No, you don't have to. It's just annoying when people give talks, or make interesting videos for a product and they forget about people who may be hard of hearing, Deaf or from overseas.
That's such a big chunk of the market that they're missing out on.
It is always much easier to criticize the work of others than to do similar work. Can't you be grateful that the author shared something of value, even if it is not perfect, rather than just deciding not to share because 1) there are no subtitles; 2) even if there were subtitles, they were only available in English; 3) the choice of colors is not optimal for people that are color blind; etc. Should they give up on sharing it, because they do not have the time to invest in making it better?
Do you have any idea how long it takes to add subtitles to a video? My point was, and still is, that it is always easier to criticize work of others (and complain when something is "missing") than doing the work yourself. If someone had come out and said: I've produced X videos and added subtitles to Y (where both X and Y are relatively large numbers) and I am disappointed that so few authors do the same ... then I would respect the statement as valid criticism.
wow what a douchebag response. Its not this guys fault that he has hearing problems. Its a valid comment to make. The guy said he wished there were subtitles because he cannot hear whats being said and that he feels that people who don't add subtitles are missing out on a much larger audience. This doesn't sound ungrateful to me at all but a valid observation.
Can't you be grateful that the author shared something of value
Why should someone be grateful for content they cannot consume?
Should they give up on sharing it, because they do not have the time to invest in making it better?
He never said they shouldn't share it at all, he only said he wished they would add subtitles. Nowhere did he say "if they don't add subtitles, you know what, fuck it, they shouldn't share the video at all".
It sucks that you have to put up with this, but let's not pretend it's a "big chunk."
According to the Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, an article published in 2005 cites 11MM HOH and deaf individuals in the United States[1]. The Population Reference Bureau cites 296MM US citizens in the same year[2]. It's important to note that according to the first source, "over half" of those that are HOH or deaf are over 65 - likely not the target market of this video.
Even if we were to completely ignore the demographic issue of who makes up the majority of HOH and deaf individuals, we're talking about just over 3.7% of the population in the US (I would assume it's roughly similar when extrapolated to the entire internet population).
I think that anyone for whom the HOH and deaf population was a target market would certain take every opportunity to make their materials accessible.
It's a much bigger chunk if you include those with missing/broken speakers, easily annoyed roommates, a loud environment, or who are otherwise incapable of listening to sound, permanently or transiently.
I can't reply to the sibling comment (davidw's) about video (level cap?), but I vehemently agree. I can read much faster than most people speak, (and can't "skim" a spoken monologue), so I almost always prefer text to video.
I'm feeling increasingly like an old gaffer complaining about these "young 'uns" and their "yoo tubes" (at a middling 30-something), but I see this trend toward video when text would suffice as evidence of a societal lack of good (writing) education.
Sure, in the OP's instance, it's a presentation he made to someone else, so a video is probably easiest, but this was a good opportunity to rant.
.. but I see this trend toward video when text would suffice as evidence of a societal lack of good (writing) education
Think it's because there's so much written information now, I can't even read 1% of the stuff I want to. After reading "all day", good videos, e.g. talks, are refreshing.
My understanding is there's a relative level cap for the "reply" link, but no absolute level cap. So if you want to reply to something that lacks the reply link, click its "link" link to view it directly, and you can reply.
"Loathe" is way too strong but I also prefer writing to video most of the time. Still, I prefer video-with-subtitles to video-without-subtitles, if it's going to be video regardless, so I don't need to fish out headphones or whatnot.
I like to scan articles quickly for keywords/key phrases/diagrams/code snippets. I'm often put off when something is in video for simply because this is not easy to do. Together with the sound issue in my other comment, this means that I often end up never watching videos that provide content I would otherwise have enjoyed or found useful.
Am I the one missing out? Probably, but I also pass a lot of content that I do like around to lots of people, so the authors also lose out on a potential fanbase/readership/whatever.
Agreed - I currently do a lot of my work in a shared office space and I don't always have headphones. This is the place where I would watch a lot of videos (or at least take a peek, and if they're good, make a mental note to watch them later). A phenomenal number of videos don't get watched because I happen to not have sound for whatever reason at that specific point in time.
Interesting - 3.7% sounds quite large to me. Where is the acceptable cutoff for a site that is not catering to the hearing impaired? It is a large enough percentage of the population that it seems like definite loss to have that many people excluded from online video content, generally speaking. It is a very widespread problem.
The author isn't forgetting people who are hard of hearing; he's just not addressing them. It's a perfectly legitimate choice to make. It sucks for you. It also sucks for the people who don't read Clojure. You can't blame the author because he isn't catering to your needs.
I've made webcast videos before. It's not easy. I also didn't caption them because it's a hell of a lot of work. Sorry. You can ask, but you can't expect.
While I think it would be great to provide the video to the whole market, I'm somewhat sympathetic — making a video takes a long time. Subbing it would make things take a lot longer. I could understand people deciding to just do an MVP which works for 90+% of the market.
That's such a big chunk of the market that they're missing out on.