https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08...

> The Department found that of the 543 videos it could identify on the YouTube channel, 75 had manually generated closed captions. Of the remainder, many had automatic captioning generated by YouTube’s speech recognition technology. In March 2015, the Department selected 30 videos – 15 with manually generated closed captions, 15 without – for review. The 6 lectures were selected across a sample of subjects and based on popularity. Examples of barriers to access on UC Berkeley YouTube channel content included the following:

> 1. Automatically generated captions were inaccurate and incomplete, making the content inaccessible to individuals with hearing disabilities.

> 2. Approximately half the videos did not provide audio description or any other alternative format for the visual information (graphs, charts, animations, or items on the chalkboard) contained in the videos. For example, in one video lecture, a professor pointed to and talked about an image and its structure without describing the image, making it inaccessible to individuals with vision disabilities.

> 3. Some visual content presented in the slide presentations had low color contrast. For example, two video lectures referenced computer code on the screen that had insufficient color contrast, making it difficult for an individual with low vision to discern. Another video lecture used different colored lines on a graph, but the colors could not be differentiated by an individual with low vision.

It's not just old content created with old tech.

> In January of 2016, the Department reviewed ten new and archived courses available on UC BerkeleyX. The Department observed some improvement in new and archived courses, including the addition of closed captions on some content, but in general, the new courses had most of the previously reported accessibility issues and the archived courses were still inaccessible. Specifically, the Department found that both new and archived courses are inaccessible because many have incorrect alternative text, videos without captions, undefined headings, a lack of color contrast, inaccessible PDFs, and inaccessible keyboard links.

People seem to be focusing on captioning. That's part of the problem, and maybe the hardest to solve, but it's not the only problem. There also seems to be a focus on hearing impairment, but deaf people aren't the only people with disability that Berkeley chose, illegally, to exclude.

> Between March and April 2015, the Department reviewed the sixteen MOOCs then available to the public on UC BerkeleyX. None of the courses reviewed were entirely accessible. For each course reviewed, it would be difficult for an individual with a hearing, vision, or manual disability to understand the content conveyed to course participants. Examples of barriers to access found across most course content included the following:

> 1. Some videos did not have captions. As a result, the audio content in the video was inaccessible to people with hearing disabilities.

> 2. Some videos were inaccessible to people with vision disabilities for several reasons. First, many videos did not provide an alternative way to access images or visual information (e.g., graphs, charts, animations, or urls on slides), such as audio description, alternative text, PDF files, or Word documents. Second, videos containing text sometimes had poor color contrast, which made the text unreadable for those with low vision. Finally, information was sometimes conveyed using color alone (for instance, a chart or graph would differentiate information only by color),
which is not accessible to individuals with vision disabilities.

> 3. Many documents were inaccessible to individuals with vision disabilities who use screen readers because the document was not formatted properly. For instance, headings were sometimes neither defined nor arranged in a logical order; page structure was not always defined, contained empty elements or was incorrectly defined; some tables did not have row and column headers defined; math equations were not always defined in a comprehendible way. Many PDFs either did not have a tag structure defined or the tag structure was incorrect. Individuals with vision disabilities who use screen readers would have a difficult time understanding and navigating the content.

> 4. Some links were not keyboard accessible and did not indicate whether they were expandable or collapsible, so individuals with vision disabilities who use screen readers may not understand the purpose of the links and individuals with manual disabilities would not be able to use the links.

> 5. Websites and materials that were integrated into the course material were not fully accessible