Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Isn't this effectively saying "if I can't use this, then I don't want anybody else to have it either"?
|
"Fairness" can be incorrectly applied. It's one thing for a blind person to say, "I'm at a disadvantage because I can't see the colors on the wall." But that doesn't mean the solution is to paint the wall black. Making a room accessible to the handicapped doesn't mean forcing everyone to use wheelchairs to get around.
Providing other means of access to the disabled person is the intent of these laws... not removing access from everyone else. No one should be using these laws to remove Kindles, say, from classrooms, but to make sure comparable solutions are provided for those who can't use Kindles. If those solutions aren't available, the government is responsible for finding a way to fix that, either by commissioning manufacturers to make blind-enabled devices, or by providing some other way for the blind to access that work... like a braille book or audiobook.
This should be good news to some manufacturer out there: If they manage to build such a blind-enabled ebook reader, they could find their product endorsed by the government for all ADA compliance needs, and could also find additional government funds paid to them to support manufacture and distribution of the device (if it is not cost-effective to manufacture due to high complexity, small sales numbers, etc).