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

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by shalym

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.

Yes, and this is hindsight. Now think about it from the perspective of the moment when the manufacturers came to the decision to improve accessibility to those who have trouble side-loading, by adding hardware, software, weight and cost to their line of e-readers.

You don't see any parallels between that situation and the current situation?

You know what the difference is? Now they manufacture tablets. Do you think that if they were making tablets before they added downloading to e-ink devices they would have added it, or they would have just said 'if you want to download to your device buy our tablet'?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Yes, and this is hindsight. Now think about it from the perspective of the moment when the manufacturers came to the decision to improve accessibility to those who have trouble side-loading, by adding hardware, software, weight and cost to their line of e-readers.

You don't see any parallels between that situation and the current situation?

You know what the difference is? Now they manufacture tablets. Do you think that if they were making tablets before they added downloading to e-ink devices they would have added it, or they would have just said 'if you want to download to your device buy our tablet'?

So why haven't they removed that feature from ereaders already?

[theinfamousj]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

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.

The answer to this is: So that the book sellers who currently subsidize the cost of eReaders (Amazon, B+N, Kobo, Sony) can make money from your in-device purchases at their store.

I have an "exempt" Kobo, and while it does have a legally defined browser, unless I hack the configuration files if the device, that browser only goes to one place: Kobo's store. Any bookstore app must, by limitation of the current technology, fall under the legal definition of "browser".

This word has different definitions based on the context of use. You and I don't necessarily call the Kindle app on our Android phone a browser because, for one, it doesn't have an address bar. Well, that isn't the definition in all circumstances. Some situations consider any program that accesses other servers and displays the resulting data visually (what that Kindle app does) as a browser, with no mention whatsoever of destination freedom of choice.

I also think you are getting caught up in the tautology of the term eReader. People will surely develop color eInk (and perhaps faster refresh rates, microphones, and speakers though those are very heavy battery drains) and the resultant device won't be allowed to be legally defined as an eReader. So bloody what? Call it a kerfuffle for all you want, so long as I can buy it.

eReader companies haven't forced themselves to produce just eReaders, they stray all the time. Kobo Vox, Nook Color, Kindle Fire, etc. Their marketing terminology has little to do with the legal status of those devices.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

So why haven't they removed that feature from ereaders already?

Give it time. The kindle lost its speakers with new generations and the DX was left with no other generations.

Originally Posted by theinfamousj

The answer to this is: So that the book sellers who currently subsidize the cost of eReaders (Amazon, B+N, Kobo, Sony) can make money from your in-device purchases at their store.

How does the added hardware cost compare to the subsidy, and how does it compare to the extra money that they made from in-device purchases vs. side-loading?

Originally Posted by theinfamousj

I also think you are getting caught up in the tautology of the term eReader. People will surely develop color eInk (and perhaps faster refresh rates, microphones, and speakers though those are very heavy battery drains) and the resultant device won't be allowed to be legally defined as an eReader. So bloody what? Call it a kerfuffle for all you want, so long as I can buy it.

eReader companies haven't forced themselves to produce just eReaders, they stray all the time. Kobo Vox, Nook Color, Kindle Fire, etc. Their marketing terminology has little to do with the legal status of those devices.

Color eink was developed years ago and instead of using it for eink e-readers the manufacturers from this coalition preferred to manufacture LCD devices. Do the speakers drain the battery more than the light that was added to the devices?

And they, or others would market this future color eink device as what? The success of a device depends on marketing so if they can't market it as a device used primarily for reading, then what would it be marketed as?

[theinfamousj]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

How does the added hardware cost compare to the subsidy, and how does it compare to the extra money that they made from in-device purchases vs. side-loading?

It pays for itself many times over as the majority of purchasers of eReaders don't sideload, get confused and wouldn't purchase an eReader if they had to sync it with a computer, and do all their ebook buying on their device in its ecosystem. All of these customers are now able to spend gobs of money they otherwise wouldn't have been able to thanks to the inclusion of the Wifi circuitry and antenna.

Companies like money. Companies loathe missed revenue opportunities.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Color eink was developed years ago and instead of using it for eink e-readers the manufacturers from this coalition preferred to manufacture LCD devices. Do the speakers drain the battery more than the light that was added to the devices?

The answer to your first assertion is that color eInk is expensive and if the goal is color, then LCD is cheaper. Companies want as much profit as possible, so they go with the cheaper components. Companies are not altruistic and color eInk tech will sit on the shelf until it is financially viable, not just technically possible.

