It's a dilemma, isn't it.
The iPad has assorted other issues (e.g. much lower battery life; heavier than other eBook readers, costs more), which could cause a problem for some students.
I suppose in many ways the "best" option is to specify a range of formats of material - so that students can then select the hardware that's best for them (including that old paper stuff!), rather than specifying what you should be using to access it on.

I believe all of the e-readers are text-to-speech capable; however, it is only the iPad that extends this to the user interface.

This fact wasn't clear in the article, and an important distinction. Universal access should be an end-to-end consideration -- hardware and software.

Where's Ray Kurzweil with Blio? He should be exploiting this opportunity to grab a huge share of the market.

I am sort of confused. There is a free Kindle app for iPads that allow any Kindle format book to be read on iPads. People want to start a backlash against the blind? Make every single student purchase a $499 to $699 iPad rather than a $189 Kindle on the chance that a blind student will enroll in the class. In my 25 years at a top research university, teaching pretty much only large classes, I have only had one blind student and one low vision student. I think that going to great lengths to accommodate blind, deaf or otherwise challenged students makes much more sense than making ALL students buy equipment they may not need, on the theoretical possibility that it will be important for a few students. Will the U.S. Department of Education next ban printed books because physically challenged students can't turn the pages without help?

I, like bemusedprof, don't understand. My physically disabled daughter (who walks with crutches) had to buy traditional textbooks and then lug them over to the adaptive technology office to have them scanned by the Kurzweil machine and loaded onto her laptop each semester. Since she majored in two foreign languages, she was out of luck with many of her textbooks since Kurzweil doesn't do other scripts. Not exactly disabled-friendly but my daughter has decided that it was a minor inconvenience.

Can't the Disabilities Services Office arrange to have someone assist vision impaired students in loading their textbooks onto the Kindle, or on their own laptops if they prefer? We make things so complicated!

bemusedprof, I am with you on this. I am quite confused as to what the law requires. My understanding was that you must provide *reasonable accomodation* for students with disabilities. Otherwise, as you say, we would not be permitted to use traditional paper format texts as blind students cannot read them without assistance.

My understanding (which I admit isn't that educated) is that if a blind student enrolls in a class, the university either acquires an audio-format copy of the text, or hires a reader for the student. Why is that not an acceptable solution when using an e-reader? And could you not instead allow the blind or low-vision student to purchase the textbook in some other format? I guess if you were charging all students an e-reader fee, the reasonable solution would be to waive that fee if the student can't use the device. As long as the student is getting the same material, and isn't required to pay more than sighted students, I can't understand where the problem lies.

I want to make it quite clear that I have a disabled person in my immediate family, and I am a supporter of ADA. However I am also a supporter of innovative technologies, and it seems to me that we should be able to find a middle ground here that is fair and reasonable to all.

Good points, catlkelley. Not everyone has to get an E-reader if the content is available in another accesible format, like audio.

Just having text to speech for the titles does not make it accessible if the controls require vision to use. The central issue is that the Kindle lacks an accessible interface to let blind people start reading the books loaded on the E-reader. If the university assumes that text to speech = accessible and doesn't provide reasonable alternatives, it is failing its students.

As long as a textbook is locked into a specific piece of hardware there will be trouble, not just for ADA requirements but access in general. By developing content that is built with open standards that support accessibility needs, that plays in a browser or open standard software such as ePub, we have a fighting chance of getting an acceptable solution for ALL students.

A browser can run on a variety of devices and doesn't force a choice for institutions or students. If the digital textbooks run on any browser capable device, then decision is then to choose a device that suits all the rest of the user's needs. The potential then exists for the book to be read on many different devices that student may have access to. Imagine reading on your laptop while in the library, but then on your touchphone while on the bus home for the weekend.

From a design standpoint, accessible design will always be good design. CSS can make a structured HTML textbook fits numerous reading environments. Well written, structured HTML and/or ePub is an extremely flexible and portable format. In addition browser based textbooks can offer numerous other features that you will not be able to execute on a Kindle-like dedicated reader. (an iPad is not necessarily a dedicated reader) In other words an html textbook (or ePub) can be wrapped inside an extremely rich instructional web application. A few examples of what my group are developing include the ability to have instructional/social interactions right in the textbook, to complete assignments within the textbook, keep all authentication within our campus' system, note taking, annotation, ability to use the textbook in classroom presentations, etc...

Once the textbook is in a browser there's not a a lot to hold it back.

None of the early e-Ink e-Readers were good choices for schools. There is no indication that any of the vendors have claimed that they were ideal for schools. By the time V.6+ comes out, most of the kinks/wrinkles will be worked out, and schools will become rich targets for this technology. (The current devices are just too fragile for kids to use. Versions that have been "ruggedized" need to be developed. Repair for broken devices is also a bit of a nightmare at the moment.)

Suing over the experimenting with this device certainly has put a bad taste in my mouth over ADA. Given that this topic has been posted a number of times, most of the reasons as to why Dickens was so right when he wrote: "if this is so, then the law is an ass!" rings true one more time.

This is one of those examples where Colleges/Unis should be lobbying Congress aggressively to modify applicable law to allow "experimenting" with new technology without fear of harassing legal action.

There are many issues associated with "heavy" e-Reader use. There is inadequate library management software on the PC/Server side for serious users. All of this software will require people to understand/appreciate/cope with the next generation of PC-based information/knowledge systems. If all of this software development can be stopped by small special interest groups, the application of Information Technology to the academic environment will be slowed to a standstill.

