The key issue, it seems to me, is captured in this quote:
Quote:
|
The goal of the agreement is "to provide a library e-reader circulation program where library patrons, with and without vision disabilities, are able to access and use the same technology to the maximum extent possible." Under the agreement, the library will "acquire only technology that does not exclude persons who are blind or others" who need accessibility features such as text-to-speech or Braille output and the ability to access the device's menus and controls independently.
|
Similar suits were successful in the days before websites were coded in such a way as to make it easy for people who were blind, had other visual impairments, or mobility problems to use screen readers. Now accessibility compliant websites are the rule, rather than the exception.
The comments about CDs are something else entirely. It is not a case of simply being able to choose or foster the development of a competing technology to allow deaf people to enjoy CDs. And, if I remember correctly, in the US, the one exception for DRM removal is for usage by people with disabilities.