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

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Not me I am afraid. I do nothing but read books on my ereader.

I may or may not want the things you list, and they are good things, I expect that the tablet developers will take care of that area of development if ereaders don't.

Ereaders have size, weight and battery life going for them, plus easier on the eyes.

Tablets have much more versatility usage and software wise, and are far more available and competitive. The technology for faster processors, more memory, and better speakers is already there and ongoing development will not rest on the shoulders of ereader manufacturers even in the slightest. And if color eink never reaches perfection I am sure that it will be improved until something better is developed.

To digress, putting speakers in an ereader is good for the person who wants music while they read, maybe. But what incentive would it be for a totally blind person to buy an ereader or even borrow one from the library. Why pay for a device designed to be read when you can get a smaller, easier to operate player for about 1/4 of the price.

Perhaps libraries should not be allowed to lend paper books without providing someone to read them aloud with the loan.

The obvious answer is to develop and stock devices that overcome each handicap, not a one size fits all if you can afford the thousand bucks or so solution.

Helen

I don't think that you get my point. In the past few years we have seen improvements in e-readers. This type of legal action shows that the manufacturers want to limit improvements.

Temporary waivers have been granted (source):

Providers of ACS and manufacturers of equipment used for ACS are required to make their products and services accessible to people with disabilities, unless it is not "achievable" to do so, by October 8, 2013. The FCC previously granted class waivers from the accessibility requirements to classes of IP-TVs, IP-DVPs, set-top boxes leased by cable operators and game consoles and software until October 8, 2015.

But according to the petition for waiver the members of the coalition are very specifically not looking for a temporary waiver:

A waiver of the Commission’s rule is justified because, in contrast to other classes of equipment for which temporary waivers have been granted, e-readers are a well-established class that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device. In fact, as detailed throughout this Petition, the functional differences between tablets and e-readers have been clear and steady for a number of years. The Commission can use the definition of devices set forth above to ensure it covers only true e-readers and not tablets, thereby addressing the concern that genuine multipurpose devices would be exempt.

If they would think that in 2, 3, 10 years they would be implementing video-capable color E Ink (a prototype already exists) then they would be requesting a temporary waiver.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I don't think that you get my point. In the past few years we have seen improvements in e-readers. This type of legal action shows that the manufacturers want to limit improvements.

E-ink ereaders are specialty products. To force these devices into a one-size fits all box is complete nonsense. Lawmakers have gone off the deep end on this issue. They really need to get their act together and develop some common sense.

If they want ACS compatibility, they need look no further than LCD tablets.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I don't think that you get my point. In the past few years we have seen improvements in e-readers. This type of legal action shows that the manufacturers want to limit improvements.

Temporary waivers have been granted (source):


But according to the petition for waiver the members of the coalition are very specifically not looking for a temporary waiver:


If they would think that in 2, 3, 10 years they would be implementing video-capable color E Ink (a prototype already exists) then they would be requesting a temporary waiver.

You are right. I am missing your point. How would colour video capable eink help the disabled read? Not saying you are wrong, just not seeing it.


Helen

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Alexander Turcic

Did anyone notice that B&N is not part of this coalition?

It doesn't necessarily have to do with well thought out business strategy. It may just be that the relevant Barnes and Noble executives have less of a theoretical aversion to government regulations. Consider:

http://www.buybackyourvote.com/compa...t=&y=2012&ch=n

By contrast, see Amazon:

http://www.buybackyourvote.com/compa...t=&y=2012&ch=n

Kobo contributions are insignificant, as one would expect for a non-American company. Sony Pictures contributions are like those of B&N, but that may not apply to the eReader leadership.

From a business standpoint, you could argue that the accessibility regulations will help these big players by keeping out future ultra-cheap Asian-designed knockoff readers. Or you could argue that the big firms are better off having the freedom to produce devices at all price points. It's so hard to say if the accessibility laws are in the interests of these corporations that it could come down to personal executive preferences.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

You are right. I am missing your point. How would colour video capable eink help the disabled read? Not saying you are wrong, just not seeing it.

The logic of the waiver is like this: the manufacturers are aware that ACS capable devices have to comply with the accessibility laws, and they are going to manufacture compliant tablets; however the current eink e-readers have gray-scale screens with slow refresh rates and in the words of the waiver: "if users attempt to access ACS on an e-reader device, the user experience would not be robust and likely would not encourage future use for ACS".

So color video capable eink has to keep missing from e-readers forever in order for the manufacturers to have a reason for keeping the e-readers exempt from accessibility laws indefinitely as opposed to temporarily the way other classes of devices got waivers.

And color eink with fast refresh rates would be nice. Yes, I am aware that most of us just read text which is black letters on white background (well, technically it's dark gray text on light gray background) but I think that the average consumer is happier to have 16 shades of gray instead of two, and is happier with faster turning pages for a more seamless reading experience.

