zlacker

>>vermon+(OP)
Since the NPR is a 3 minute listen without a transcript, here's the ACLU's text/image article: https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/wrongfully-arre...

And here's a 1st-person account from the arrested man: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/24/i-was-wro...

>>danso+21
As soon as I saw it was audio only, i left the site. Why do sites do this? How many people actually stick to the page and listen to that?

>>TedDoe+36
Well, if anyone were going to do it, you'd think no one would be surprised about it being the "National Public Radio"

>>013a+mm
Accessibility still matters, or should still matter even if you’re a radio station, but probably especially if you’re a news radio station.

>>dvtrn+9o
How many TV shows have audio descriptions of non verbal parts of what you see on screen?

>>scarfa+mE
More than zero. It's called closed captioning, isn't it? I've quite often seen closed-captioning that put brief written descriptions of non-verbal depictions in bracket, and it's not entirely common either

https://www.automaticsync.com/captionsync/what-qualifies-as-... (see section: "High Quality Captioning")

>>dvtrn+C01
Close captioning is for people who can’t hear.

I am not aware of many TV shows that offer audio commentary for the visually impaired.

Here is an example of one that does.

https://www.npr.org/2015/04/18/400590705/after-fan-pressure-...

>>scarfa+a11
Sorry, I thought that since we were originally talking about transcriptions of radio news broadcasts and accessibility for the hard of hearing that closed-captioning would be appropriate and relevant. But your point is well met.