Kindle-ADA lawsuits settled

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Daithi

I like the fact that the blind will get a device that better accomodates their needs, but something about the way the ACB went about getting this "concession" rubs me the wrong way. Particularly since the concession is that the universities won't use any ereaders at all (even if they are a boon to the partially sighted) until the ereaders better accomodate all of the blind.

Originally Posted by markbot

This is the tyranny of the minority. Assisting the disabled should be charity not a legal requirement.

I think you'll find that with attitudes like marks', a lawsuit is often the only way a disadvantaged group like blind people can get any concessions.

Originally Posted by HarryT

But let's face it - a blind student is going to need "sighted" assistance in order to study at university for all sorts of different reasons. That hardly seems like a very valid reason to deny Kindles to all the sighted students. It seems a bit childish - "if I can't use it, then I don't want anybody else to be able to, either".

Yes the blind will need assistance in order to stand a chance of simply receiving the same standard of education as a sighted person. For a university to then actively give an added advantage to sighted students, without any attempt at giving any sort of comparable tool to the blind is simply illegal under Anti-Discrimination laws.

Again, the suit had nothing to do with ensuring no one was allowed to use the Kindle. It was about ensuring that the Universities met their obligation of giving equality to the blind. If the Universities and Amazon could not come up with a way to do that then that is an indictment on them, not on the ACB in my opinion.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[HorridRedDog]

My mother was legally blind. When tested it was found that she could read 2" high white letters on a black background. Today I would have bought her a VERY LARGE screen to read on. But that was 20 years ago.

So lets go step by step.
1) As a trial to see if ereaders would work in an educational setting some students were given / loaned ereaders. The "blind" say that that gives the "sighted" an additional benefit. And puts them, the blind, at a disadvantage.

SOLUTION - threaten legal action against anyone doing any research that can lead to an improved product if that research does not also include ALL other variations of the human condition.

(I really am dyslexic. AND I DEMAND AN EREADER FOR DSYLXICS!) Oops, yes I do have a TV. Somewhere.

And what about the poor disadvantaged Sanskrit reading people of the world, they too need an ereader. ITS DISCRIMINATION! It really is.

2) Lets try giving the legally blind a reader that my mother could have read. No, can't do that, you would be discriminating against the totaly blind.

SOLUTION - provide a human reader, for life, that can help them read any book that they want. Well, no. That discriminates against the "sighted".

HAY! Discriminating against the "sighted" would be JUSTICE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry, but anything good that you do for some people will be wrong for, or to, others. Feed the hungry and the vegans will complain that their viewpoint is being discriminated against.

I once was a liberal. But way back then the liberals had more compassion. I still have the compassion, and I am still liberal. What passes for liberal today is simply a mental illness.

P.S. - to all dyslexic readers of the Akkadian language I am truly, truly, sorry for this english language discrimination of your rights.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by HorridRedDog

Lets try giving the legally blind a reader that my mother could have read. No, can't do that, you would be discriminating against the totaly blind. SOLUTION - provide a human reader, for life, that can help them read any book that they want. Well, no. That discriminates against the "sighted".

HAY! Discriminating against the "sighted" would be JUSTICE.

There really is no need to set up ridiculous straw man arguments like these.

It will undoubtedly be better for ebook readers to offer fuller TTS-type capabilities. A fairly simple change will make the device far easier to use for the disabled.

The real issue is much simpler; lawsuits can be politically counterproductive, even if in the short term you accomplish your goals. That's about it.

At the risk of launching a political discussion, the reality is that just about everyone except a dedicated libertarian or anarchist is likely to file a suit if they think it's going to accomplish their goals. These kinds of tactics aren't limited to liberals.

[dreadcptflint]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

So *no* students get free DXs...
Let's see, now:
Amazon got whatever publicity benefit they were going to get during the DX launch; they learned what they needed to learn about the higher-ed market, and they save a bit of cash.
And nobody will ever again dare *give* an ebook reader to students even as a test.
But the lawyers got paid nicely.
All is well.

Nah fjtorres,

Amazon got a bunch of publicity and the appearence of being generous with out giving out DXs. They clearly got the big win out of the program. Not bad for a silly lawsuit.

Matt

[Guns4Hire]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

It was about ensuring that the Universities met their obligation of giving equality to the blind. If the Universities and Amazon could not come up with a way to do that then that is an indictment on them, not on the ACB in my opinion.

Cheers,
PKFFW

But how are they not meeting their obligations of giving equality to the blind by giving out ereaders to non-blind? Its not like the ereaders disabled the blind friendly devices? Aren't the blind friendly devices still available? Or did they go poof and disappear as soon as Amazon and the University's made their announcement.?

I never will understand this sort of thing.

[darkpoet]

I don't care to jump into this debate but I did happen to see a blind guy on my subway the other day... with his fingers on something that looked like something straight from Dr. Who.

