Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Ah, the solve world hunger argument. If you can't be all to everyone, it's not a good solution. In general, the more limited a solution is, the more likely that it's sustainable. Sometimes, special circumstances require a specialized solution.
For example, the Chafee amendment in the US allows for an exception to copyright law for the legally blind. That particular mechanism is likely a better solution for the print-disabled.
|
Universal design is almost always a better, more inclusive choice than "special", limited, gate-kept access like the small access programmes which require medical certification.
FYI, print disability encompasses far more than legal blindness. A variety of sensory, developmental, or physical disabilities may be involved. And I'm not speaking specifically of the USA; the Marrakesh Treaty is perhaps more relevant in a global group. Australia's service - or the only one I've been able to find out anything about after a fair bit of digging - is run through Vision Australia, is not promoted to people with non-visual disabilities, requires those with physical disability to be completely unable to hold all paper books in order to access the service (there is a huge spectrum of physical print disability that is left out here); and they don't include ebook lending anyway, only audio format. They refer clients who need ebooks to the public library system.
A library is far more than shelves of paper books. A public library's core purpose is to provide information and resources in a variety of media to the full spectrum of its community, and to reduce barriers to access (including but not limited to financial barriers). All the librarians I know would state equity to be very much a core value, and none would say that digital services and accessible formats (including ebooks and audiobooks) are an optional extra.