Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
While a lawsuit may not have been the optimal approach, the libraries still have an obligation to obey the law, and when possible to offer the same services to the disabled as everyone else.
Someone who is blind can still get many benefits from an ebook reading device, including instant downloads of reading materials. The library should have chosen device(s) that could be used by the blind. (B&N also ought to incorporate text-to-speech options into their devices, if they want to be used as widely as possible.)
It would have been better if the patron in question had talked to the library, and only sued if the library was not responsive. However, such things are rarely done perfectly, and it's not like the patron demanded a financial reward -- just access to the materials.
|
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.
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.
California is bankrupt, I don't know why they're buying ereaders in the first place but hey, that's just me.