[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Not me I am afraid. I do nothing but read books on my ereader.

I may or may not want the things you list, and they are good things, I expect that the tablet developers will take care of that area of development if ereaders don't.

Ereaders have size, weight and battery life going for them, plus easier on the eyes.

Tablets have much more versatility usage and software wise, and are far more available and competitive. The technology for faster processors, more memory, and better speakers is already there and ongoing development will not rest on the shoulders of ereader manufacturers even in the slightest. And if color eink never reaches perfection I am sure that it will be improved until something better is developed.

To digress, putting speakers in an ereader is good for the person who wants music while they read, maybe. But what incentive would it be for a totally blind person to buy an ereader or even borrow one from the library. Why pay for a device designed to be read when you can get a smaller, easier to operate player for about 1/4 of the price.

Perhaps libraries should not be allowed to lend paper books without providing someone to read them aloud with the loan.

The obvious answer is to develop and stock devices that overcome each handicap, not a one size fits all if you can afford the thousand bucks or so solution.

Helen

I don't think that you get my point. In the past few years we have seen improvements in e-readers. This type of legal action shows that the manufacturers want to limit improvements.

Temporary waivers have been granted (source):

Providers of ACS and manufacturers of equipment used for ACS are required to make their products and services accessible to people with disabilities, unless it is not "achievable" to do so, by October 8, 2013. The FCC previously granted class waivers from the accessibility requirements to classes of IP-TVs, IP-DVPs, set-top boxes leased by cable operators and game consoles and software until October 8, 2015.

But according to the petition for waiver the members of the coalition are very specifically not looking for a temporary waiver:

A waiver of the Commission’s rule is justified because, in contrast to other classes of equipment for which temporary waivers have been granted, e-readers are a well-established class that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. In fact, as detailed throughout this Petition, the functional differences between tablets and e-readers have been clear and steady for a number of years. The Commission can use the definition of devices set forth above to ensure it covers only true e-readers and not tablets, thereby addressing the concern that genuine multipurpose devices would be exempt.

If they would think that in 2, 3, 10 years they would be implementing video-capable color E Ink (a prototype already exists) then they would be requesting a temporary waiver.