[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I do know ACS stands for Advanced Communications Services. I understood, perhaps wrongly, that ACS compliant meant the device had to have a browser accessible to the disabled.

"Imagine if every car sold had to be fully ACS compliant." So you were talking here about cars with a browser accessible to the disabled?

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Blind people are far from the only disabled, but the ones who would have the most trouble using a browser IMO. I do not think that it is possible for the average blind user to use a browser on a device the size of most ereaders although size may not enter into it. I do know a blind person who uses a browser on a desktop, but she uses voice recognition software and a keyboard and it is still pretty difficult.

Eyesight problems that would get a person under the category of disabled people doesn't necessarily mean completely blind.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Again, I am not understanding why you think all ereader development would be stopped dead in it's tracks by allowing libraries and schools to only buy ACS compliant devices which is my understanding of the rules. But maybe this is much further reaching than I think.

I didn't say stopped dead, I said that they wouldn't have significant improvements. And it wouldn't be a because the need to comply with accessibility laws, but as a side effect of defining e-readers as a device class that offers no color and slow refresh rate.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

But to beat the dead horse once more, even if all ereaders are currently exempt, someone will build an ACS compliant one and libraries and schools will probably buy it, others will follow. They may cost more and be bulkier but probably not that much. A kindle keyboard is possibly pretty close. Has speakers, has keyboard. Doesn't have color eink, which you seem to deem necessary for the disabled, but most of them don't.

Read the petition, and stop saying 'ACS compliant'. Libraries and schools don't have to buy e-readers with browsers. They can buy e-readers without browsers, and therefore no ACS so they wouldn't fall under the accessibility laws discussed here. The issue with the petition has to do with the fact that if a device has hardware that can support a full browser, according to the petition it wouldn't be an e-reader.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

And once again I will say that the ereader market has flattened out to a point that manufacturers must make them better to entice current owners to buy another. Sure there are untapped markets, but it's easier to sell in their current market.

I think your worries about development of speakers, eink screens, microphones are unfounded, but who knows for sure. Time will tell.

The speakers, eink screens, microphones have been developed, they haven't been implemented by the manufacturers in the coalition.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

All taxicabs are not accessible to the handicapped. You can in most, but not all places, call a cab with a wheelchair lift.

My analogy referred to the rule seeming to want all devices with browsers to be ACS compliant, which I still think means that they must be useable by the disabled.

But the compliance can be achieved with peripheral devices, like the cab can become accessible to the handicapped with a wheelchair lift. The manufacturer of the cab doesn't have to include the lift, just make it possible for one to be used.

Covered entities can comply with the accessibility obligations with or without the use of third party applications, peripheral devices, software, hardware, or customer premises equipment that are available to consumers at nominal cost and that individuals with disabilities can access.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I think that as long as their are sufficient devices available that are ACS compliant, all devices should not have to beany more than I think all taxicabs should be. And I doubt very much you could install a wheelchair lift in the majority of cars or cabs used today.

Nobody is saying that, just like nobody is saying that all public toilets should be accessible for the disabled. There is no need for that.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Rather than try to force manufacturers to comply on an entire class of specialized devices, I think the disabled would be better served by developing and upgrading devices that suit their needs and improving the ones in existence.

The law doesn't force compliance on an entire class of devices, because the devices without browsers don't have to comply.

And think about it this way: why should we have e-readers with a browser? You need extra hardware to access the internet, the battery runs out faster, the device is heavier and more expensive and all for people who need assistance if they would have to download a book on their PC and then transfer it to the reader.