Search News


Browse Archives

News

Challenge to the Kindle

July 6, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The slow but inexorable move to electronic textbooks, accelerated by the emergence of e-readers like Amazon's Kindle and the Sony Reader, holds great promise for students who are visually impaired. Digital formats can easily be transferred into audio recordings or texts printed in Braille, avoiding the piecemeal system by which most colleges' disability resource centers turn individual textbooks into versions that are accessible to the blind.

But instead of welcoming May's news that numerous colleges were experimenting with Amazon's Kindle DX as a way to bring digital textbooks to their students, advocates for the visually impaired are strenuously objecting to it. The National Federation of the Blind and the American Council of the Blind filed a lawsuit last month against Arizona State University, saying that its plan to use the Kindle to distribute books to students is illegal because blind people cannot use the device as currently configured. (The groups also asked the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice to examine the Kindle deployments planned by the five other colleges.) The Kindle DX has built-in technology that translates digital books into audio, but users can get to that feature only through on-screen menus that are not accessible to the blind.

"It's unfair to blind people for this device to be deployed but for blind students not have access to it," said Chris Danielson, director of public relations for the National Federation of the Blind. "It's ironic, because this is a technical development that should improve accessibility for blind students. But the reality is that right now it doesn't. And until it does, these colleges should hold off."

A spokesman for Arizona State, Virgil Renzulli, said the university is "committed to equal access for all students." The university has joined in a pilot program for the Kindle reader for a single course where students may also access traditional textbooks. Renzulli said that Arizona State will help any visually impaired students in those courses, as it does all students, through its disability resource centers that provide "the necessary tools so that all students with disabilities have an equal opportunity to be successful in their academic pursuits."

Advocates for the blind are no fans of the historically expensive, time-intensive system by which most colleges make textbooks accessible to visually impaired students, which require campus disability resource centers to rip up physical textbooks and transform them into digital files that can be run through text-to-speech software or turned into braille versions.

The emergence of publisher-produced digital textbooks has occurred for other reasons, but the development has enormous potential for the blind -- a promise that is already incorporated into the Kindle DX. The device has "read-to-me" software that allows users to "switch back and forth between reading and listening," and enabling them to "choose from both male and female voices which can be sped up or slowed down to suit your preference," per Amazon's promotional material.

But the catch, to the dismay of Darrell Shandrow, a blind student at Arizona State and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, is that the only way to turn on Kindle's text-to-speech function (or to select a book or use any of the device's many other features, for that matter) is to use its on-screen menu -- which is inaccessible to the visually impaired.

Software exists that can use audio or keyboard shortcuts to make menus available, says Danielson of the federation for the blind. But Amazon has chosen not to incorporate that technology into the Kindle at this point, and by adopting the device as-is, Arizona State and the other universities are violating the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the groups allege in their lawsuit and federal complaints.

"Given the highly-advanced technology involved, there is no good reason that Amazon’s Kindle DX device should be inaccessible to blind students," Marc Maurer, the federation's president, said in a prepared statement. "Amazon could have used the same text-to-speech technology that reads e-books on the device aloud to make its menus accessible to the blind, but it chose not to do so. Worse yet, six American higher education institutions that are subject to federal laws requiring that they not discriminate against students with disabilities plan to deploy this device, even though they know that it cannot be used by blind students."

Officials at Amazon did not respond to multiple requests for comment about Kindle's technology. In addition to the statement from Arizona State, administrators at some of the other colleges in Amazon's textbook experiment (Case Western Reserve University, the University of Virginia's business school, Pace and Princeton Universities, and Reed College) said they had no intention of discriminating against the visually impaired.

“Our pilot program is a limited test through which we intend to assess the usefulness of the Kindle devices for our students," read a statement from Pace University. "We have not yet finalized the details of our test or adopted the Kindle device on a widespread basis or as a part of a formal or required aspect of Pace’s curriculum. Of course we will be sure to accommodate any student with a disability, including blindness, appropriately and according to all applicable laws.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Challenge to the Kindle

  • Posted by Miriam on July 6, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • There's a huge element of this issue omitted from the article: Thanks to pressure from the Authors' Guild, Amazon allows publishers to disable the text-to-speech feature specifically so that their content cannot be read aloud--basically, they're allowed to deliberately make their content inaccessible. Why would anyone do that? For money, of course. More details can be found at the <a href="http://www.readingrights.org/">Reading Rights Colation</a> website.

  • Posted by David Lindenberg on July 6, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  •  

    As a learning differences coordinator, I plan to experiment using the Kindle to see if it will help individuals with reading disabilities. While I agree that the Kindle (and Kindle DX) are not accessible to the blind, I would like to point out that the text-to-voice feature can be turned on through a keyboard shortcut. This shortcut will not help one navigate the onscreen menu, but can be used once the correct book or other text is selected.