The statement from the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice that "it is unacceptable for universities to use emerging technology without insisting that this technology be accessible to all students," with its focus on the technology employed appears to run counter to the concept of reasonable accommodation (after all a printed book is a form of technology of little or no use to the blind). That being said, in comparison to printed books, all current e-reader technologies have limitations as well as useful extensions to the reading experience. As a case in point, a Kindle is fine for reading, but less so for quick reference (no page numbers, for example), and disables text to speech for many titles. Its limited zoom makes it virtually useless for things like diagrams and maps. In fact, all of these devices are extremely limited in screen space, precluding effective use more often than not in subjects such as science, math, or art. I wish tubbsjohn (post #8) luck in his quest, but in my experience the compromises necessary to accommodate a range of technologies usually result in solutions that are the proverbial Swiss army knife (not very good at anything, except in an emergency).

Two points: (1) Just recently The Chronical had an article indicatiang that most students gave up using the Kindle after a month in pilot tests, since the Kindle wasn't friendly for study and classroom purposes. (2) The ADA require "reasonable accomodation". I am legally blind and earned my Ph.D. using readers and taped books from Recording for the Blind to get me through my university education. I also now use a device called the BookSense with is an audio book reader for the blind, which is fully accessible. There are alternative e-book reading devices for the Blind and Learning Diabled students. I encourage their use.
jnuttallphd

jnuttallphd, thank you for posting. I am very pleased that you posted here and would truly love more input if you can provide it. Or if other blind / low-vision students can also provide their input, I think many would appreciate it.

My question is this. If a textbook is available in a format that you can use, for example Braille or audiobook, would you still be uncomfortable if your classmates used a Kindle instead? Would provision of all required texts in an accessible form for you be enough, or would you want to prohibit the use of e-readers altogether?

As this situation has been reported many times in the press, the Department of Education says that use of the devices at all is a violation of ADA. However most of us understand that ADA requires that reasonable accomodations be made, not that every technology we use be accessible to all students. Are we wrong about this? Also, I truly want to understand the blind perspective on this.

There are many issues with the current generation of e-readers, so I am not defending their use. There are a great many issues that need to be sorted out before they are truly useful in education. However, one of the only ways that we are going to be able to provide useful feedback to the manufacturers is if we engage in small-scale pilots - which as I understand it, is now forbidden.

I just read the letter from the Department of Education, and the tone was very interesting. It seems to be coming down hard on Colleges and Universities and shaking their fingers at them for using such technology, even employing such phrases, also quoted by CHE's article, as "It is unacceptable for universities to use emerging technology without insisting that this technology be accessible to all students."

However, how can that be? Especially when the letter also outlines requirements of the law such as "individuals with disabilities must be provided with aids, benefits, or services that provide an equal opportunity to achieve the same result or the same level of achievement as others. A college or university may provide an individual with a disability, or a class of individuals with disabilities, with a different or separate aid, benefit, or service only if doing so is necessary to ensure that the aid, benefit, or service is as effective as that provided to others."

So seems to me that using emerging technology not readily accessible to students is actually acceptable when you follow the law of providing alternatives and support that offers an equal benefit. Way to be harsh in your contradictions DoE.

Also, since when has reading books in a digital format an emerging technology? I bought the majority of my book throughout my undergrad in electronic format. Lets be real, the Kindle is not an emerging technology, just an effective means to market that technology to the masses.

And will the old printed book now be banned as well?

Unbelievably sloppy quoting by the Chronicle. The "it is unacceptable" sentence is at the end of a paragraph, late in the official document, that begins "we ask that you take steps to ensure that your college or university refrains from requiring the use of any electronic book reader," etc. Key word: REQUIRING. First paragraph of the DOJ/DOE letter also says "REQUIRING use of an emerging technology . . . is discrimination . . .." It is not the use of e-readers per se by anyone for anything that is the issue; it is REQUIRING such use. When I first saw this "dear colleague" letter, I thought, "So? Sounds like a perfectly reasonable extension of the ADA." This article and some comments here make it sound like we are prohibited from any use of new technology until it is fully accessible. That is NOT what the letter says. We cannot REQUIRE something that is not accessible. I expected better from Chronicle reporting.

Thank you pwherry Comment #15. That is the point exactly - an education provider should not "require" that all students purchase and use a technology (such as the Kindle) that is not accessible to all potential students. That would be clearly discriminatory. Think of this in terms of the right to an education and equality and not just the ADA law. The recent legal cases were against education providers not the manufacturers; hopefully they will have the effect of encouraging the manufacturers in the direction of universal (accessible) design.

@pwherry
I'm puzzled by your attack on the Chronicle's reporting. The first sentence of my blog post is this: "Feds to colleges: If you require students to use electronic-book readers that blind people can't access, you may be running afoul of the law." It clearly says "require."
--Marc Parry

<Comment removed by moderator>

Out of curiosity - did any of the publicized Kindle pilots actually "require" students to use the devices? I did not think that they had, and I cannot imagine that any of the universities involved would fail to provide accomodation to students with visual disabilities. Perhaps I am being naive about this however. I would like to know more about precisely what they did, and what caused all of the furor in the first place.

If the key word here is "require," then the entire issue would seem to be a bit of a tempest in a teapot. If the use of the device is optional (though perhaps supported / encouraged), then further experimentation with the devices is OK. We can all go home & run Kindle pilots to our heart's content.

But then again, there are some puzzling issues here. If a university required all of its fully-sighted students to use an e-reader, but provided accomodation for visually impaired students, would that still be an issue?

It seems that a more in-depth and well-researched article on this issue would be in order. Many of us would benefit from it. There is a great deal of confusion about what exactly is meant by the DOE/DOJ letter.