Help me understand this one.

[nialla42]

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.

Comments

[innocent_lex]

Apple's been doing this for years. It's no surprise. I'm pretty appalled by their tactics, and it would keep me away from their products even if their products generally weren't good enough to meet my needs already. I'm really not impressed by bullies of any kind.

[nialla42]

I'm not sure how Apple products were named as what could accomplish the job. It's possible the library staff selected it as an alternate to the Nook, since Kindles do not play well with library use, either pre-loaded or checking out e-books.

[imkalena]

Oddly enough, I find patrons have an easier time dling the Kindle ebooks, because the Adobe content manager (name fell out of my head) for Nook files, etc, IS STOOPID. I advise tablet users to dl the Kindle app to access library ebooks.

[nialla42]

I know with OverDrive, some publishers refuse to allow their books to be checked out to Kindles. Some will allow older titles, but not new ones. Then there's the library-side privacy problem, because checkouts complete at Amazon, and they also retain your history: bookmarks, highlights, notes, plus the fact that you checked the book out.

Makes a lot of library privacy advocates get the hives, and got me a dirty look when I asked if a new e-book library system being set up would support Kindles. Nope. So not only is that out for us, because most of our e-reader users have Kindles, but they can't even work out an app that could be used to bypass Amazon or simply have mobi files available. I mean, if AO3 can do it, surely they can.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

I am baffled myself. My first thought was one of yours: aren't all the print books also out of compliance? Then again, there are now technologies where you can have print scanned and read by an electronic voice, if you have the right equipment. Are those things that can scan a page of print unable to scan a page in an e-reader?

If you find out more, please post an update. I feel as though I'm missing something.

[nialla42]

There's one way print books are in the clear; they're grandfathered. Our library building is grandfathered out of the need to comply with ADA. However, if any renovations are done, it would have to be upgraded into compliance.

I'm not sure if a scanner that reads print would work on e-ink or color tablets. If it could read off a computer screen, then it would work on the color versions of Kindles, Nooks, and iPads. The e-ink readers are close to the level of contrast a print book has, but I'm not sure if it would scan either.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

But you keep adding more print books to the collection; are they grandfathered too, or only the ones you already had before ADA went into effect?

On the whole, I think ADA is a very good thing. This instance just seems a bizarre illustration of unintended consequences, and I'm not sure it's really helping anyone-the fix is so expensive that surely it will mean fewer print and audio books!

[nialla42]

I think the argument can be made that print books are an already established service, so as a whole it's grandfathered.

ADA is a good thing. Just like so many other good things, there's some unintended consequences, often in the form of lawyers who see a chance to score some money from a lawsuit.

[brihana25]

No, I think it's a load of crap, too, and I've been studying the ADA off and on for the past 20 years (the last ten as it applies to technology specifically). You'd be amazed how many government websites, the ones that are specifically required to comply with Section 508, are inaccessible to the blind.

Personally, I think it's Apple using the DoJ as their own personal attack dog, just like they've been doing for years. They saw a way to pervert a law that was intended to insure equal access for the blind into something that could corner them another "legal" monopoly and make them more money.

[nialla42]

Sadly, I wouldn't be amazed at how many government websites are non-compliant. Some of them are difficult enough to read as a sighted person. I have had to help a lot of people navigate government sites that apparently had chimps as programmers.

I'm not sure how Apple products got into the mix as being compliant, because if their products can read any book text and the publisher hasn't allowed for that use, it won't be pretty. Maybe library staff gave that suggestion, since it's a known fact that Kindles do not play well in library situations.

[lunachickk]

This is ridiculous and sounds like serious Apple-meddling to me.

[nialla42]

It sounds like it to me as well, even though there's no detail on how Apple's products got into the list as being compliant. I'm not quite sure how a device that relies totally on a touch screen without tactile or audible assistance would work for a blind person. How would you even know where to touch in the first place? And then from there, what would you touch to start and stop audio playback?

[sidlj]

I guess these folks just weren't around to complain when printing press technology was new, and to demand that every book printed be read aloud in the town square. Books on shelves are old news. But there's a chance here to get in on the ground floor of the newest thing, which is a natural impulse.

But I don't get it either. Are libraries required to spend an equal amount of money on reading material for the blind as they do for print material? Or to balance the quantity of materials 50/50? They obviously have never been required in the past to make all materials accessible to all patrons. The added cost could ensure that nothing will be accessible to anyone.

[nialla42]

I think you're onto something. Printed books and audiobooks existed before ADA, so they're grandfathered. They don't have to comply