Take action to make the Kindle II accessible

I’ve previously written here about the Amazon Kindle II eBook reader and how there was some possible accessibility because it had text-to-speech (TTS) built into it, allowing the books to be read aloud. If you’ve missed it, since that posting, there has been a lot of turmoil over the TTS availability, primarily that the Author’s Guild challenged Amazon on making their eBooks to instantly become audio books.

Pardon me as I haven’t blogged very regularly of late and have missed the discussion that has followed, but let me make up for it by giving you the latest, and ask you to do your part and take action.

First, please help the movement to see the fledgling TTS on the Kindle II expand to a fully accessible screen reader by signing the
petition asking Amazon to make the Kindle fully accessible.

Being Amazon is working to position itself as the dominant seller of all books, this only makes good business sense to bring accessibility to the product they tout as the premiere eBook player. There is a need for this accessibility and we need to get more people to sign the petition.

And, if you’re able, go attend the April 7 informational protest at the Author’s Guild headquarters. For details, read the below press release from the
National Federation of the Blind.

* * * * * *
· FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
Chris Danielsen
Director of Public Relations
National Federation of the Blind
(410) 659-9314, ext. 2330
(410) 262-1281 (Cell)
cdanielsen@nfb.org

Reading Rights Coalition Urges Authors to Allow Everyone Access to E-books
Informational Protest to be Held at Authors Guild Headquarters
New York City (March 30, 2009): The Reading Rights Coalition, which represents people who cannot read print, will protest the threatened removal of the text-to-speech function from e-books for the Amazon Kindle 2 outside the Authors Guild headquarters in New York City at 31 East 32nd Street on April 7, 2009, from noon to 2:00 p.m. The coalition includes the blind, people with dyslexia, people with learning or processing issues, seniors losing vision, people with spinal cord injuries, people recovering from strokes, and many others for whom the addition of text-to-speech on the Kindle 2 promised for the first time easy, mainstream access to over 255,000 books.

When Amazon released the Kindle 2 electronic book reader on February 9, 2009, the company announced that the device would be able to read e-books aloud using text-to-speech technology. Under pressure from the Authors Guild, Amazon has announced that it will give authors and publishers the ability to disable the text-to-speech function on any or all of their e-books available for the Kindle 2.

Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, said: “The blind and print-disabled have for years utilized text-to-speech technology to read and access information. As technology advances and more books move from hard-copy print to electronic formats, people with print disabilities have for the first time in history the opportunity to enjoy access to books on an equal basis with those who can read print. Authors and publishers who elect to disable text-to-speech for their e-books on the Kindle 2 prevent people who are blind or have other print disabilities from reading these e-books. This is blatant discrimination and we will not tolerate it.”

Mike Shuttic, president of the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD), said: “AHEAD envisions educational and societal environments that value disability and embody equality of opportunity. This vision of AHEAD is directly aligned with the efforts of this coalition. Although much rhetoric is made about potential obstacles and problems that exist, the basic goal is clear and simple––access for everyone. And why create something that prevents it?”

Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind, said: “Removing the text-to-speech features closes the door on an innovative technological solution that would make regular print books available to tens of thousands of individuals who are blind or visually impaired.”

Andrew Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer for the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), said: “It is outrageous when a technology device shuts out people with all kinds of disabilities. AAPD works to remove barriers to accessibility and usability in technology, and we don’t expect to see people with disabilities singled out by having to pay more for access. New technologies, such as electronic books, should be available to everyone regardless of disability.”
Paul Schroeder, vice president of programs and policy for the American Foundation for the Blind, said: "Those of us with print disabilities have long dreamed of a world in which books and media are available to us at the same time as everyone else. The Kindle 2 offers that possibility for the first time. We hope publishers and authors come to see that text-to-speech is simply an alternative means of access to print."

Dr. Peter Blanck, chairman and university professor at Burton Blatt Institute at Syracuse University, said: “As electronic books become the norm, denying universal access will result in more and more people with disabilities being left out of education, employment, and the societal conversation. We will all suffer from the absence of their participation and contribution to the debates that occupy us as a society.”

George Kerscher of the Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) Consortium, said: "The DAISY Consortium envisions a world where people with print disabilities have equal access to information and knowledge, without delay or additional expense. Authors and publishers surely must share this vision. Now that the issue of human rights has been explained, and the opportunity for larger sales are known, I urge the Authors Guild to reverse their position on text-to-speech and join us in actively encouraging all publishers and reading technology developers to open the world of reading to everybody. Authors, join us on the picket line."

