DOJ goes after library for eReader programs

[Graham]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

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.

And lecterns.

Graham

[MikeB1972]

Does every single book in US libraries need to have a braile or audio version for blind people? If not then how is this any different to them not being able to use the eBooks the library offers?

[david_e]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Does every single book in US libraries need to have a braile or audio version for blind people?...

In a word, yes.

[Fluribus]

I cannot shake the belief that the world should not be remade for me. If I were going to sue someone, it would be for calling me "differently abled" or "handi-capable" Does the ADA allow me to hit those people?

[meeera]

I can't shake the belief that the world should have been made to include everyone as much as possible in the first place - especially in basic public services.

Now we're in the painful, expensive process of fixing the exclusionary mistakes of the past; and we are making sure that we don't keep making the same mistakes, which is why the time to consider access & inclusion is while planning a new programme, not afterwards.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by meeera

I can't shake the belief that the world should have been made to include everyone as much as possible in the first place - especially in basic public services.

You're going to have to spend a lot more money than you already are to include me. You're going to end up including me into a lot of places where you couldn't pay me to go.

[Skydog]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

Am I in bizarro world? A blind woman was disgruntled because she can't use an ereader.....*clears cobwebs from head*...am I missing something here? How is this discrimination? I hate to break it to this lady but she's BLIND, there are always going to be things she can't do; that's simply the hand that nature dealt her. Borrow a book on tape. And suing a library that is probably already hanging on by a thread is just low. Sorry.

Absurd.

Agreed, 200%. Two words: tort reform.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Skydog

Agreed, 200%. Two words: tort reform.

And that will stop the department of justice from enforcing a federal law how?

This case does not involve a tort. This case does not even involve anyone suing anyone else.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

And that will stop the department of justice from enforcing a federal law how?

This case does not involve a tort. This case does not even involve anyone suing anyone else.

Torte reform. You have to eat a ton of rich cake before you're allowed to file a complaint.

[david_e]

I'm a bit perplexed at how people on a site devoted to mobile reading devices can't see how using a device and digital files is a much better way to use tax dollars than trying to maintain physical items such as books on tape or braille books.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

Torte reform. You have to eat a ton of rich cake before you're allowed to file a complaint.

Mmmm, I'll file two! Three if the lawyer gets a slice...

[Byrdie]

Legally blind person here. I do nearly all my reading on my computer and e-reader. But when the power goes, my fingers still work just fine. ;-)

[dwlloyd810]

As a person with limited vision, I have a different perspective. I appreciate the stance the Department of Justice took in this case, which was consistent with the existing requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). I think the library may have made a rather expensive choice in selecting iPads to resolve the issue when very adequate Android readers exist for under $50 that would have run equivalent software, but during this critical period when new technologies are in competition for market dominance, now is the least expensive time to ensure the ADA requirements are met. If disabled people don't take a stand for their rights from the beginning, (yes, the law requires reasonable accommodation for disabilities, so they ARE rights) the cost may be too great later. Especially with the changes that disability forces on a person's life, it is important for the disabled to be able to access ebooks and internet content. Responsible web designers include a text description of every photograph, and include meaningful descriptions of every user interface object so reader devices for the blind can accurately describe a webpage and accept spoken responses for navigation. Sure, these requirements seem tedious now, but the infrastructure they build will last for generations, and the benefit to millions of disabled people will be worth the small price today.

[dwlloyd810]

The issue behind the arguments I have read here is legitimate, that it is wasteful to strive for equality when equality cannot be achieved, but the disabled are not striving for equality; we are striving for equal opportunity.

Equal opportunity is essential to a free society. Equal opportunity ensures everyone has a hope that their efforts will be rewarded.

Equality is bad because it is wasteful to strive for the impossible, and waste hurts everyone. Inequality can be good when it motivates people to better themselves with creative solutions and meaningful change.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by dwlloyd810

Sure, these requirements seem tedious now, but the infrastructure they build will last for generations, and the benefit to millions of disabled people will be worth the small price today.

I am crippled. These requirements will remain tedious. The costs are excessive. There is no end in sight.

Where will all the poor cripples (like me) be when the bottom falls out? When there's no money for basic services?