Originally Posted by BuddyBoy
From a common sense perspective, no problem at all. From a legal/rights perspective, I can appreciate the argument that if you intend to purchase a reader to be loaned out, and you have a choice between a reader that meets the needs of one group vs the needs of two groups, it might be fairer to select the latter, even at an increase in cost. Otherwise, no matter how you divide your funds into two readers, someone will accuse you of purchasing an unfair ratio of one to the other.
The ratio is easily solved by national averages. What percent of the population is legally blind? 10%? 20%? That's the number you use when purchasing devices.
If it's done the way you suggest, it means only purchasing $400~$500 iPads, because they're the only devices that fulfill all requirements. That's a funding nightmare and will lead many libraries to say "forget it; we won't get any ereaders at all".
It's much better to purchase $99 eInk devices for general use and $199 iPod touches for the blind.
Still, I question the wisdom of getting these devices to begin with. Libraries should only provide content, not devices. If they're going to provide ereaders, they they should also provide MP3 players, DVD players, and gaming consoles.