     

     

     

    Another way that the Kindle is not accessible is not all books have the text-to-speech feature available to them. There is an ongoing argument whether or not this feature infringes upon copyright. According to Greg Sanoval’s February 27, 2009 cnet article (http://news.cnet.com/amazon-retreats-on-kindles-text-to-speech-issue/?tag=mncol), Amazon believes that it does not, but has given the individual publishers and authors the ability to have the text-to-speech feature turned off on a per-title basis. Keeping my personal view about the copyright issue to myself, I am frustrated that the books that have this feature turned off are not labeled so the customer knows.

     

     

     

    One could argue that Amazon gives me the chance to download a sample of the book for free and I could test to see if the text-to-speech feature worked (this is how I learned about the feature being turned off). On that note one could argue that the individuals with visual impairments could select the home menu and scroll down the menu one at a time, turning on the text-to-speech feature via the keyboard shortcut (shift+SYM) after each selection to determine if the correct book was chosen. These are both preposterous solutions. Amazon should label which books do not have the text-to-speech feature, and they should allow their text-to-speech feature be turned on to read menu items.

     

  • what about regular books
  • Posted by random thoughts on July 6, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • I understand the concern that this new technology is not (yet) adapted to the visually impaired, but how is it different from traditional textbooks, which provide no accommodation? If people can sue a school to stop using Kindle, can they sue to prevent use of traditional textbooks? What am I missing here?

  • Other Access Points
  • Posted by Jonathan Dresner on July 6, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • I'm a little surprised not to see any mention of RFB&D or Bookshare (www.bookshare.org) in the discussion of currently accessible sources of textbooks. Bookshare, in addition to their volunteer scanner/editor submissions, has been working with textbook publishers to get electronic versions of texts available in an accessible format at the time of publication. RFB&D has been recording texts for classes for decades, and once a book is recorded, it becomes part of their archive which they can then share with other disabled students.

    Bookshare could be a viable supplement to the Kindle project, making textbooks available in accessible form, if Amazon and the publishers would work with them. And college administrators didn't believe everything publishers say.

  • Did the plaintiffs attempt to talk to Amazon before suing?
  • Posted by mr1951 on July 6, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • Thanks for your well-done article--much better than the Wired Chronicle's version.

    My question is-- did the student and organizations who are suing ever attempt to discuss and resolve this with Amazon and Arizona State?

    Or did they just launch into an expensive lawsuit for the sake of publicity and the cash?

  • I was wondering the same thing...
  • Posted by Lynda , adjunct at HCC on July 6, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • I was also wondering, as did Random Thoughts, why this same objection would not apply to regular textbooks. And, it also seems to me, given the information provided, that if it is a simple matter of reading a menu and "flipping" a switch, that that could easily be done by a "helper". I have people who come into my class to read screens and take notes for visually impaired students; surely, someone could turn on the voice software for them.

    Also, didn't the article say these were simply being tested? It's a new product. I can see advocates bringing this problem to the attention of the producers and testers of the product, but to sue them? Seems a premature act and over reaction to me.

  • Textbooks
  • Posted by Gaylen Floy , student on July 6, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • As a member of the American Council of the Blind, I know the Council prefers structured negotiation. A law suit is a means of last resort.

    For background on this issue see <a href="http://www.readingrights.org/">Reading Rights Colation</a> website.

    My school does not have a disability service program. As a student with vision-impairment, I find RFB&D to be rather flaky. Dozens of pages would be missing or they sent blank CDs.

     

     

  • Hello?!
  • Posted by Jeremy on July 6, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • Are you kidding me?! A plain old textbook isn't accessible to the blind either! How is this any different?

  • Posted by Laura on July 6, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • I think some of us didn't read the article.

    "Advocates for the blind are no fans of the historically expensive, time-intensive system by which most colleges make textbooks accessible to visually impaired students, which require campus disability resource centers to rip up physical textbooks and transform them into digital files that can be run through text-to-speech software or turned into braille versions."

    They're not fans of this system, and I understand why, but at least this way the students can get the digital files in a form they can use.

  • Accessibility = making everyone blind?
  • Posted on July 6, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • Has accommodation and accessibility changed from providing those with sensory impairments the support they need and deserve to a cause which advocates impairing everyone until all are equal?

    The Kindle isn't accessible to the blind--neither are telescopes in the astronomy classes or microscopes in science laboratories. Are we going to make everyone essentially blind by forbidding the majority of students to use these tools or for educational institutions to supply them?


    Unbridled causes can evolve into agendas characterized by borderline insanity. I think we may have reached that under such interpretations of "accessibility" wherein the current agenda seems to be "the majority must be deprived" rather than "the minority must be helped and supported."