Steve Jacobs, president of IDEAL Group Inc., said, “Not only is text-to-speech important to people who are blind, it is critical in providing quality educations to millions of young people who rely on text-to-speech to learn effectively. This includes students with autism, learning disabilities, mobility disabilities, and cognitive disabilities that impact their ability to acquire information with their eyes only. I remain hopeful that the talented members of the Authors Guild come to understand the potential negative impact of disabling the text-to-speech function on their e-books and reconsider their position.”

Cynthia D. Waddell, executive director of the International Center for Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), said: “The mission of ICDRI supports the removal of barriers in electronic and information technology and the promotion of equal access. ICDRI welcomes the text-to-speech functionality being offered by the Kindle 2 since it increases mainstream access to books for the first time in history. We question why the Authors Guild demands that it be turned it off since many more books would be sold if text-to-speech was turned back on. Not only does this feature benefit persons with disabilities, but it also helps persons for whom English is not their native language. In an increasingly mobile society, flexibility in access to content improves the quality of life for everyone.”

James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, said: “Knowing full well that not everyone can see, the Authors Guild wants the right to be seen, but not heard. By bullying Amazon to change the technology of Kindle 2, the Authors Guild will either deny access to people who are disabled, or make them pay more. By attacking disabled persons in this way, the Authors Guild is attacking everyone who would otherwise benefit from the contributions this community has the potential to offer.”

James H. Wendorf, executive director for the National Center for Learning Disabilities, said: "Access to the written word is the cornerstone of education and democracy. New technologies must serve individuals with disabilities, not impede them. Our homes, schools and ultimately our economy rely on support for the future, not discriminating practices and beliefs from the past.”
While the Kindle 2 is not currently accessible to blind users, Amazon recently announced on its Kindle 2 blog that it is currently at work on making the device’s navigational features accessible to the blind.

The coalition includes: American Association of People with Disabilities, American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, Association on Higher Education and Disability, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Burton Blatt Institute, Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY) Consortium, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF), IDEAL Group, Inc., International Center for Disability Resources on the Internet, International Dyslexia Association, International Dyslexia Association––New York Branch, Knowledge Ecology International, Learning Disabilities Association of America, National Center for Learning Disabilities, National Disability Rights Network, National Federation of the Blind, NISH, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. In addition to the April 7 New York City protest, the coalition will participate in the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on April 25-26.

###

Legal changes coming to refine definition of service animal

I’ve written here previously about the importance of colleges and universities acting proactively to enact policies between service animals and other types of assistance animals. I can personally recall the discussion we had at my college in regards to service versus therapy animals. Here's some reasons to compel your school to do the same.

If you were not aware, the U.S. Department of Justice is reviewing the federal guidelines that govern access, including some proposed language changes in regards to the definition of a service animal.

My apologies for not getting this information up sooner. The deadline for action on this is Monday, August 18, 2008. So, please act quickly on this.

What follows is a letter that
The Seeing Eye, Inc.
sent to its more than 1,700 graduates, urging them to provide the DOJ with firsthand input from service dog handlers. It shows the sometimes subtle distinctions that a few words can make in proposals and policy.

The law will be tempered, so keep up on it. If your school has a policy in place, you will do well to stay abreast of this matter and keep your policy in line.

***

Dear Seeing Eye Family,

We need your help! The U.S. Department of Justice is seeking public comment on its newly proposed definition of a service animal. The Seeing Eye sent its own comments to the DOJ last Friday, and we urge you to join us by doing the same by the August 18 deadline.

Numbers count! It is vitally important that the DOJ hear as many comments as possible. In fact, this legislation is as significant as the early advocacy work that Morris Frank did for the dog guide movement decades ago. The fight isn't over, and our position needs to be heard. Submitting your comments is one of the most important things you, personally, can do for yourself and all other U.S. dog guide users.

The areas that seem to be most in need of revision are outlined in our letter below. Simply stated, we ask that the DOJ eliminate the phrase "minimal protection" in the new definition; require that the same behavior and training standards developed for dog guides be applied to all service animals; delete the "do work" wording by emphasizing task training as a defining factor in qualifying animals as "service animals;" and include a request that more guidance on taxi and private transportation access be added to the regulations. (See the Seeing Eye comments below to further illuminate these points, or to access a copy of the DOJ's Notice of Proposed Rule Making in either text or PDF format, you can go to
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648062a604

You can submit an electronic version of your comments at
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=090000648062a604
but you must do so by August 18.

Your comments can be as simple as, "I support The Seeing Eye's position on service animals," but even better is to write your own opinions on all or some of the issues addressed in our public comment.

You will have an option to insert comments directly into a field on the form or send your comments as an attachment. We advise you to write your comments first before logging onto the site because if you are on the web page too long, it will "time out" and you will have to start over again. You should also be aware that all comments, including your own, will be made available for public viewing online at
http://www.regulations.gov

The remainder of this email contains the text from The Seeing Eye's submitted comment. Thank you for joining us in this effort.

