Agreed Scott. The learning curve is quite steep with iPhone, but once you
begin to achieve what you need to do, it is pretty amazing, down to taking
pictures of things and finding out what they are. Now, I am still learning,
and I have the time to learn. I also know that younger folks have grown up
with these screen readers/devices so may not have as much difficulty as
myself, but I just love holding a little device in my hand and, even if it
takes some time at first, can find and do almost anything my desktop or my
laptop can do. A tiny thing, and no laughing allowed haha, but this morning
I went into Yellow and White pages, immediately found where to put in my
query by a simple flick and tap and in a list that I could just run my
finger down, there it was with address. If I had played a bit I could have
gotten turn by turn, (still have to figure that out), but I was able to ask
it be dropped into contacts where it put all of what I would need in exactly
the right places. Not only that, but I did it quite quickly! I also know
that it was reading patient answers to my newbie questions, Applevis
podcasts and Beverly's newbie phone conference that really got me on the
right track. Thanks to all.
Reggie
-----Original Message-----
From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Scott Howell
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 11:29 AM
To: viphone@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: a warning to voice over users concerning IOS 6
You know I've not been much a fan of Chrome or the ChromVox, but you know I
understand it is still early in its development. WHat I am pleased by is the
fact that GOogle also is investing in accessibility and I hope other
companies will see the benefits and jump on the wagon as well. Do I want to
see vendors such as FS or GW Micro go out of business? No, but at the same
time if that were to happen it means that finally accessibility has reached
a "mainstream" status and that can be a good (as well as a bad ) thing. All
this means is if you looked back just five or so years ago, who ever thought
we would have access to these touch-screen devices to the level we do today.
Actually when you consider the entire 20 plus years of screen reading
technology and look just in the last five or six years at what has been
accomplished, well it is pretty amazing.
On Sep 17, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Just two other points here. Accessibility like any other project may
> have it's priority rise and fall as other projects priorities change or
> as Apple perceives it's lead in the accessibility area growing or
> shrinking. this is no different than any other project.
> I agree that Apple has done a lot as a main stream company with respect
> to accessibility, but I'm not positive that their investment is light
> years ahead of other main stream companies. I know for example, Google
> has quite a bit invested in accessibility right now between ChromeVox,
> Android and their on line services, such as Google Docs. IBM also came
> out with their own screen reader for OS/2, which I know is ancient
> history, but their investment to accessibility has continued with
> contributions to FireFox and the accessibility of products such as Lotus
> Notes, Sametime and Symphony.
> I also don't see Apple changing on a dime just because Steve Jobs is no
> longer with them. Who knows how this will effect Apple in the long run,
> but I'm sure he delegated some things before his death, and I'm sure
> there are others at Apple who shared and understood his vision.
> On 17/09/12 09:36, Marc Rocheleau wrote:
>> Hey Scott,
>> I totally understand what you mean. Like I said, I'm trying not to
>> jump the gun or anything -- it's more a paranoia of mine than a valid
>> fear. I fully acknowledge that Apple has too much money to lose if
>> they drop accessibility from their products, especially with the
>> communities that have been created online (such as this one) because
>> of it.
>> I think it's more a case of it feeling too good to be true still. No
>> other mainstream companies provide this level of support for the
>> blind/visually-impaired, imo, and sometimes it feels like the other
>> shoe should be dropping at any second. I know Apple does it for money
>> but I don't really care as long as I am getting value for my money.
>> There's a reason I'm switching to an iMac in the coming months, after
all. :)
>> -Marc
>> On 9/17/12, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Marc,
>>> Before folks go running off on a tangent about accessibility, Steve
Jobs,
>>> and so forth I think it is important to point out:
>>> 1. Steve Jobs, although a great man, was not the exclusive determining
>>> factor for Voiceover in Apple's products.
>>> 2. Just because Steve has passed on does not mean Apple will abandon
>>> accessibility.