If the manufacturers receive the exemption, e-readers won't see any great improvements anymore, because improvements would encourage future use for ACS, which would remove the reason for exemption. And as I said before, they made it clear that they want this to be a permanent situation.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The logic of the waiver is like this: the manufacturers are aware that ACS capable devices have to comply with the accessibility laws, and they are going to manufacture compliant tablets; however the current eink e-readers have gray-scale screens with slow refresh rates and in the words of the waiver: "if users attempt to access ACS on an e-reader device, the user experience would not be robust and likely would not encourage future use for ACS".

So color video capable eink has to keep missing from e-readers forever in order for the manufacturers to have a reason for keeping the e-readers exempt from accessibility laws indefinitely as opposed to temporarily the way other classes of devices got waivers.

And color eink with fast refresh rates would be nice. Yes, I am aware that most of us just read text which is black letters on white background (well, technically it's dark gray text on light gray background) but I think that the average consumer is happier to have 16 shades of gray instead of two, and is happier with faster turning pages for a more seamless reading experience.

If the manufacturers receive the exemption, e-readers won't see any great improvements anymore, because improvements would encourage future use for ACS, which would remove the reason for exemption. And as I said before, they made it clear that they want this to be a permanent situation.

Get a tablet.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The logic of the waiver is like this: the manufacturers are aware that ACS capable devices have to comply with the accessibility laws, and they are going to manufacture compliant tablets; however the current eink e-readers have gray-scale screens with slow refresh rates and in the words of the waiver: "if users attempt to access ACS on an e-reader device, the user experience would not be robust and likely would not encourage future use for ACS".

So color video capable eink has to keep missing from e-readers forever in order for the manufacturers to have a reason for keeping the e-readers exempt from accessibility laws indefinitely as opposed to temporarily the way other classes of devices got waivers.

And color eink with fast refresh rates would be nice. Yes, I am aware that most of us just read text which is black letters on white background (well, technically it's dark gray text on light gray background) but I think that the average consumer is happier to have 16 shades of gray instead of two, and is happier with faster turning pages for a more seamless reading experience.

If the manufacturers receive the exemption, e-readers won't see any great improvements anymore, because improvements would encourage future use for ACS, which would remove the reason for exemption. And as I said before, they made it clear that they want this to be a permanent situation.

I don't see how a color screen no matter how fast would help a blind person to read on an ereader.

I also don't think that ereaders are the only devices using screens, speakers, fast microprocessors, etc. Development will continue I am sure and be used in ereaders.

And human nature being what it is someone will be working on meeting the minimum ACS requirements in the hopes of cornering the library market for ereaders so a waiver means only that libraries are not required by law to buy only ereaders that are ACS compliant. If one can be made someone will eventually make it.

I think the legislation itself would do more to slow down ereader development by making them more expensive, heavier, and less robust software wise. Unlikely as it sounds some manufacturers are having a hard time producing stable software as it is.
The ereader market is slowing down to a point that ereader manufacturers have to make their products better to sell them.

Someone will make a more ACS compliant ereader and someone else will top them. Trying to force every ereader to be ACS compliant will just cause more manufacturers to turn to tablets instead and slow development more.

Imagine if every car sold had to be fully ACS compliant. And while they don't have to be, development is still going on and their are many cars with features for the handicapped. If for example every vehicle had to have a wheelchair lift, a lot more people would be walking.

Helen

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I don't see how a color screen no matter how fast would help a blind person to read on an ereader.

I also don't think that ereaders are the only devices using screens, speakers, fast microprocessors, etc. Development will continue I am sure and be used in ereaders.

And human nature being what it is someone will be working on meeting the minimum ACS requirements in the hopes of cornering the library market for ereaders so a waiver means only that libraries are not required by law to buy only ereaders that are ACS compliant. If one can be made someone will eventually make it.

I think the legislation itself would do more to slow down ereader development by making them more expensive, heavier, and less robust software wise. Unlikely as it sounds some manufacturers are having a hard time producing stable software as it is.
The ereader market is slowing down to a point that ereader manufacturers have to make their products better to sell them.

Someone will make a more ACS compliant ereader and someone else will top them. Trying to force every ereader to be ACS compliant will just cause more manufacturers to turn to tablets instead and slow development more.

You misunderstand more than just my posts.
It's not ACS compliant, it's compliant with accessibility for disabled people. ACS stands for Advanced Communications Services.

The situation is this: if a device has a browser it means at this point in time that it offers Advanced Communications Services, and therefore it needs to be accessible to people with disabilities according to the FCC rules.

The coalition of e-reader manufacturers is saying that the browsers that they install on e-readers aren't offering good access to Advanced Communications Services, as they put it "the user experience would not be robust". And they do this because of the specs.

