Well, how much good does that do anyone?
But in this case, the complaint was that the transcription wasn’t perfect. Should they also be forced to take down the website if the speaker didn’t speak perfect English?
Well, how much good does that do anyone?
But in this case, the complaint was that the transcription wasn’t perfect. Should they also be forced to take down the website if the speaker didn’t speak perfect English?
> But in this case, the complaint was that the transcription wasn’t perfect.
This is a falsehood. The complaint was that some videos had no transcription at all.
There were other complaints, BTW - it wasn't just subtitles. There were complaints about blind people not being able to read the docs.
Edit: I think one of the (multiple) complaints was poor transcription. What I meant by "falsehood" was actually referring to an earlier comment that said something to the effect of "they provided subtitles". In some cases they did not provide subtitles.
Just doing a little research - I haven’t looked too deeply into- Google live caption has been built into Chrome since 2021 and there have been third party tools for accessibility since 2016.
But the overall question, is the world a better place now that the information isn’t available to anyone?
> But the overall question, is the world a better place now that the information isn’t available to anyone?
Sorry, but the question is: Is the world a better place if organizations feel they need not comply with this law?
If the answer is yes, then go fix the law. Stop picking on the little guys.
The organization did comply with the law - they gave everyone the same access - none