>>> 3. There has been articles posted by the U.S. Department of Treasury (a
year
>>> or two ago) that indicates there are over 100,000 blind/visually
impaired
>>> users of iPhones. Note iPhones and the article did not mention iPads
etc.
>>> 4. Apple has to balance accessibility against all the other projects
that
>>> are ongoing. There are resources dedicated to many projects and some
>>> projects get more resources than others. Fact is accessibility may not
get
>>> the same level of resources as other projects; however, you have to
>>> understand it is always a challenge trying to be sure resources are
managed
>>> in such a way to ensure overall mission/goals/objectives are addressed
>>> without impacting the largest user community. I may not be explaining
that
>>> as well as I could, but the idea is you put the resources on whatever
will
>>> maximize profits and make no mistake that Apple is about making money.
Oh
>>> and I'm all for Apple making money and buckets of it. MOre money means
more
>>> resources and more resources means more likelihood accessibility gets
>>> attention.
>>> 5. Apple is the only "mainstream" company to my knowledge that has
invested
>>> so heavily into accessibility.
>>> 6. A lot of developers have committed to making their apps accessible,
so
>>> accessibility has really gained such a considerable amount of attention
that
>>> there is support beyond even this community. You can bet if Apple ever
>>> decided to drop accessibility, we would have a good deal of support.
>>> I'm not lecturing you here Marc, but merely pointing out (because this
comes
>>> up on the list from time to time) that APple has committed to
accessibility
>>> and like any other aspect of software things get broken and hopefully
fixed.
>>> I think a lot of the issues we all have experienced from time to time
and
>>> still do in some cases is not being ignored. When you consider the size
and
>>> scope of a project such as iOS itself, you can imagine the number of
people
>>> working on such a project. Add to that the layers of management and
>>> development protocols etc. I'm not surprised that it takes a while to
>>> address problems.
>>> On Sep 16, 2012, at 10:34 PM, Marc Rocheleau <marcrochelea...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Wow, I sincerely hope that app developers who use VoiceOver have been
>>>> reporting these problems to Apple's accessibility team. This is
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone"
Google
>>> Group.
>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
> -- > Christopher (CJ)
> chaltain at Gmail
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone"
Google Group.
> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google
Group.
To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
I don't feel that is relevant and no I do not take anything from CF as far as what they accomplished. I do not believe though that Apple took anything from what CF learned.
On Sep 17, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Kawal Gucukoglu <kawa...@me.com> wrote:
> But you will agree or some of you will, Code Factory did start the possibility of touch screen and may be Apple did learn something from them don't some of you think?
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 22:09, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes and that is why APple is so innovative. I have always felt that there would be a way for blind people to use a touch interface and Apple made it happen in a much more meaningful way than Code Factory did with their approach. I'm not saying CF was wrong in their approach necessarily, but it certainly did not provide the type of meaningful interface that would bring the level of productivity that iOS has.
>> Of course this is just my opinion. :)
>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 5:01 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The fact is, before apple came out with their revolutionary touch-based screen reader, it was not believed blind people could work with touch screens in such a way. The closest thing was Mobile Speak who turned the touch-screen in to 4 large buttons, and created an invisible talking keyboard that covered the entire display. The professional research questions were all focused around how to ad tactile feedback in a way that would be meaningful to blind people. The basic premise has been that blind people could not effectively adapt to an ever-changing visual interface. As I read through the professional research and literature, this theme remains constant.
>>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>>> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
>>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On 18/09/2012, at 3:28, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> You know I've not been much a fan of Chrome or the ChromVox, but you know I understand it is still early in its development. WHat I am pleased by is the fact that GOogle also is investing in accessibility and I hope other companies will see the benefits and jump on the wagon as well. Do I want to see vendors such as FS or GW Micro go out of business? No, but at the same time if that were to happen it means that finally accessibility has reached a "mainstream" status and that can be a good (as well as a bad ) thing. All this means is if you looked back just five or so years ago, who ever thought we would have access to these touch-screen devices to the level we do today. Actually when you consider the entire 20 plus years of screen reading technology and look just in the last five or six years at what has been accomplished, well it is pretty amazing.
