DOJ goes after library for eReader programs

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by rhadin

...the only device that would meet the requirements is a iPad.... Come to think of it, how would the iPad -- or any current device -- qualify? They all rely on touchscreens to access most commands.

The Kindle Keyboard/DX's work fine for TTS/accessibility issues.

I don't know how the accessibility functions work on the iPad, but apparently it's got something built in. I don't know if the iBooks, Kindle or B&N apps have TTS capability though.

[BeccaPrice]

Just out of curiosity, why do the publishers object to Amazon's TTS and not to the iPad's equivalent feature?

[tubemonkey]

This ruling is ridiculous in that it requires all devices purchased to be accessible by anyone with a disability. What it will do is force many libraries to abandon the purchase of ereaders altogether.

What's wrong with buying eink ereaders for most everyone to use and then a few iPod touchs for those that are blind?

Under the settlement agreement, the library will not acquire any additional e-readers for patron use that exclude persons who are blind or others with disabilities who need accessible features such as text-to-speech functions or the ability to access menus through audio or tactile options. The library has also agreed to acquire at least 18 e-readers that are accessible to persons with disabilities. The settlement agreement also requires the library to train its staff on the requirements of the ADA.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, that's precisely the point. The iPad has a "spoken" UI out of the box, the Kindle has no spoken UI.

The Kindle is a fail in terms of accessibility.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

This ruling is ridiculous in that it requires all devices purchased to be accessible by anyone with a disability. What it will do is force many libraries to abandon the purchase of ereaders altogether.

Would that really be a bad result?

To discuss this, it is worth looking at the Sacramento Nook collection:

http://find.saclibrarycatalog.org/ii...e=&target=nook

Lending out dozens of books only one person can read at a time makes little sense. It's true that some (but far from all) libraries allow patrons to borrow that many. But most patrons only take out a few books at a time.

Also, when I take out multiple paper -- or Overdrive -- books, I plan on reading, or at least starting, all of them. If I lived in Sacramento and took out a Nook, it would be because I had found one book I wanted to read. They apparently try to address this by making most devices single genre (romance, mystery, sci-fi, urban), I presume with the hope that more than one book will interest the borrower. I find this slightly insulting to readers -- as if all they care about is one genre. Even if it is true that some people only read in one genre, surely the library should be encouraging patrons to broaden themselves.

A goodly number of those Nooks look to be seriously overdue to the point of having been stolen. I expect Apple products to be stolen at a much higher rate.

If librarians in other cities read about this, and consider the disability issue as one more reason not to do it, good.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

This ruling is ridiculous in that it requires all devices purchased to be accessible by anyone with a disability. What it will do is force many libraries to abandon the purchase of ereaders altogether.

What's wrong with buying eink ereaders for most everyone to use and then a few iPod touchs for those that are blind?

I don't begrudge libraries buying thing for people with disabilities. Don't begrudge libraries buying things for people who aren't blind.

What the ruling means is that there will be no eink readers purchased and thus, no way for libraries to be able to show them off to patrons or use them to help patrons with questions.

I think whoever complained is a mean person who should be banned from libraries.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Would that really be a bad result?

It's not, because I oppose libraries purchasing ereaders; and I definitely don't like the idea of having them pre-loaded with a specific genre.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

What's wrong with buying eink ereaders for most everyone to use and then a few iPod touchs for those that are blind?

Uh... That's pretty much what they are going to do.

They will not purchase any additional units that are not accessible, and will purchase 18 devices that are accessible.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Uh... That's pretty much what they are going to do.

They will not purchase any additional units that are not accessible, and will purchase 18 devices that are accessible.

The ruling said they can't ever buy an ereader that isn't accessible to everyone.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I don't know how the accessibility functions work on the iPad, but apparently it's got something built in. I don't know if the iBooks, Kindle or B&N apps have TTS capability though.

Details of the iPad accessibility functions for the blind and partially sighted:
http://www.apple.com/accessibility/ipad/vision.html

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Details of the iPad accessibility functions for the blind and partially sighted:
http://www.apple.com/accessibility/ipad/vision.html

The same features are also present in the iPod touch and iPhone.

[Daithi]

When I first posted this thread, I thought it was ridiculous that the DOJ was preventing libraries from offering certain eReaders because they weren't accessible to the blind. After reading some of the comments here, I am beginning to be swayed to the other side. If an eReader is available that blind people could use then the library should have it available for blind patrons. Of course, other eReaders are less expensive, so I wouldn't have a problem if libraries bought both. On the other hand, tubemonkey made a pretty good point when he asked why libraries are buying eReaders at all.

[BuddyBoy]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

This ruling is ridiculous in that it requires all devices purchased to be accessible by anyone with a disability. What it will do is force many libraries to abandon the purchase of ereaders altogether.

What's wrong with buying eink ereaders for most everyone to use and then a few iPod touchs for those that are blind?

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.

[Graham]

However, given the absence of full audio navigation on most products, the choice at the moment seems to be iPad/iPod vs eInk. A mix is surely necessary, as while the iOS devices would be better for the blind, they would be a poor choice for those that find it uncomfortable to read on a backlit screen.

Graham

[tubemonkey]

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.