  • Posted by Mike on July 6, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • The ADA requires reasonable accommodations. Obviously, one cannot do everything for everyone. With printed books it is hard and expensive to make readable versions for the blind. Therefore do so on a case-by-case basis may be seen as reasonable while making every print book readable by the blind is unreasonable. Since it is cheap and easy to make e-books readable by the blind one may conclude that doing so is reasonable. Thus making blind students go through a bureaucratic process to get an readable e-book may not meet ADA standards.

  • Access Could Even be "Good for Business"
  • Posted by Hope Lewis , Professor/Law at Northeastern University on July 6, 2009 at 5:45pm EDT
  • This is a great article because it addresses several issues that are often glossed over in pieces on disability access:

    --Theory vs. Reality: Some assume that the ADA and other laws make access to printed textbooks and other print materials "easy" for blind or vision-impaired students, faculty, and administrators. Although there are excellent technical and other adaptive solutions now available (e.g., braille translation, large-print, audiobooks, text-to-speech software, scanning software to convert print into digital format), these resources are not always easily accessible as a practical matter, especially in terms of timing and individual financial resources (the institutional cost is often not as large as universities fear).

    Services like RFBD and Bookshare are options, but users may have to ensure that the relevant book is reformatted well in advance of the semester's start (a particular concern for students hoping to take a class in which the professor has adopted required books late). Some textbook publishers (even those with stated "accessibility policies" do not make their own staff aware of the policies or resist providing digital format to users with disabilities. Some readers of this newsletter are also aware that textbook publishers may issue slightly revised "new" editions each year, thereby making previous digital or audio format materials useless. Some of the software and hardware options that convert paper to large print and speech are great, but some can introduce conversion errors that make it particularly difficult for students.

    Bottom Line: Having a textbook already available in digital format makes accurate reading all that much easier for persons with disabilities.

    --The Kindle and Access for All: Like many others, I was initially happy to see the advent of the text-to-speech Kindle 2 and DX, but Amazon can do better. There has been a tremendous amount of discussion about disability access and I'm not sure Amazon can claim to be surprised that the issue has come up. .

    I do not know which approach-- a lawsuit, or the structured negotiation approach suggested in an earlier comment--will bear more fruit. An observation, however. It is clear that the technology exists to make on-screen menus readable as audio output. If text-to-speech was added for the actual books, why NOT make the menus accessible as well? This is also a common issue with cellphone makers who create "large print" or voice options for certain functions, but use small print menus to get to them. It just does not make sense. and could even be considered a bad business decision, given the growing number of aging baby boomers. The latter might not identify as "blind" or "vision-impaired," but the number of complaints I hear from mainstream users about tiny text on digital devices means that there is a significant market out there...Some forget that it is often technological advancements engineered "for" persons with disabilities that become mainstream innovations (e.g., audiobooks on I-Pods, text-to-speech, scanning pdfs, large monitors, handheld notetakers, and more...)

