4 ms·

Instead of Audible, I recommend downloading audiobooks for free from your local library. The San Francisco Public Library uses an app called "Libby." (I think

Instead of Audible, I recommend downloading audiobooks for free from your local library. The San Francisco Public Library uses an app called "Libby." (I think most major US libraries support it.) It's free and convenient. No complaints.

gnicholas 8y ago
FYI, Libby is an app made by OverDrive, (which is in turn owned by Rakuten). Although OverDrive has published multiple open letters proclaiming their dedication to accessibility, they have done relatively little in this space. In one disappointing conversation with a senior executive, I was told that if they can’t charge libraries more for a feature, they won’t add it. To my mind, the definition of accessibility is making decisions that make a product more accessible even if doing so does not make more money. Given that OverDrive has 90% market share in the US, it’s a pity that this is their attitude toward accessibility.
- frosted-flakes 8y ago
  Rakuten also owns Kobo, which sells ebooks and audiobooks (along with e-ink ereaders).
- rahimnathwani 8y ago
  "To my mind, the definition of accessibility is making decisions that make a product more accessible even if doing so does not make more money." Their clients (libraries) are the ones providing a service to end users. It's up to the libraries to determine what's important when selecting a supplier or developing a custom solution. Imagine I download an app on my phone. And I find it can't be used with a screen reader for some reason. Who is responsible here? Me? Google Play? The app publisher? The outsourced developer who did the coding for hire? Now imagine the same situation, but: - the app publisher being a US entity which takes federal funds - the app being assembled wholly from existing community-maintained open source projects It seems obvious to me that the party providing the service, and not the developer of the underlying software, is responsible.
  - gnicholas 8y ago
    I agree that libraries have some responsibility here. But as it happens, my conversation with this OverDrive exec was pursuant to a letter signed by librarians representing hundreds of libraries, asking OverDrive to offer a particular accessibility feature, and giving detailed reasons for why it would help library patrons. Even with this supporting information and the backing of hundreds of libraries, OverDrive was not interested because they didn't think they could profit off the feature.
    - rahimnathwani 8y ago
      In the letter from the librarians, was the feature described as: A) Must-have (e.g. if we don't have it, we'll be breaking the law, and so can't/won't renew the contract to use Libby), or B) Nice-to-have? If A, then I'm surprised at OverDrive's response. If B, then I'm curious to know how much the librarians offered to pay. If OverDrive can't make a profit from a feature, then either it's not that important to the people who hold the purse strings, or the feature is too expensive/complicated to build/deploy/maintain. Is there something stopping the libraries from using a different vendor, or developing a solution that meets their needs? (As far as consumer software goes, Libby doesn't seem that complicated at the front end, but perhaps there are lots of complex third party integrations at the backend, to support licensing/DRM/whatever?)
      - gnicholas 8y ago
        I don't think they said it was legally required, just that it would be very beneficial. They didn't offer a price, nor were they ever asked how much they'd pay. But I'm not aware of any platforms that charge extra for their accessibility features. Are there any? The reason there isn't much competition in the space is that OverDrive has a huge lead, and it is very complex on the back end. NYPL is doing good stuff with the SimplyE project, which they are offering to other libraries as well. Hopefully this will spur innovation in the space, in many regards!
        rahimnathwani 8y ago
dwighttk 8y ago
My library has Libby(/overdrive) and Hoopla. I find that Libby only has recent bestsellers while Hoopla has actual audiobooks I’d like to read. (I’ve listened to 2 or 3 on Libby and at least 100 on hoopla). Unfortunately Hoopla charges the library for every item checked out and since it has gotten popular they reduced the monthly limit from 15 to 10 to 5.

gnicholas 8y ago

FYI, Libby is an app made by OverDrive, (which is in turn owned by Rakuten). Although OverDrive has published multiple open letters proclaiming their dedication to accessibility, they have done relatively little in this space. In one disappointing conversation with a senior executive, I was told that if they can’t charge libraries more for a feature, they won’t add it. To my mind, the definition of accessibility is making decisions that make a product more accessible even if doing so does not make more money. Given that OverDrive has 90% market share in the US, it’s a pity that this is their attitude toward accessibility.

frosted-flakes 8y ago
Rakuten also owns Kobo, which sells ebooks and audiobooks (along with e-ink ereaders).
rahimnathwani 8y ago
"To my mind, the definition of accessibility is making decisions that make a product more accessible even if doing so does not make more money." Their clients (libraries) are the ones providing a service to end users. It's up to the libraries to determine what's important when selecting a supplier or developing a custom solution. Imagine I download an app on my phone. And I find it can't be used with a screen reader for some reason. Who is responsible here? Me? Google Play? The app publisher? The outsourced developer who did the coding for hire? Now imagine the same situation, but: - the app publisher being a US entity which takes federal funds - the app being assembled wholly from existing community-maintained open source projects It seems obvious to me that the party providing the service, and not the developer of the underlying software, is responsible.
- gnicholas 8y ago
  I agree that libraries have some responsibility here. But as it happens, my conversation with this OverDrive exec was pursuant to a letter signed by librarians representing hundreds of libraries, asking OverDrive to offer a particular accessibility feature, and giving detailed reasons for why it would help library patrons. Even with this supporting information and the backing of hundreds of libraries, OverDrive was not interested because they didn't think they could profit off the feature.
  - rahimnathwani 8y ago
    In the letter from the librarians, was the feature described as: A) Must-have (e.g. if we don't have it, we'll be breaking the law, and so can't/won't renew the contract to use Libby), or B) Nice-to-have? If A, then I'm surprised at OverDrive's response. If B, then I'm curious to know how much the librarians offered to pay. If OverDrive can't make a profit from a feature, then either it's not that important to the people who hold the purse strings, or the feature is too expensive/complicated to build/deploy/maintain. Is there something stopping the libraries from using a different vendor, or developing a solution that meets their needs? (As far as consumer software goes, Libby doesn't seem that complicated at the front end, but perhaps there are lots of complex third party integrations at the backend, to support licensing/DRM/whatever?)
    - gnicholas 8y ago
      I don't think they said it was legally required, just that it would be very beneficial. They didn't offer a price, nor were they ever asked how much they'd pay. But I'm not aware of any platforms that charge extra for their accessibility features. Are there any? The reason there isn't much competition in the space is that OverDrive has a huge lead, and it is very complex on the back end. NYPL is doing good stuff with the SimplyE project, which they are offering to other libraries as well. Hopefully this will spur innovation in the space, in many regards!
      - rahimnathwani 8y ago

dwighttk 8y ago

My library has Libby(/overdrive) and Hoopla. I find that Libby only has recent bestsellers while Hoopla has actual audiobooks I’d like to read. (I’ve listened to 2 or 3 on Libby and at least 100 on hoopla). Unfortunately Hoopla charges the library for every item checked out and since it has gotten popular they reduced the monthly limit from 15 to 10 to 5.