The answer to your second question is an emphatic, "Yes! Those are huge battery drains. The light (Led technology) is negligible compared with the energy to turn pages."

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

And they, or others would market this future color eink device as what? The success of a device depends on marketing so if they can't market it as a device used primarily for reading, then what would it be marketed as?

They would market a color eInk device as an eReader, however legally it would be a "kerfuffle" (or whatever other term is decided on to be the legal definition of that class of devices). This is the tautology thing I think is confusing you.

[Fiat_Lux]

Originally Posted by Jessica Lares

And that cramming them with additional options for the sake of accessibility, will force them to invest into more powerful hardware just to make them function properly.

How much those additional options cost, depends upon what accessibility function they are designed for. Regardless, the biggest expense is usually not the hardware, but rather the royalty payment to use the mathemtical algorithm that the accessibility function relies upon.

I won't deny that things like Moon Screens, Braille Display monitors, and the like are expensive. The law does allow for products that contain them, to be sold for more than products that don't contain them. (My guestimate is that a Nook with a 20 character Braille Display would cost roughly US$400 more than one without it.)

There are better ways to approach reading a novel/textbook without actually reading it. Like audiobooks, apps on tablets, lectures, and video.

There is a difference between reading the Braille version of a book, and listening to the TTS version, and listening to the audiobook, and watching the video. How many of those videos are audio captioned? Compare that to the number of videos that are closed captioned.

Amber

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by theinfamousj

It pays for itself many times over as the majority of purchasers of eReaders don't sideload, get confused and wouldn't purchase an eReader if they had to sync it with a computer, and do all their ebook buying on their device in its ecosystem. All of these customers are now able to spend gobs of money they otherwise wouldn't have been able to thanks to the inclusion of the Wifi circuitry and antenna.

Companies like money. Companies loathe missed revenue opportunities.

And wouldn't it be better for them if the device was in color?

Originally Posted by theinfamousj

The answer to your first assertion is that color eInk is expensive and if the goal is color, then LCD is cheaper. Companies want as much profit as possible, so they go with the cheaper components. Companies are not altruistic and color eInk tech will sit on the shelf until it is financially viable, not just technically possible.

The answer to your second question is an emphatic, "Yes! Those are huge battery drains. The light (Led technology) is negligible compared with the energy to turn pages."

And black and white LCD would be cheaper than eink. Still e-readers have eink.

Originally Posted by theinfamousj

They would market a color eInk device as an eReader, however legally it would be a "kerfuffle" (or whatever other term is decided on to be the legal definition of that class of devices). This is the tautology thing I think is confusing you.

And this device would be sold along side the black and white eink devices? Marketed in the same way, except not called an e-reader? How would that even work?

[Fiat_Lux]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

But for all three to be spooked some hardware feature must is likely involved. Probably involving the installed base.

I strongly that the issue is patents. What I'm not sure of, is if it is patents in the text-to-speech part, or in the screen-reader part. Both of those areas are littered with mathematical algorithms, that the USPTO has decided constitute patentable subject matter.

Tech companies don't court bad press without good cau$e.

Prime examples of that phenomena are SCO and Oracle.

[Fiat_Lux]

Originally Posted by wawasteele

Should all the stalls be handicap accessible? No. That would hurt all the non-handicapped people, because the handicap stalls take up a lot more room, so there would be less total stalls.

Based on usage patterns, every stall should be handicap accessible.

[quote]So, as long as there are viable options for all readers, I don't see why every reading device has to be made for blind people, just like every trail or bathroom stall isn't accessible.

I also don't see why in schools or libraries, that every reading device has to be accessible, as long as there are some for those that need them.

Something that those with accessibility issues don't always appreciate, is that things that make their life easier, provide far more benefit to those who do not have accessibility issues.

[Fiat_Lux]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Would the visually impaired not be better served by libraries supplying mp3 players that the books could be at least delivered wirelessly to?

Until a couple of years ago, cassette tape was the standard format for books loaned by libraries for the blind. Today, the standard format is DAISY.

There are DAISY players that have Internet capability. In theory, a user with one of those players can go to BARD, and download the book directly into their player.

The major issue that libraries for the blind run into, is copyright. Whilst one can be fairly confident that Braille copies of books will only be used by the blind, that degree of confidence does not translate into audio versions of those books. Consequently, the cassette tapes could only be played on special casette players. The DAISY books are likewise subject to DRM.

[Fiat_Lux]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe;

How would colour video capable eink help the disabled read?

