Help me understand this one.
DOJ Targeted Public Library for Lending E-Books 'Inaccessible' to the Blind
Sacramento PL was doing a pilot project to lend pre-loaded Nooks, which is something I'd like to do in the near future. The library wasn't aware of any complaints from blind patrons about the program, but somehow this ended up being dealt with by the Department of Justice. The conclusion is it's discriminatory towards blind people who can't use a Nook, so it's a violation of the Americans with Disabilties Act.
This seems very odd to me. Wouldn't this mean the entire print collection is also non-compliant? The audiobooks are non-compliant for deaf users. Are movies partially compliant? Why are they hitting the Nook program, when there are programs the library has available for blind users, such as audiobooks (their own and through State Library programs) and Braille (also through State Library programs if they don't have their own collection)? The State programs are only available to the legally blind (at least in Texas), which means there are some exclusive audiobooks not available to the rest of the population. I've had several audiobook requests for items in those collections, and they are always denied.
It appears that the library is being pushed to purchase more expensive Apple products which can "read" e-books in a robotic voice. I'm relatively certain this isn't completely correct. The ability for an e-book to be read this way is dependent on whether or not the publisher allows it. Many feel that allowing it cuts into their audiobook sales. For example, purchasing a $7.99 e-book and listen to it in robovoice versus spending around $25+ for an audiobook recorded by a human.
I'm just not getting why this is discriminatory when there are other avenues available for blind users. Am I being ableist here? I don't think so, since there are services for blind users already in place, but I'm open to opinions. Everything can't be made to work for every person, but as long as there are other systems to provide, then I don't understand the issue. Is it bad that it feels like Apple is meddling in Lawyer Land to make their product The One Truely Expensive Product?
Sacramento PL was doing a pilot project to lend pre-loaded Nooks, which is something I'd like to do in the near future. The library wasn't aware of any complaints from blind patrons about the program, but somehow this ended up being dealt with by the Department of Justice. The conclusion is it's discriminatory towards blind people who can't use a Nook, so it's a violation of the Americans with Disabilties Act.
This seems very odd to me. Wouldn't this mean the entire print collection is also non-compliant? The audiobooks are non-compliant for deaf users. Are movies partially compliant? Why are they hitting the Nook program, when there are programs the library has available for blind users, such as audiobooks (their own and through State Library programs) and Braille (also through State Library programs if they don't have their own collection)? The State programs are only available to the legally blind (at least in Texas), which means there are some exclusive audiobooks not available to the rest of the population. I've had several audiobook requests for items in those collections, and they are always denied.
It appears that the library is being pushed to purchase more expensive Apple products which can "read" e-books in a robotic voice. I'm relatively certain this isn't completely correct. The ability for an e-book to be read this way is dependent on whether or not the publisher allows it. Many feel that allowing it cuts into their audiobook sales. For example, purchasing a $7.99 e-book and listen to it in robovoice versus spending around $25+ for an audiobook recorded by a human.
I'm just not getting why this is discriminatory when there are other avenues available for blind users. Am I being ableist here? I don't think so, since there are services for blind users already in place, but I'm open to opinions. Everything can't be made to work for every person, but as long as there are other systems to provide, then I don't understand the issue. Is it bad that it feels like Apple is meddling in Lawyer Land to make their product The One Truely Expensive Product?