5 ms·

Why did the US Government claim Kindle violates civil rights?

20 points by cwan 16y ago

protomyth 16y ago
This is the scariest line of the article: 'Now, Perez is at work on a far bigger project, one that could eventually declare the Internet a "public accommodation" under the ADA. That could result in a raft of new Justice Department regulations for disabled access to all sorts of Web sites.'
- parfe 16y ago
  In 2008, Minneapolis-based retailer Target Corp. agreed to pay $6 million to the National Federation of the Blind, a Baltimore-based advocacy group, to settle charges that the design of Target's retail pages on its website illegally denied access to the visually impaired. It already started a couple years ago. http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20100727/NEWS/100729917 http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20100727/NEWS/10072...
  - protomyth 16y ago
    It is one thing for a mult-national business, but I am a little worried that some expensive regs will hit non-business sites.
    - parfe 16y ago
      Think the Justice Department is going to be checking market cap before sending out ADA letters?
      - protomyth 16y ago
        That's what I'm worried about. Not everyone has the resources to make everything accessible to everyone.
thrill 16y ago
A government that has an expansive attitude is like a positive feedback loop - we all know how that eventually ends - at best we get oscillations.
DennisP 16y ago
The Kindle may not have been perfectly suited for blind people, but I don't understand why printed textbooks aren't worse.
- Timmy_C 16y ago
  Under US federal law publishers are required to provide some compatible format such as ICADD, SGML or ASCII that easily be translated to braille.
  - DennisP 16y ago
    But if they're providing an alternative for printed books, why can't they provide the same alternative for the Kindle?
    - Timmy_C 16y ago
      I'm not making an argument about publishers and accessibility of textbooks. I'm just stating a fact that was overlooked in the article.
  - gilgad13 16y ago
    Wouldn't publishers already be doing this as most ebooks are physical books as well? I don't see how the format printed to (ie. physical book vs. ebook) matters. Its not the responsibility of the physical book printer to manage the handicap experience, I don't see why it should be Amazon's. (provided of course that accessible options for the information is provided, which apparently was the case)
    - protomyth 16y ago
      Yeah, this is the other thing I don't understand about this story. The old book was not ADA compliant and another solution was provided. Why is the other solution not valid anymore when you do a one-for-one switch from books to kindle? What changed that required the kindle to be an all-in-one solution? Or, was there a push here because it provided an opening to force changes on Amazon?
alxp 16y ago
This article is libertarian bullshit. "The market" doesn't solve problems that aren't profitable. Apple have been stellar at creating accessible devices and software for a long time and it's wonderful that they include these features for free. Screen reader software for Windows costs a fortune, and while it is more full-featured it's often overkill for someone who isn't totally blind but just has trouble seeing a normal high-resolution screen. Amazon and Google (with Android) and other tech newcomers are not going to think about accessibility unless there is a stronger force than "the market" pushing them to. So, if it means adding accessibility features is a necessary condition to being awarded an education contract, I'm all for it.
- jerf 16y ago
  I'll buy that, if you'll also agree that this ruling is liberal bullshit. Even if it conforms to the letter of the law, it is definitely not the intent of the law. Please note I'm not asking anyone to be less liberal or care less about the ADA; I'm simply observing this is a violation of the intent of the law and of common sense. The fault here is the government's, I'm not pinning this on liberalism in general. This sort of thing is actually dangerous; it generates anti-ADA sentiment in the public at large. Which would be unfortunate, as the ADA is broadly a good idea. (There are corners I can quibble about, but that's because I'm the contentious sort. It's mostly good.) Also, even as a little-l libertarian, I would observe that much of the reason the market was "solving" this before the government clumsily stepped in is that the market was well aware that this requirement was coming as a result of the already-existing ADA law. They probably just thought that maybe the government would let them run a test project before they tried to put it into production, at which point they would dot their is and cross their ts, something I find a rather reasonable assumption. Markets are very, very good at serving the majority, and they are very, very good at serving niches with resources proportional to the size of the niche, but if you want the entire market to serve a niche for social reasons you will need government intervention to do it.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > if you want the entire market to serve a niche for social reasons you will need government intervention to do it. That doesn't tell us who should pay the costs. If "the people" think that something is a good idea, "the people" should pay for it.
jessriedel 16y ago
Anyone have version of this story which isn't dripping in sensationalism?
aplusbi 16y ago
I wonder if there is a market for a braille-based ebook reader. Refreshable braille displays already exist and it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to build one in an ebook form factor that could read ebook formats. Edit: I looked into it a bit. The refreshable braille displays on the market are very bulky, primarily so they can deal with the necessary wear and tear. While I'm sure a smaller, lighter version is possible (especially since it doesn't need features like cursor location) I wonder how small you can actually make it before you drastically cut down on its life.
ahi 16y ago
I will not state an opinion on the content of the article. I am unsure what is and isn't true. What may be helpful to know is that the Examiner is not highly regarded in the district. It is little more than a tabloid for the district's rich lawyers. http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/30063/its-all-in-black-and-white http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/30063/its-all-in...
dkarl 16y ago
Of course, most Web access problems are already being solved by the market, but that won't stop the Justice Department's zealous civil rights enforcer. I just came in to hear the guffaws of the UI designers over this one. The UI guys where I work have read a lot about accessibility and think it's fascinating. Boy, will they be excited if they ever get a chance to add accessibility to a real product.

