerc wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think you're misapplying your principle in this instance. I think Harvard or MIT should have to provide captions in the spirit of the law that exists. It's not like the ADA was passed last year, so to think that the physical Harvard/MIT facilities would be ADA compliant but online facilities would not strikes me as a necessary coming to grips with the law as it's written. Hence the lawyers will fight this out…

For the purposes of armchair moralizing, who cares about the law as written? Pretend we're making the law, instead of deferring to the law as written. Should we in fact tell them "it is illegal for you to put out this material to benefit much of humanity, without also expending additional effort to benefit the deaf part of humanity?"

>Should we in fact tell them "it is illegal for you to put out this material to benefit much of humanity, without also expending additional effort to benefit the deaf part of humanity?"

Yes.

To prevent this exact line of thinking, laws exist. Not just to protect the majority, but to protect EVERYONE as equals, under the rule of law.

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#119

Post by dethstar »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #73
6stringmerc wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think you're misapplying your principle in this instance. I think Harvard or MIT should have to provide captions in the spirit of the law that exists. It's not like the ADA was passed last year, so to think that the physical Harvard/MIT facilities would be ADA compliant but online facilities would not strikes me as a necessary coming to grips with the law as it's written. Hence the lawyers will fight this out…

For the purposes of armchair moralizing, who cares about the law as written? Pretend we're making the law, instead of deferring to the law as written. Should we in fact tell them "it is illegal for you to put out this material to benefit much of humanity, without also expending additional effort to benefit the deaf part of humanity?"

Take your stand to other disabilities.

Should we in fact thell them "is it illegal to build a sidewalk to benefit much of humanity, without also expending additional effort to benefit the part of humanity that requires of wheelchairs"?

I think we should, because I think people with disability have the same right to move or to learn than I do. And accommodating to them is important.

Re: Harvard and M.I.T. Sued Over Failing to Caption Online Courses

#120

Post by lifeformed »

sp332 wrote: post #103
cl0ber wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes no sense. What's wrong with outsourcing something you're not very good at? I don't speak Hindi, I'll happoly outsource the translation of video to an agency that can do this for me. Same with sign language, I don't know it. I'll happily outsource to an agency that can do the sign language translation. Care to explain why you think I should have the skills inhouse to suport multiple types of accessibility w…

Outsource if you like, but at least pay for it. Don't make deaf people pay for something you gave for free to everyone else.

Should they also have to pay for translation to all languages?
Post reply on HN