Sincerely,
Jim Kutsch

****

August 8, 2008

Dr. James A. Kutsch, Jr., President
The Seeing Eye, Inc.
P.O. Box 375
Morristown, NJ 07963-0375

Re: Revisions to Service Animal Definition
Docket ID: DOJ-CRT-2008-0015-0001

The Seeing Eye, the pioneers and innovators of dog guide services, has been providing specially bred and trained dog guides for blind citizens of the United States since 1929. Through the efforts of one of our founders, Morris Frank, and other early graduates of our program, The Seeing Eye was instrumental in gaining access to all places of public accommodation for people traveling with dog guides. Today, as more and more people turn to animals for improved health and quality of life, The Seeing Eye commends the U.S. Department of Justice for its efforts to clarify its present regulatory language regarding the use of service animals. We particularly welcome the emphasis on maintaining control of the service animal at all times in public settings, the requirement of housebreaking and the Department's effort to formalize its position on emotional support/comfort animals.

In response to the NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 17th, The Seeing Eye offers the following comments for the Department’s consideration:

1. In response to question 9, The Seeing Eye believes that providing "minimal protection" should be removed from the proposed definition of a service animal.

The Seeing Eye is in agreement with the concerns expressed by the Coalition of Assistance Dog Organizations (CADO). We also concur that alternative language can be substituted for "providing minimal protection" while still adequately representing the tasks of specific service animals. For instance, despite the fact that dog guides provide minimal protection to their handlers every day, e.g. stopping at changes in elevation or maneuvering around obstacles, the Department has successfully included this concept within the definition of the tasks under "guiding individuals with impaired vision." Thus, providing minimal protection is intrinsically stated within the tasks that the animal performs.

2. In response to question 10, The Seeing Eye believes that the Department should eliminate certain species from the definition of service animal.

The Seeing Eye agrees with the need for the Department to establish a practical and reasonable species parameter as part of its definition of a service animal. While we have no expertise in the breeding, training and placement of species other than dogs, The Seeing Eye believes that only animals that are capable of meeting or exceeding the same high training, behavioral and safety standards as that of Seeing Eye® dogs are suitable for public access. Some of these standards include the animal's ability to calmly, quietly and consistently perform its specialized tasks in public, to urinate and defecate on command and to lie quietly beside its handler without blocking aisles, doorways, or otherwise be obtrusive in public settings.

3. In response to Question 11, The Seeing Eye believes that the Department should not impose a size or weight limitation on service animals.

The Seeing Eye agrees with the comments submitted by CADO and further adds that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce such a regulation.

4. The Seeing Eye is opposed to retaining the term "do work" in the definition of a service animal and urges the Department to form the basis of the service animal definition on task training.

The Seeing Eye is aware that, over the last several years, more than half of the Department's settlement agreements involving the "reasonable modification" requirement under Title III involved a public accommodation's refusal to permit a service animal's entry in a place of public accommodation. These claims make evident the need for concise, measurable guidance for those seeking a distinction between legitimate service animals and those used for emotional comfort or support.

We appreciate the Department's attempt to provide the broadest feasible access to individuals with service animals by using the term "do work" in its definition. However, given the fact that this term has historically been the source of much confusion and misinterpretation, we respectfully ask that the Department eliminate this language from its newly proposed definition. The Seeing Eye believes that the newly added examples of tasks performed by service animals effectively and adequately expand the meaning of service animal to include the varied services provided by working animals on behalf of individuals with all types of disabilities. Moreover, task training elevates the animal's status from a non-task trained animal to a trained service animal that is more likely to consistently mitigate its owner's disability in public and be easily identified by the tasks it performs. Again, service animals that are suitable and appropriate for public access must be held to extremely high standards.

5. The Seeing Eye urges the Department to include specific language about denial of service by private transportation providers to people who use service animals in its regulatory language.

One of the most common complaints we receive involves taxicab drivers who refuse to transport our graduates and their Seeing Eye dogs. Many drivers claim to have allergies, fears or religious beliefs that prohibit them from allowing dogs into their vehicles.

We realize that this issue is not addressed in the NPRM, but, nevertheless, we ask that the Department consider incorporating text into the proposed regulation guidance that specifies that allergies, religious beliefs and fear of animals are not valid excuses for denying access to passengers with service animals.

The Seeing Eye appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed service animal revisions. We applaud the Department for its outstanding work and believe that with the incorporation of the comments noted above, the revised regulations will promote the responsible use of access rights and prevent the erosion of societal tolerance for dog guide and other service animal teams in places of public accommodation.