20 points by cwan 16y ago

This is the scariest line of the article: 'Now, Perez is at work on a far bigger project, one that could eventually declare the Internet a "public accommodation" under the ADA. That could result in a raft of new Justice Department regulations for disabled access to all sorts of Web sites.'

parfe 16y ago
In 2008, Minneapolis-based retailer Target Corp. agreed to pay $6 million to the National Federation of the Blind, a Baltimore-based advocacy group, to settle charges that the design of Target's retail pages on its website illegally denied access to the visually impaired. It already started a couple years ago. http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20100727/NEWS/100729917 http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20100727/NEWS/10072...
- protomyth 16y ago
  It is one thing for a mult-national business, but I am a little worried that some expensive regs will hit non-business sites.
  - parfe 16y ago
    Think the Justice Department is going to be checking market cap before sending out ADA letters?
    - protomyth 16y ago
      That's what I'm worried about. Not everyone has the resources to make everything accessible to everyone.

thrill 16y ago

A government that has an expansive attitude is like a positive feedback loop - we all know how that eventually ends - at best we get oscillations.

DennisP 16y ago

The Kindle may not have been perfectly suited for blind people, but I don't understand why printed textbooks aren't worse.

Timmy_C 16y ago
Under US federal law publishers are required to provide some compatible format such as ICADD, SGML or ASCII that easily be translated to braille.
- DennisP 16y ago
  But if they're providing an alternative for printed books, why can't they provide the same alternative for the Kindle?
  - Timmy_C 16y ago
    I'm not making an argument about publishers and accessibility of textbooks. I'm just stating a fact that was overlooked in the article.
- gilgad13 16y ago
  Wouldn't publishers already be doing this as most ebooks are physical books as well? I don't see how the format printed to (ie. physical book vs. ebook) matters. Its not the responsibility of the physical book printer to manage the handicap experience, I don't see why it should be Amazon's. (provided of course that accessible options for the information is provided, which apparently was the case)
  - protomyth 16y ago
    Yeah, this is the other thing I don't understand about this story. The old book was not ADA compliant and another solution was provided. Why is the other solution not valid anymore when you do a one-for-one switch from books to kindle? What changed that required the kindle to be an all-in-one solution? Or, was there a push here because it provided an opening to force changes on Amazon?

alxp 16y ago

This article is libertarian bullshit. "The market" doesn't solve problems that aren't profitable. Apple have been stellar at creating accessible devices and software for a long time and it's wonderful that they include these features for free. Screen reader software for Windows costs a fortune, and while it is more full-featured it's often overkill for someone who isn't totally blind but just has trouble seeing a normal high-resolution screen. Amazon and Google (with Android) and other tech newcomers are not going to think about accessibility unless there is a stronger force than "the market" pushing them to. So, if it means adding accessibility features is a necessary condition to being awarded an education contract, I'm all for it.

jerf 16y ago
I'll buy that, if you'll also agree that this ruling is liberal bullshit. Even if it conforms to the letter of the law, it is definitely not the intent of the law. Please note I'm not asking anyone to be less liberal or care less about the ADA; I'm simply observing this is a violation of the intent of the law and of common sense. The fault here is the government's, I'm not pinning this on liberalism in general. This sort of thing is actually dangerous; it generates anti-ADA sentiment in the public at large. Which would be unfortunate, as the ADA is broadly a good idea. (There are corners I can quibble about, but that's because I'm the contentious sort. It's mostly good.) Also, even as a little-l libertarian, I would observe that much of the reason the market was "solving" this before the government clumsily stepped in is that the market was well aware that this requirement was coming as a result of the already-existing ADA law. They probably just thought that maybe the government would let them run a test project before they tried to put it into production, at which point they would dot their is and cross their ts, something I find a rather reasonable assumption. Markets are very, very good at serving the majority, and they are very, very good at serving niches with resources proportional to the size of the niche, but if you want the entire market to serve a niche for social reasons you will need government intervention to do it.
- anamax 16y ago
  > if you want the entire market to serve a niche for social reasons you will need government intervention to do it. That doesn't tell us who should pay the costs. If "the people" think that something is a good idea, "the people" should pay for it.

jessriedel 16y ago

Anyone have version of this story which isn't dripping in sensationalism?

aplusbi 16y ago

I wonder if there is a market for a braille-based ebook reader. Refreshable braille displays already exist and it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to build one in an ebook form factor that could read ebook formats. Edit: I looked into it a bit. The refreshable braille displays on the market are very bulky, primarily so they can deal with the necessary wear and tear. While I'm sure a smaller, lighter version is possible (especially since it doesn't need features like cursor location) I wonder how small you can actually make it before you drastically cut down on its life.

ahi 16y ago

I will not state an opinion on the content of the article. I am unsure what is and isn't true. What may be helpful to know is that the Examiner is not highly regarded in the district. It is little more than a tabloid for the district's rich lawyers. http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/30063/its-all-in-black-and-white http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/30063/its-all-in...

dkarl 16y ago

Of course, most Web access problems are already being solved by the market, but that won't stop the Justice Department's zealous civil rights enforcer. I just came in to hear the guffaws of the UI designers over this one. The UI guys where I work have read a lot about accessibility and think it's fascinating. Boy, will they be excited if they ever get a chance to add accessibility to a real product.