If someone improves an eink e-reader with color and a faster refresh rate, by the definition expressed by the manufacturers it will no longer be an e-reader, so if the petition is accepted e-readers as a class of devices will never be significantly better than they are now.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Imagine if every car sold had to be fully ACS compliant. And while they don't have to be, development is still going on and their are many cars with features for the handicapped. If for example every vehicle had to have a wheelchair lift, a lot more people would be walking.

Interesting example, beside the fact that you assumed that ACS is an acronym that is related to people with disabilities.

While the average car that exits the assembly line is not accessible to people with disabilities you can add features for the handicapped.

TL;DR
ACS => must make device accessible for the disabled
Browser = ACS
Want exemption from accessibility laws for e-readers with browsers? => make sure that e-readers aren't going to have specs that are good enough for a good browsing experience and say it isn't really ACS.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Want exemption from accessibility laws for e-readers with browsers? => make sure that e-readers aren't going to have specs that are good enough for a good browsing experience and say it isn't really ACS.

Nothing wrong with that.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Nothing wrong with that.

Sure there is. They could remove the browser and have a device that is strictly an e-reader and they wouldn't have to comply because the law wouldn't be applicable. But they want a browser, they just don't want the responsibility to make it accessible to disabled people that comes with having a browser starting October 8th 2013.

And there is also the fact that while the petition is talking about how in the 7 years since "Sony launched the first e-reader available in the U.S. utilizing electronic ink" the public understands the difference between e-readers and general-purpose tablets, 3 years ago the Nook Color was introduced as an e-reader. Doesn't that clash with the definition that e-readers don't have LCD screens?

How about Kobo? Posted by Kobo - September 06, 2012

Introducing Kobo’s new lineup of eReaders: the Kobo Glo, Kobo Mini, and Kobo Arc– a 7” Android tablet.

Some time after I started posting on this forum and I was looking at e-readers and e-reader specs, because of various discussions about eink vs. LCD. I've seen LCD readers, and many if not all were sold by Amazon as well. I find it disingenuous that suddenly they want to pretend that only eink devices have been marketed as e-readers since 2006.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Sure there is. They could remove the browser and have a device that is strictly an e-reader and they wouldn't have to comply because the law wouldn't be applicable. But they want a browser, they just don't want the responsibility to make it accessible to disabled people that comes with having a browser starting October 8th 2013.

The law is stupid and needs to be reigned in. It's ridiculous to force ACS compliancy on all web enabled devices. Those needing an ACS device can get an LCD tablet. It's not like they don't exist.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You misunderstand more than just my posts.
It's not ACS compliant, it's compliant with accessibility for disabled people. ACS stands for Advanced Communications Services.

The situation is this: if a device has a browser it means at this point in time that it offers Advanced Communications Services, and therefore it needs to be accessible to people with disabilities according to the FCC rules.

The coalition of e-reader manufacturers is saying that the browsers that they install on e-readers aren't offering good access to Advanced Communications Services, as they put it "the user experience would not be robust". And they do this because of the specs.

If someone improves an eink e-reader with color and a faster refresh rate, by the definition expressed by the manufacturers it will no longer be an e-reader, so if the petition is accepted e-readers as a class of devices will never be significantly better than they are now.


Interesting example, beside the fact that you assumed that ACS is an acronym that is related to people with disabilities.

While the average car that exits the assembly line is not accessible to people with disabilities you can add features for the handicapped.

TL;DR
ACS => must make device accessible for the disabled
Browser = ACS
Want exemption from accessibility laws for e-readers with browsers? => make sure that e-readers aren't going to have specs that are good enough for a good browsing experience and say it isn't really ACS.

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.

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.

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.

477 Equipment, such as general purpose computers, that are used by libraries and schools without customization, and are offered to the general public i.e., library visitors and students, would not fall within the exemption and must meet the accessibility requirements of Section 716.

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.

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.

Helen

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

While the average car that exits the assembly line is not accessible to people with disabilities you can add features for the handicapped.

TL;DR
ACS => must make device accessible for the disabled
Browser = ACS
Want exemption from accessibility laws for e-readers with browsers? => make sure that e-readers aren't going to have specs that are good enough for a good browsing experience and say it isn't really ACS.

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.

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.

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.

Helen

[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.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

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.

By specifying those specs, you effectively cut out a LARGE portion of the people who are currently using e-readers. It's not a coincidence that people only started using e-readers in large numbers when it became possible to load books directly from the store to the reader. Of the many many people I know that read ebooks, only 3 of them have ever sideloaded a book from their computer using a cable, and one of them had to be walked through it by me, over the phone. I've taught classes at our local library on how to use e-readers, and demonstrated how to do this with both Kindles and Nooks (the only brands that anyone in the class used) and still, the students didn't do it. All that they wanted was to be able to download books directly to the device. Some of them didn't even have computers at home.

Shari