Amazon, Kobo and Sony request e-readers be exempt from accessibility laws

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I've skimmed over the request; I think it comes down to how, exactly, ACS is legally defined, and what features are normally mandated to make it compliant.

I'll go with "e-ink ereaders should not be required to provide subtitles for videos." I'm much less sanguine about "should not be required to provide text-to-speech options for email;" I know several people who use their e-ink readers for gmail. (And providing TTS for email and their browsers would push them in the direction of supplying speech-based navigation menus, which is one of the stumbling blocks keeping them out of public schools.)

Hmm...I'm pretty sure that both the Kindle Keyboard and Fire do offer the ability to read aloud the navigation menus. I believe it's called "Voice Guide"

Shari

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Sregener

While I sympathize with those who struggle with disabilities, I do question the need to destroy a product category because it is not accessible to all.

I dispute that adding the needed features would destroy the idea of ereaders. And since when did reading only involve the eyes?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I suspect it's a way to get them into schools without requiring accessibility features for those students whose disabilities wouldn't work with them as-is. (Also, a way to not have to carry voice options for the limited browser features. But AFAIK, they're not _required_ to carry that now; they'd just need it for certain kinds of gov't or nonprofit purposes... like assigning them to schools.)

Not so far as I can tell.

This waiver only covers the manufacture of devices and not who can buy them. It would only cover an exemption from a single regulation, not all accessibility regulations. Schools and libraries will still have to buy accessible devices:

http://www.the-digital-reader.com/20...sibility-laws/

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I dispute that adding the needed features would destroy the idea of ereaders. And since when did reading only involve the eyes?

Since always? Or what do you mean?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Schools and libraries will still have to buy accessible devices:

No problem with that, as long as those devices are purchased specifically for those with disabilities; and not for the general population.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I dispute that adding the needed features would destroy the idea of ereaders. And since when did reading only involve the eyes?

Pretty much a definition of reading... and I can't remember the last time I gave a book a good licking... and I certainly reserve my fondling for things that are a little more responsive...

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Pretty much a definition of reading... and I can't remember the last time I gave a book a good licking... and I certainly reserve my fondling for things that are a little more responsive...

[Jessica Lares]

What did I just read?

Listening to music deaf and horseback riding with no legs is different though.

A Kindle is supposed to be enjoyable to use. I don't think a blind person would REALLY enjoy it. A DX model maybe, but not the smaller ones. It becomes more of an annoyance, and at that point, like I mentioned earlier, is why the tablet makes more sense. It's like using the super duper contrast mode in Windows, back when the displays were more square-ish. Is it easier to see? Yes. Was it worth it? No, now you can't read the Start Menu.

[theducks]

Why are paper books still allowed to be printed?

They do not user configurable display font sizes.
They don't contain Bright lighting for vision impaired folk (I still read by a standard light, but it MUST always be on at any time of day. Ambient light is no longer enough).
They don't read aloud.
They don't contain dictionaries.

All the above require separate versions or accessories, so why is it mandatory for a OSFA device for e-books?

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Forcing eink devices into TTS would be a ridiculous requirement in my opinion. There's no need for it when so many other devices are capable of doing it.

This argument has been tried many times-and always failed. (I don't need to make *MY* business handicapped-accessible because they can go to my competitor across town.) To put it another way, you're in favor of limiting the choices available to the disabled?

[ProfCrash]

I know people who use e-readers with their kids who have learning disabilities. the TTS in conjunction with the words on the page helped kids with dyslexia. Not to mention, the TTS on a Kindle made books available to folks on a device that was a good deal less then a computer or tablet. It meant not having to pay more for audible books (e books tend to be less expensive) and for people on a tight budget that would be important.

Just because this feature was not useful to many people on this board does not mean that it was not an important feature. It was valuable to many folks and probably would have been greatly appreciated by many more folk with some small tweaks and the Publishing Houses not being jack asses.

[RHWright]

I'm not a hardware/software engineer, designer, whatever ...

But rather than make the OEM responsible for full compliance with this, would it be possible to require them to make devices that will accommodate 3rd party modifications to the devices that do make them compliant and useful for those with accessibility needs?

Much like car manufacturers don't have to provide vehicles with special hand or foot controls. (But I'm sure if their vehicles could not be properly modified in the after-market there would be some regulation to prevent that.)

I'm sure Amazon, et. al. would dislike this idea as well, but it seems to be a better fit for both them and consumers of all abilities.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

This argument has been tried many times-and always failed. (I don't need to make *MY* business handicapped-accessible because they can go to my competitor across town.) To put it another way, you're in favor of limiting the choices available to the disabled?

Bad analogy. Lack of TTS in a Kindle 4 does not prevent the disabled from getting Kindle Fires with TTS.

I'm in favor of keeping expenses as low as possible for the majority of the people; especially when tax dollars are involved. There is more than enough variety in tablets, phones, and media players to provide choice for the disabled. Not every device needs to be accessible by everyone, no matter the disability. There is a limit to accessibility and forcing eink devices to comply definitely crosses that line.

[PamelaThrew]

I have been using digital books only since 2000, due to MS. I don't care what the readers do or don't do. They are useless to me and many others with challenges.

I need the publishers to make the BOOKS available for use on readers that people with disabilities can use. Making the books only available for their own readers should be against the law and addressed in this suit.

We know what we need. There is no way the readers can be designed for my use.

Examples of a few of things I need:
Autoscrolling with control - since I can't hold a book and turn pages
Total font control
Total color control
No DRM

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

This waiver only covers the manufacture of devices and not who can buy them. It would only cover an exemption from a single regulation, not all accessibility regulations. Schools and libraries will still have to buy accessible devices:

http://www.the-digital-reader.com/20...sibility-laws/

I read the petition; I know why they're claiming they should be exempt from providing accessibility features: "because these devices are for reading, and all those other features are incidental." That argument would make more sense if I knew what accessibility features they'd otherwise be required to include; I haven't sorted that out yet.

Also, several of the claims in their petition are skewed: yes, e-readers are marketed for reading, but it's disingenuous to claim that they're not also marketed with internet features ("experimental" or not). And they claim the public clearly understands the difference between e-ink readers and tablets; browsing a few threads here at Mobileread puts the lie to that.

Originally Posted by Jessica Lares

A Kindle is supposed to be enjoyable to use. I don't think a blind person would REALLY enjoy it.

Not your judgment call to make, and visually impaired people--not all of whom are legally blind--aren't the only ones with disabilities who use e-readers. People with disabilities that keep them from supporting the weight of a book, or turning pages without tearing them, also use e-readers.

I don't know what aspects of ACS accessibility would make a difference to people with those disabilities. I don't know what differences there would be for blind people, or those with dyslexia, or those with extreme light sensitivity who can't deal with tablets. The petition very carefully avoids saying anything about who would be helped by the features they're trying to avoid providing.

I don't know which features they're trying to avoid having to provide; they're seeking exemption from a law without stating how compliance would make a difference. I'd like to know what they'd be required to include before I decide if it's reasonable that they want to avoid that responsibility.