E-reader makers request exemption from accessibility standards
Tue, Aug. 6th, 2013 04:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elf posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
access_fandomOnly indirectly related to fandom (I know plenty of fen who've switched to ereaders for much of their reading), but strongly related to accessibility: Amazon, Kobo and Sony are requesting that the FCC exempt dedicated e-readers (PDF) from the requirement to be accessible.
"The public interest would be served by granting this petition because the theoretical ACS ability of e-readers is irrelevant to how the overwhelming majority of users actually use the devices," it says, as if any accessible features were granted because those were how the majority used them.
It goes on to say "E-readers simply are not designed, built, or marketed for ACS, and the public understands the distinction between e-readers and general-purpose tablets." I... have my doubts about that, especially since e-reader manufacturers work really hard to imply that there's no difference, just BW e-readers and color e-readers.
Most of the functions that would require ACS don't exist on many ereaders; I don't agree that means the rest of them shouldn't require it. I suspect this is a ploy to get Kindles into schools without having to be accessible to students with disabilities. Possibly, though, it's exactly what it says it is: an attempt to allow browsers and social media software on limited-use devices without holding them to the same standards as phones and tablets.
ETA1: changed link to the FCC page with embedded PDF.
ETA2: There's a request for comments that last through THIS MONTH. Comments Due: September 3, 2013
"Comments and oppositions are due within 30 days from the date of this Public Notice. Reply comments are due within 10 days after the time for filing comments and oppositions has expired."
"The public interest would be served by granting this petition because the theoretical ACS ability of e-readers is irrelevant to how the overwhelming majority of users actually use the devices," it says, as if any accessible features were granted because those were how the majority used them.
It goes on to say "E-readers simply are not designed, built, or marketed for ACS, and the public understands the distinction between e-readers and general-purpose tablets." I... have my doubts about that, especially since e-reader manufacturers work really hard to imply that there's no difference, just BW e-readers and color e-readers.
Most of the functions that would require ACS don't exist on many ereaders; I don't agree that means the rest of them shouldn't require it. I suspect this is a ploy to get Kindles into schools without having to be accessible to students with disabilities. Possibly, though, it's exactly what it says it is: an attempt to allow browsers and social media software on limited-use devices without holding them to the same standards as phones and tablets.
ETA1: changed link to the FCC page with embedded PDF.
ETA2: There's a request for comments that last through THIS MONTH. Comments Due: September 3, 2013
"Comments and oppositions are due within 30 days from the date of this Public Notice. Reply comments are due within 10 days after the time for filing comments and oppositions has expired."
(no subject)
Date: 2013-08-07 02:21 pm (UTC)If it's a matter of "ACS devices need to provide captioning for videos"... no. E-readers of the type they're talking about don't have video support at all. However, I suspect they're trying to get away from the requirement to support text-to-speech for email and web browser--and, not incidentally, their own navigation functions--even though they provide TTS for the ebooks themselves.
I know the technology involved pretty well; I've owned and loved several e-ink devices. I can tell they've put together a slanted proposition, pushing the idea "these devices are for READING" (which they are) and not mentioning how much they advertise the other features of the devices. They're also not mentioning how much the public *doesn't* distinguish between reader-only and tablet devices.