There is a population that is not legally blind, but is, under ADA criteria, disabled. Colour video would help them, to the same extent that colour video helps those who are not, under ADA criteria, disabled.

Rubrics are red.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Fiat_Lux

There is a population that is not legally blind, but is, under ADA criteria, disabled. Colour video would help them, to the same extent that colour video helps those who are not, under ADA criteria, disabled.

Rubrics are red.

Not disagreeing, just not understanding. I am not visually disabled and colour does not enhance my reading whether it is a book, and ereader or a tablet or monitor. Pictures are nicer in color and if it is magazine or book that relies heavily on pictures then that colour is definitely an asset in viewing the pictures, although I am not impressed by color in newspaper photos, perhaps the matte surface and cheap paper detracts.

Color in text and fancy backgrounds are not the way I want to read text. And for the great pictures I think you need a shiny display to really get the best effect which may be more tiring on the eyes.

So please tell me specifically how color actually helps people to read text whether a book or in a browser.

Maybe red rubrics are a good thing if you want to just get the most basic info required, but are they in common use and crucial to the general population? Have I been missing the millions of rubrics in every book and web page?

Helen

Helen

[Darqref]

Originally Posted by Fiat_Lux

Until a couple of years ago, cassette tape was the standard format for books loaned by libraries for the blind. Today, the standard format is DAISY.

umm, NO. the current format is NOT DAISY, it's some different digital format. Daisy players are NOT allowed to play the current digital downloads from the National Library for the Blind (at least in the USA). The only current players that can be authorized are one of two digital players provided by the service and one other, a Victor Stream Reader (which can be digitally authorized to read the NLS format books).

To my inspection, the files appear to be a drm wrapper around an mp3 file. The player can play a standard mp3, but needs them in a different file location format than the standard NLS formatted books.

There is a current experimental effort to convert from an Epub to a braille machine readable format, but I don't know how successful they've been.

[Fiat_Lux]

[QUOTE=Darqref;2606882 NO. the current format is NOT DAISY, it's some different digital format. [/quote]

The DAISY Consortium would beg to differ with you.

http://www.loc.gov/nls/specs/1205_Final_nov15_1_07.pdf is an explanation of why Daisy files from BARD won't play in "normal" Daisy players.

Daisy players are NOT allowed to play the current digital downloads from the National Library for the Blind (at least in the USA).

NLS offers three readers to patrons. However, patrons can use their own device, if the manufacturer has certified the device with NLS. The process of certification is even more mired in bureaucratic junk that the normal government bureaucracy.

There is a current experimental effort to convert from an Epub to a braille machine readable format, but I don't know how successful they've been.

Conversion to Grade 1 Braille is straightforward. If you read more than one book on programming, you can do it. Conversion to Grade 2 Braille is slightly more complicated, but still fairly trivial. In both instances, the only hard part is converting presentation markup.

Amber

[Darqref]

Originally Posted by Fiat_Lux

The DAISY Consortium would beg to differ with you.

http://www.loc.gov/nls/specs/1205_Final_nov15_1_07.pdf is an explanation of why Daisy files from BARD won't play in "normal" Daisy players.

All my mother's files say they are "protected mp3". If that's what they're trying to call a Daisy, then we're talking about the same thing. But none of the formats are ever interpreted by my computer as being a daisy type file. And, when I put the usbstick back in the slot on my computer (to clear it so I can put a new book on it), windows tries to interpret it as an mp3, and offer to play it. Doesn't work, but again, nothing says it's a daisy.

Originally Posted by Fiat_Lux

NLS offers three readers to patrons. However, patrons can use their own device, if the manufacturer has certified the device with NLS. The process of certification is even more mired in bureaucratic junk that the normal government bureaucracy.

I only saw two models at the support group I've taken Mom to, but wouldn't surprise me that there were more.

Originally Posted by Fiat_Lux

Conversion to Grade 1 Braille is straightforward. If you read more than one book on programming, you can do it. Conversion to Grade 2 Braille is slightly more complicated, but still fairly trivial. In both instances, the only hard part is converting presentation markup.

Amber

I'm not familiar with braille, or the players. Mom is legally blind, but not totally, and doesn't use braille, so I've never dealt with it. I was only quoting info passed on at the support group meeting, by one of the leaders of a church group that did a lot of braille work. And it was more than a year ago, too. But at that time, those people who DID work a lot with braille production were not aware of an automated solution.

Oh well, worlds too big to know everything.