After a few minutes I realized one hand on was using a chorded keyboard and the other was on the display, which appeared to be a dozen blocks of movable braille... I was fascinated by the whole setup, with the braille bumps moving up and down... watching him twitch his left hand and his right hand dance back and forth... then watching him smile... very quickly I realized, it was a notebook and he was reading a comedy...

Unfortunately, I couldn't ask him what he was doing exactly as he is Korean (and I live in Korea and my Korean sucks).

[markbot]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I think you'll find that with attitudes like marks', a lawsuit is often the only way a disadvantaged group like blind people can get any concessions.

Yes the blind will need assistance in order to stand a chance of simply receiving the same standard of education as a sighted person. For a university to then actively give an added advantage to sighted students, without any attempt at giving any sort of comparable tool to the blind is simply illegal under Anti-Discrimination laws.

Again, the suit had nothing to do with ensuring no one was allowed to use the Kindle. It was about ensuring that the Universities met their obligation of giving equality to the blind. If the Universities and Amazon could not come up with a way to do that then that is an indictment on them, not on the ACB in my opinion.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Legality or no legality, the macro-level utility of the United States overall has been impaired by this lawsuit and similar lawsuits, however marginal that might seem. This case is particularly nefarious as it is an instance where the education of society, something of great importance, has been actively impaired by an interest group that is only 0.3% of the population. I might reconsider if this percentage were 100 times larger.

As a general rule, the schools themselves, and society at large, should be allowed FREEDOM to make optimal decisions--to sort based on preferences and utility.

[HorridRedDog]

There are times when a lawsuit can be against your own interests. This one does NOTHING to improve the plight of the blind.

Indeed it may cause other companies to hold back a product beneficial to many.

Arguments that all companies are evil belong in the trash.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by HorridRedDog

I once was a liberal. But way back then the liberals had more compassion. I still have the compassion, and I am still liberal. What passes for liberal today is simply a mental illness.

Yes, the overwhelming compassion of your remarks is what struck me about your replies.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by markbot

Legality or no legality, the macro-level utility of the United States overall has been impaired by this lawsuit and similar lawsuits, however marginal that might seem. This case is particularly nefarious as it is an instance where the education of society, something of great importance, has been actively impaired by an interest group that is only 0.3% of the population. I might reconsider if this percentage were 100 times larger.

As a general rule, the schools themselves, and society at large, should be allowed FREEDOM to make optimal decisions--to sort based on preferences and utility.

And how is it that the "education of society" has been impaired by students having to read from a paper book instead of an electronic book?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[HorridRedDog]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Yes, the overwhelming compassion of your remarks is what struck me about your replies.

Have no fear, the NEW liberals will soon re-educate me. Intolerance of differing views is their trademark.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

But please keep on the subjuct.

basschick is right - "generic "one size fits all" laws never do fit all on either side of the political fence. a little common sense on either side would be nice."

Helping others is what you should want to do. Forcing others, through intimidation, will have a suppressing effect.

Don't believe it?

I've met two legally blind people who used computers capable of reading what was under their cursor.

So what would have happened if the newly formed "Apple Computing Company" had been shut down for not creating a computer useable by the blind?

Yes, now they are a large EVIL company and can afford to be forced into such a development. But not back then.

Again basschick is right - "a little common sense on either side would be nice."

[Dulin's Books]

Wasnt the TTS kinda crippled over objections by publishers in the first place because TTS will reduce their profits from audiobooks?

Were they defendants in any of the recent suits?

[vaughnmr]

Originally Posted by markbot

As a general rule, the schools themselves, and society at large, should be allowed FREEDOM to make optimal decisions--to sort based on preferences and utility.

Actually, they were allowed the freedom to make those choices, and for hundreds of years they ignored the problem.

These laws are an effort to give people the opportunity to become productive in society, not to be cast aside as invalids. This is good for society! As a conservative you should welcome a more productive society.

And just think, many years from now when you are very old, you will appreciate the work we've done on our sites and buildings, making them more accessible and easier for you to get around! And you will have large fonts on your ereader, and even TTS if you can't read!

[vaughnmr]

As an aside, I have spent the last 6 years as an architectural draftsman, so I know very well how the ADA laws apply to my work. What started out to be a stupid hindrance (I thought), has literally become my compassion. These ideas, that have long ago become law, can actually apply to each and every one of us. They give us opportunities, and remove barriers. They give all of us a chance to be productive, expressive, whatever. As individuals, we no longer have to be regarded as less than (whatever) because we are handicapped. We ARE equal.

And the codes just were not there until someone gave voice to the law. That, my friend, is why it's now the law of the land.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

Actually, they were allowed the freedom to make those choices, and for hundreds of years they ignored the problem.

These laws are an effort to give people the opportunity to become productive in society, not to be cast aside as invalids. This is good for society! As a conservative you should welcome a more productive society.

And just think, many years from now when you are very old, you will appreciate the work we've done on our sites and buildings, making them more accessible and easier for you to get around! And you will have large fonts on your ereader, and even TTS if you can't read!

Way to completely miss the point.

No one is saying that we should get rid of ADA.