Universities say no more Kindles till blind students can use it.....

[The Hooded Claw]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...zjOJwD9BT4BD81

Several schools are saying they will not buy more Kindles for students till Amazon makes it more friendly to the blind (probably by causing the device to speak menu choices aloud). This will surely get Amazon's attention since they are pushing the KDX for students and textbooks. On the other hand, it will probably fuel the frenzy of publishers who think TTS will cut into audio book sales. This is a case where it can be argued that the change would definitely cost them audio book sales!

An interest group representing the blind is filing a lawsuit for discrimination over the Kindles-in-universities program.

[HarryT]

Are they also going to boycott paper books until blind people can use those, too?

[MetaEbooks]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are they also going to boycott paper books until blind people can use those, too?

lol, I like this one.

[PennyPie]

Are they also going to boycott paper books until blind people can use those, too?

Good point, Harry....this litigious society we call home ....I'm just so sick of these dumb 'issues' people love to get on their high horse over. Not every 'issue' can or should be litigated, and life aint always 'fair' for 100 % of the people.

[HarryT]

I do find this type of case to be wholly without merit. Yes, it's very unfortunate to be blind, but it's not Amazon's fault that somebody is, and they are surely under no "obligation" to make the Kindle usable by blind people any more than MP3 player manufacturers are under an obligation to make their devices usable by the deaf. It's certainly not "discrimination".

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I do find this type of case to be wholly without merit. Yes, it's very unfortunate to be blind, but it's not Amazon's fault that somebody is, and they are surely under no "obligation" to make the Kindle usable by blind people any more than MP3 player manufacturers are under an obligation to make their devices usable by the deaf. It's certainly not "discrimination".

Playing the devil's advocate here, I think the issue may be more about Universities, which are public institutions receiving government funding, spending a considerable amount of money on proprietary technology which could easily be made accessible to the visually impaired but is not. That being said, I think this is very foolish. The visually impaired have a right to access to public facilities and to an education; this does not mean that every piece of equipment has to be accessible provided that equivalents are provided. A library system out in california made a similar decision; they would stop ordering overdrive books until TTS was enabled. If my library tried to pull that I would be quite perturbed. There are plenty of Audiobooks available and they are actually superior to TTS. All this does is harm the majority in the name of a flawed concept of equity.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are they also going to boycott paper books until blind people can use those, too?

You mean like braille?

I agree the Universities can boycott if they wish to force a change in features, but the lawsuit strikes me as without merit.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I do find this type of case to be wholly without merit. Yes, it's very unfortunate to be blind, but it's not Amazon's fault that somebody is, and they are surely under no "obligation" to make the Kindle usable by blind people any more than MP3 player manufacturers are under an obligation to make their devices usable by the deaf. It's certainly not "discrimination".

But schools are under no obligation buy Kindles either; and they are free to explain why they won't.

I think it's a good thing that they're considering all their students in their decision making.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

But schools are under no obligation buy Kindles either; and they are free to explain why they won't.

I think it's a good thing that they're considering all their students in their decision making.

I don't think its good that they are going to deny students access to something that would be helpful to the majority simply because it would not be as useful to a minority. I mean, if the school were going to give out free graphing calculators to the students should it refrain from doing so because there is no way for the visually impaired to read the display?

[rcuadro]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are they also going to boycott paper books until blind people can use those, too?

Hahaha!

[badbob001]

So in the mean time, how do their visually impaired students read? All their existing text books have braille versions? Or less likely, audio versions? If it's so important to them, take the money that would have been spent on kindles and pay a tutor to read the books out loud. Or boycott the publisher of the books that don't offer braille or audio versions.

Soon we'll see people boycotting GPS devices because they don't allow the visually impaired to drive...

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

I don't think its good that they are going to deny students access to something that would be helpful to the majority simply because it would not be as useful to a minority.

That's pretty much the purpose of anti-discrimination laws: they say that you can't provide goods or services to the majority in a way that ignores the needs of certain minorities. They can't create a bus line that doesn't have access for people with disabilities, and can't make stores with narrow walkways that can't be navigated by wheelchairs, on the grounds that "it'll be great for most people, and we don't need to deal with the needs of people with disabilities."

Businesses (in my state) are also not allowed to offer "couple's discounts" that are only good for a married man and woman, but not two married men. Nor are they allowed to offer "Free Haircuts For White People."

I mean, if the school were going to give out free graphing calculators to the students should it refrain from doing so because there is no way for the visually impaired to read the display?

And I suspect that, if the universities were giving free horseback riding lessons, nobody would be complaining those aren't accessible enough. The issue here is that the Kindle *could* be fully accessible, and isn't. The features it would need to be usable by blind students are obvious, and other computer devices have those features.

I have doubts that the lawsuit will go anywhere, but I don't know the terms of the Kindles-for-students contracts or the background of how universities have to comply with the ADA. It's possible that some people thought the Kindles were compliant because they have TTS, and it was only later realized that TTS isn't useful if you can't get to it without seeing the buttons.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

That's pretty much the purpose of anti-discrimination laws: they say that you can't provide goods or services to the majority in a way that ignores the needs of certain minorities. They can't create a bus line that doesn't have access for people with disabilities, and can't make stores with narrow walkways that can't be navigated by wheelchairs, on the grounds that "it'll be great for most people, and we don't need to deal with the needs of people with disabilities."

Businesses (in my state) are also not allowed to offer "couple's discounts" that are only good for a married man and woman, but not two married men. Nor are they allowed to offer "Free Haircuts For White People."

Those cases are not analogous. For one thing, nobody is denying Kindles to the visually impaired people, its just a service that is not as useful to them (not all visually impaired people would find a Kindle useless). Also, presumably, the visually impaired have other services which they can access that allow them to receive a good education, whether this be audiobooks, screen readers, or other technological devices or classroom accomodations. When I was in primary school I was permitted to use the class computer for my writing assignments (on state mandated tests I was allowed to dictate my responses) because of a neurological condition which makes my handwriting illegible. This was an accomodation that was made for me to ensure that I received the education to which I was entitled by state law (and which my parents and the school system were mandated to provide). I think it would have been wrong for some parents to object to this simply because there wasn't a computer for everyone. Similarly, it would be wrong to protest against the visually impaired being provided with screen readers to aid in their education. This argument, however, cuts both ways. It is wrong to attempt to block the introduction of technological aids which could substantially improve the education of non-visually impaired students. Absolute equality is not equity. They are two different concepts. To sacrifice equity for a mere numerical equality is unjust.

Luqman

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

It is wrong to attempt to block the introduction of technological aids which could substantially improve the education of non-visually impaired students.

I'm not sure the Kindle falls into that category.

[ardeegee]

On a similar note, a blind guy is suing Sony because they don't make their-- uh-- video games playable by the blind.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11...ny_sued_gamer/