  • NFB and AFB tried talking to Kindle/Amazon
  • Posted by Jane on July 6, 2009 at 5:45pm EDT
  • Folks asked if NFB and AFB tried talking to Kindle/Amazon before filing the lawsuit. As noted, the answer is "yes."
    Several posters have asked why the inaccessible Kindle is any different than the inaccessible printed textbook. After all, there are a number of mechanisms out there (RFBD, Bookshare, disability services offices) that make sure that students with disabilities get access to print materials in alternate form, so why is this so different? The answer to that legitimate question is more complicated, but no less definitive, in my mind. YES... this is different.
    The issue here is really not about access to a textbook. It is about access to opportunity -- the opportunity to use new and exciting instructional technology. The lawsuit is a means of pointing out the institution's plans to explore an opportunity that is known, from the start, to be shut off to some people with disabilities. The annoying part, of course, is that the technology already exists to make this opportunity fully accessible, but Kindle and Amazon have chosen not to make it available.
    What if this were about access to a bricks-and-mortar building, rather than access to textbooks through Kindle? Suppose University X determined that there was a newer, better, fancier way to teach lab courses, using virtual reality technology built into new "smart classrooms." This would give students a chance to observe cell mitosis from inside the cell or view, firsthand, how the cochlea transmits information to the auditory nerve. Of course, not every class will be produced in a way to make use of this new technology for some time, and it will benefit some students more than others, but it certainly seems the way of the future, and -- wonder of wonders -- the people who harnessed this new technology were either remarkably far-thinking or remarkably lucky in their design, and they have built in so many bells and whistiles to this multi-media approach that it is truly accessible to a variety of students with disabilities. Using this enhanced technology is going to mean new classroom construction. No problem, you say -- we are getting ready to build a new classroom building anyhow. We'll just include one of these fancy technical marvels in the new building, making sure that we have laid the plans for making sure ALL of the new classrooms can be converted when we are ready.
    Of course, there is this one little problem. The architect that drew up the plans for the new building forgot to provide an accessible entrance. There are stairs everywhere except out on the loading dock, using a service elevator through the storage area. Never mind. If that kid in a wheelchair gets assigned to any other classes in that building, we'll just move the class to some other building. And if the kid in a wheelchair is signed up to take this new virtual reality lab course, we'll just transfer his registration over to the standard section of the class. After all, not everyone is going to like or want to use the new format. The standard presentations have always been good enough before -- that's the way we have always made the lab courses accessible. There will be plenty of non-virtual options available, so what's the big deal?
    The big deal is that the University wouldn't be excited about trying out this new technology if they didn't think it would provide something more/newer/better for some students. And it WILL provide that opportunity... for everyone except the kid in the wheelchair. In this day and age, would anyone really argue that it is OK to build this new building, with all the exciting technology it contains, without an accessible entrance? THAT is what this lawsuit is about.
    The use of the Kindle technology represents an exciting new opportunity. That's why ASU and the 5 other institutions are trying out this pilot program to evaluate its potential. Why is it considered fair/OK/acceptable for the institutions to adopt this new technology when they know that it is no more accessible than the building without a ramp? But this is only a Pilot program, right? The University isn't really adopting this new technology. They are just thinking about it. The translation of that thinking would have advocates waiting until AFTER the building is finished to sue for a ramp, rather than pointing up the problem while the blueprints are still on the table. Does that make any sense?
    I do not belong to either NFB or AFB, but I have to believe that a strong motivation behind their lawsuit is not to punish or antagonize the institution, but rather because ASU *does* have a good reputation for its support of students with disabilities. They want ASU to say, "gee -- you are right. This isn't logical, especially when it is possible to make the technology fully accessible to everyone easily." And then ASU (and the other institutions) will go back to Amazon/Kindle and say, "we really don't think we want to implement this technology until it is available to everyone. When you get that done, we'd be interested in talking to you again." It is not LEGAL threats that will bring about the change that disability advocates want. It is MARKET threats. The real goal is to make it clear that if Amazon wants to be a player in the educational technology movement, it has to produce equipment that is accessible to students with disabilities.
    An old adage maintains, "It is easier to do it right than to do it over."

  • Posted by K. on July 7, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • This is a "test product" and given this, I don't understand why the plaintiffs are suing. I also don't agree with their reasoning for suing ASU. How is it a violation of ADA if this is a product being piloted? Students don't have to use it. It didn't seem as if ASU was saying that visually impaired students had to use this as their accommodation. Students can use the old fashioned ways of readers, converting texts to braille, etc.

    I think it is great that ASU is trying to provide a more modern way for students who are visually impaired to receive their accommodations, but again, IT IS A TEST, so give some feedback to ASU and Amazon and try to collaboratively solve this problem.

  • speculation
  • Posted by E on July 7, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT
  • My guess is that the lawsuit is happening because the use of this technology has given a competitive advantage to people who don't have vision problems. If a student is taking a class that is graded "on a curve" or has a grading incentive to outperform other students--like many classes in law, business and medicine--it is illegal and not fair to structure the class so that certain students (through no fault of their own) cannot access things that will help them while other students can.

    Initiating a lawsuit, particularly one concerning ADA, is a very expensive and time-consuming process. I'm certain other options have been and are being used. If it were not for the threat of lawsuits, most people (probably anyone reading this article) at some point or another get needlessly and excessively screwed--especially anyone who is not a white, fully able-bodied, not too old, not too young, not too poor, hetero/"normal-sexual" male. Of course, everyone experiences things that aren't fair, but civil rights dont happen because people are naturally kind-hearted.

  • What did the plaintiffs do prior to initiating the lawsuit?
  • Posted by mr1951 on July 9, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • Two postings say that the plaintiffs did try to negotiate this with Amazon/Kindle and Arizona State University, but provide no details.

    What exactly was done to try to get this resolved without the exhausting and expensive process of a lawsuit?

    I want to believe that it was a last resort, but without details I don't have any basis for that belief.

    Please provide us all with some information so we can come to a more informed conclusion. Thank you!

  • Another problem
  • Posted by Will D on July 11, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • Something else that hasn't come up in this debate, and that may be responsible for the silence emanating from Amazon, is the fact that the grand plan for etextbooks at Amazon (rumored for months) is based on textbooks formatted as .pdf documents. Amazon built in .pdf support for the Kindle DX in order to make it capable of displaying .pdfs, the format in which most etextbooks have been created.

    The problem in this case is that the text-to-speech feature on the Kindle doesn't work with most .pdf files. So I think that the issue raised by the lawsuit is a bigger one than first meets the eye