It is not a case of insisting that there are other or better options; there are other or better options. Equally, there is no need to ‘predict’ the death of the physical book; it is dying. Increasingly specialist publishers, such as Dorchester Publishing  The introduction makes reference to the seventy-two volume ‘pocket’ dictionary. It’s an excellent example. [i] With printed text, many previously cumbersome physical books – the Complete OED, the Encyclopaedia Britannica and others – are now only available in digital format. [ii]  Nobody is suggesting banning Braille or even discouraging it, simply following the possibilities offered by technology for easier, cheaper and more portable formats. [iii]  If there were a huge market for Braille it would survive but clearly enough people are happy with other formats for it to require subsidy and support. This means, inevitably, that the taxpayer will end up footing the bill despite there being cheaper alternatives that are increasingly popular.  As with any technological change – or any major societal change for that matter – there are those who will find that change easy and others who will find it more difficult. For those who find it impossible – such as deaf and blind students – clearly other alternatives need to be provided but it seems sensible to look to the technologies of the future to fulfil those needs rather than those of the past.  [i] Engelhart, Katie, ‘The importance of Braille literacy’, Free Speech Debate, 6 July 2012,   [ii] Britannica Editors, ‘Britannica’s Digital Milestones’, Encyclopaedia Britannica Blog, 13 March 2012,   [iii] Listening To Braille. Rachel Aviv. New York Times. 30 December 2009