>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Just two other points here. Accessibility like any other project may
>>>>> have it's priority rise and fall as other projects priorities change or
>>>>> as Apple perceives it's lead in the accessibility area growing or
>>>>> shrinking. this is no different than any other project.
>>>>> I agree that Apple has done a lot as a main stream company with respect
>>>>> to accessibility, but I'm not positive that their investment is light
>>>>> years ahead of other main stream companies. I know for example, Google
>>>>> has quite a bit invested in accessibility right now between ChromeVox,
>>>>> Android and their on line services, such as Google Docs. IBM also came
>>>>> out with their own screen reader for OS/2, which I know is ancient
>>>>> history, but their investment to accessibility has continued with
>>>>> contributions to FireFox and the accessibility of products such as Lotus
>>>>> Notes, Sametime and Symphony.
>>>>> I also don't see Apple changing on a dime just because Steve Jobs is no
>>>>> longer with them. Who knows how this will effect Apple in the long run,
>>>>> but I'm sure he delegated some things before his death, and I'm sure
>>>>> there are others at Apple who shared and understood his vision.
>>>>> On 17/09/12 09:36, Marc Rocheleau wrote:
>>>>>> Hey Scott,
>>>>>> I totally understand what you mean. Like I said, I'm trying not to
>>>>>> jump the gun or anything -- it's more a paranoia of mine than a valid
>>>>>> fear. I fully acknowledge that Apple has too much money to lose if
>>>>>> they drop accessibility from their products, especially with the
>>>>>> communities that have been created online (such as this one) because
>>>>>> of it.
>>>>>> I think it's more a case of it feeling too good to be true still. No
>>>>>> other mainstream companies provide this level of support for the
>>>>>> blind/visually-impaired, imo, and sometimes it feels like the other
>>>>>> shoe should be dropping at any second. I know Apple does it for money
>>>>>> but I don't really care as long as I am getting value for my money.
>>>>>> There's a reason I'm switching to an iMac in the coming months, after all. :)
>>>>>> -Marc
>>>>>> On 9/17/12, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Marc,
>>>>>>> Before folks go running off on a tangent about accessibility, Steve Jobs,
>>>>>>> and so forth I think it is important to point out:
>>>>>>> 1. Steve Jobs, although a great man, was not the exclusive determining
>>>>>>> factor for Voiceover in Apple's products.
>>>>>>> 2. Just because Steve has passed on does not mean Apple will abandon
>>>>>>> accessibility.
>>>>>>> 3. There has been articles posted by the U.S. Department of Treasury (a year
>>>>>>> or two ago) that indicates there are over 100,000 blind/visually impaired
>>>>>>> users of iPhones. Note iPhones and the article did not mention iPads etc.
>>>>>>> 4. Apple has to balance accessibility against all the other projects that
>>>>>>> are ongoing. There are resources dedicated to many projects and some
>>>>>>> projects get more resources than others. Fact is accessibility may not get
>>>>>>> the same level of resources as other projects; however, you have to
>>>>>>> understand it is always a challenge trying to be sure resources are managed
>>>>>>> in such a way to ensure overall mission/goals/objectives are addressed
>>>>>>> without impacting the largest user community. I may not be explaining that
>>>>>>> as well as I could, but the idea is you put the resources on whatever will
>>>>>>> maximize profits and make no mistake that Apple is about making money. Oh
>>>>>>> and I'm all for Apple making money and buckets of it. MOre money means more
>>>>>>> resources and more resources means more likelihood accessibility gets
>>>>>>> attention.
>>>>>>> 5. Apple is the only "mainstream" company to my knowledge that has invested
>>>>>>> so heavily into accessibility.
