DOJ goes after library for eReader programs

[Catlady]

Is a library allowed to offer a physical book that is not available in Braille or in an audio version? If so, shouldn't someone sue?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Is a library allowed to offer a physical book that is not available in Braille or in an audio version? If so, shouldn't someone sue?

Don't give them ideas!

Fortunately, ADA has limits.
Unfortunately, the way Congress drafts laws like that they leave them fuzzy on purpose. The limits are whatever judges say they are, afer long and expensive litigation.
That's why ADA and similar laws are colloquially known as Lawyer Full-Employment Acts.

[HarryT]

Presumably, then, American libraries aren't allowed to have CDs, because deaf people can't listen to them?

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

If B&N had included a text-to-speech option, or the library had used Amazon Kindles or some other e-ink device with text-to-speech, the costs would be the same. If they used iPads from the start, it'd probably cost them an extra $2000.

That some text-to-speech option that it's disabled at almost all the ebooks? And I agree, get a Kindle device, you'll see the wide selection at your library.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Presumably, then, American libraries aren't allowed to have CDs, because deaf people can't listen to them?

That may be grandfathered since they were doing it before the ADA was passed.
Then again, many deaf people refuse to think of themselves as disabled so they may simply be refusing to sue over it.
http://www.beyonddiscovery.org/conte...page.asp?I=261

[taming]

The key issue, it seems to me, is captured in this quote:

The goal of the agreement is "to provide a library e-reader circulation program where library patrons, with and without vision disabilities, are able to access and use the same technology to the maximum extent possible." Under the agreement, the library will "acquire only technology that does not exclude persons who are blind or others" who need accessibility features such as text-to-speech or Braille output and the ability to access the device's menus and controls independently.

Similar suits were successful in the days before websites were coded in such a way as to make it easy for people who were blind, had other visual impairments, or mobility problems to use screen readers. Now accessibility compliant websites are the rule, rather than the exception.

The comments about CDs are something else entirely. It is not a case of simply being able to choose or foster the development of a competing technology to allow deaf people to enjoy CDs. And, if I remember correctly, in the US, the one exception for DRM removal is for usage by people with disabilities.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Presumably, then, American libraries aren't allowed to have CDs, because deaf people can't listen to them?

They can't "listen" to them in terms of hearing the audible signals, but they can experience music.

There are even some well-known and, in one case, highly accomplished, deaf musicians.

http://www.ted.com/talks/evelyn_glen...to_listen.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3q8W...2&feature=plcp

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

That some text-to-speech option that it's disabled at almost all the ebooks?

Every single book in Amazon's current top 10 (paid) has TTS enabled.

Publishers objected at first, but seem to have calmed down.

There's also an incredible resource of public domain books, where no publisher can turn off TTS.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

Let's be honest though, how many blind people A) use the library, B)
California is bankrupt, I don't know why they're buying ereaders in the first place but hey, that's just me.

Rationally, There really isn't any possible view of this whole thing that trumps that.

The only way libraries in Cali should be getting anything new is if patrons donate things.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

They can't "listen" to them in terms of hearing the audible signals, but they can experience music.

There are even some well-known and, in one case, highly accomplished, deaf musicians.

http://www.ted.com/talks/evelyn_glen...to_listen.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3q8W...2&feature=plcp

There has even been at least one deaf composer. Beethoven was deaf by age 25 I believe, and yet he composed some wonderful music.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

Likewise I wouldn't pitch a fit if a library didn't cater to my particular disability, it would be unfair to the other taxpayers to cater to my needs.

What? I certainly would 'pitch a fit' if my library decided to install a flight of stairs at the entryway, or got rid of their accessible parking, or made their doorways too narrow for wheelies. All the way to lawsuits if necessary.

Thanks for illustrating why anti-discrimination legislation is necessary.

[Andrew H.]

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.

What's absurd is your lack of sympathy for people who don't have your abilities, as well as your missing the point that the library was violating the law.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It was a limited-scope pilot to identify issues to be addressed in case they went with a full deployment. (Which in the end they did not.)
First, knee-jerk, reaction was to sue.
(shrug)
Modern practice is sue first, discuss later.

Well, it looks like they found an issue. And issue that was, however, blindingly obvious. For lack of a better word.

And no one sued anyone. Someone complained to the office of civil rights.

Originally Posted by xg4bx

Let's be honest though, how many blind people A) use the library, B) would even be interested in said program. I'd dare say the costs would far outweigh any benefits.

Lots. Do you know any blind people?

Like everything else in America, what may have started out as a good intention (the disabilities act) has mutated into an abomination and a form of abuse backed by the power of government. She should have gone to the library first and if it didn't work out, she should have shrugged and gone on with her life. Life is unfair sometimes. *shrug* I don't lose sleep because Abercrombie doesn't carry clothes that fit my husky boy needs. Likewise I wouldn't pitch a fit if a library didn't cater to my particular disability, it would be unfair to the other taxpayers to cater to my needs.

You don't lose sleep because the blind are denied access to public services since you are not blind. Again, great attitude.

Originally Posted by Catlady

Is a library allowed to offer a physical book that is not available in Braille or in an audio version? If so, shouldn't someone sue?

Yes.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Presumably, then, American libraries aren't allowed to have CDs, because deaf people can't listen to them?

No.

The issue here is that there are e-readers accessible to the blind (including Kindles and the iPads and iPod touches mentioned in the article), and the library chose e-readers that were not accessible to the blind. You aren't required to do the impossible, but you have to make an accommodation if it can be done reasonably.

[tubemonkey]

From the article:

As part of the settlement agreement, the Justice Department directed the library system to purchase at least 18 e-readers that are accessible to the blind, something that comes in the midst of budget cuts that have forced Sacramento libraries to implement one employee furlough day each month for two years.

The library says it will add iPod touch and iPad devices, which read e-books aloud with a computerized voice.

Adding the Apple devices could cost the library anywhere from $3,582 with the purchase of 18 of the most inexpensive iPod Touch models, to $14,922 if they wish to provide the high-end version of the iPad, which cost $829 a piece.

iPads? Sure hope no library would stupid enough to waste money on iPads for the TTS feature when the much cheaper iPod touch is just as capable.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

From the article:



iPads? Sure hope no library would stupid enough to waste money on iPads for the TTS feature when the much cheaper iPod touch is just as capable.

The Google Nexus (and some other Android devices) has accessibility features similar to those of the ipad for a lot less too. Of course if the iPads/Touches are primarily to be bought and loaned out as reading devices there's no need for the most expensive versions, as mentioned in the article, of either device. The cheapest versions would be fine.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

The Google Nexus (and some other Android devices) has accessibility features similar to those of the ipad for a lot less too. Of course if the iPads/Touches are primarily to be bought and loaned out as reading devices there's no need for the most expensive versions, as mentioned in the article, of either device. The cheapest versions would be fine.

For that matter, why not go with the $130 Galaxy Player 3.6? It's much cheaper than the $199 iPod touch.