Quote:
Originally Posted by twowheels
Nobody said that there wasn't connectivity. You've now moved the goalposts.
|
I'm not trying to set posts to win an argument; I'm trying to sort out the claims that they have no reason to provide accessibility features.
Quote:
I was responding to ONE statement, which I already quoted:
It's disingenuous to claim that they're not also marketed with internet features ("experimental" or not).
Your statement, due to the addition of "("experimental" nor not)", was best interpreted as being a reference to the web browser, or general purpose internet browsing.
|
Without moving the posts: I was referring to both bookstore access and general internet use. Whether they market the browser as "experimental" is irrelevant; there is no "beta-version exception" for manufacturing standards. And ebookstore access is a *strongly* marketed feature; no matter how limited that is, it should be required to fit whatever accessibility laws apply to online shopping.
Quote:
|
The items you quoted aren't general purpose internet features, they're very specific activities closely related to the task of reading.
|
Yes? And what's that got to do with whether they should be usable by people with disabilities?
I don't challenge the claim that e-ink devices are "all about the reading;" I'm challenging the claim that their internet features (which are in support of reading) should therefore be exempt from accessibility requirements.
It's possible that the accessibility requirements mentioned don't apply to reading at all--that they have to do with video, with voice-chat options, or with display of pictures. In that case, they should probably be granted the exemption. If, however, the accessibility requirements involve text-to-speech for web browsers, I don't see that they should be exempt from that just because the browser isn't a "main feature" of the device.
General web browsing isn't a main feature; shopping in the ebook store is.