>>>>>>> 6. A lot of developers have committed to making their apps accessible, so
>>>>>>> accessibility has really gained such a considerable amount of attention that
>>>>>>> there is support beyond even this community. You can bet if Apple ever
>>>>>>> decided to drop accessibility, we would have a good deal of support.
>>>>>>> I'm not lecturing you here Marc, but merely pointing out (because this comes
>>>>>>> up on the list from time to time) that APple has committed to accessibility
>>>>>>> and like any other aspect of software things get broken and hopefully fixed.
>>>>>>> I think a lot of the issues we all have experienced from time to time and
>>>>>>> still do in some cases is not being ignored. When you consider the size and
>>>>>>> scope of a project such as iOS itself, you can imagine the number of people
>>>>>>> working on such a project. Add to that the layers of management and
>>>>>>> development protocols etc… I'm not surprised that it takes a while to
>>>>>>> address problems.
>>>>>>> On Sep 16, 2012, at 10:34 PM, Marc Rocheleau <marcrochelea...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Wow, I sincerely hope that app developers who use VoiceOver have been
>>>>>>>> reporting these problems to Apple's accessibility team. This is
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google
>>>>>>> Group.
>>>>>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
>>>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>>>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
>>>>> -- >>>>> Christopher (CJ)
>>>>> chaltain at Gmail
>>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
>>>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
>>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
>>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
It might seems like there're only 100,000 vip iphone users in the
states, however, lets not forget those who's not in the states, and
who is using the iphone as much as the vip users in the states.
More so, perhaps 50% of these user, (those who users an iphone) would
have second Apple product, either in the form of IPots IPads, or Macs.
I don't think we can consider ourselves as minority population when
come to using Apple products. Granted, Apple won't close down their
business just because we don't use the products. at the same time, i
don't think we realize how much of an impact we may have with
accessibility and Apple, or with Androy even.
Joanne
On 18/09/2012, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't feel that is relevant and no I do not take anything from CF as far
> as what they accomplished. I do not believe though that Apple took anything
> from what CF learned.
> On Sep 17, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Kawal Gucukoglu <kawa...@me.com> wrote:
>> But you will agree or some of you will, Code Factory did start the
>> possibility of touch screen and may be Apple did learn something from them
>> don't some of you think?
>> On 17 Sep 2012, at 22:09, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yes and that is why APple is so innovative. I have always felt that there
>>> would be a way for blind people to use a touch interface and Apple made
>>> it happen in a much more meaningful way than Code Factory did with their
>>> approach. I'm not saying CF was wrong in their approach necessarily, but
>>> it certainly did not provide the type of meaningful interface that would
>>> bring the level of productivity that iOS has.
>>> Of course this is just my opinion. :)
>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 5:01 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> The fact is, before apple came out with their revolutionary touch-based
>>>> screen reader, it was not believed blind people could work with touch
>>>> screens in such a way. The closest thing was Mobile Speak who turned the
>>>> touch-screen in to 4 large buttons, and created an invisible talking
>>>> keyboard that covered the entire display. The professional research
>>>> questions were all focused around how to ad tactile feedback in a way
>>>> that would be meaningful to blind people. The basic premise has been
>>>> that blind people could not effectively adapt to an ever-changing visual
>>>> interface. As I read through the professional research and literature,
>>>> this theme remains constant.
>>>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>>>> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
>>>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> On 18/09/2012, at 3:28, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> You know I've not been much a fan of Chrome or the ChromVox, but you
>>>>> know I understand it is still early in its development. WHat I am
>>>>> pleased by is the fact that GOogle also is investing in accessibility
>>>>> and I hope other companies will see the benefits and jump on the wagon
>>>>> as well. Do I want to see vendors such as FS or GW Micro go out of
>>>>> business? No, but at the same time if that were to happen it means that
>>>>> finally accessibility has reached a "mainstream" status and that can be
>>>>> a good (as well as a bad ) thing. All this means is if you looked back
>>>>> just five or so years ago, who ever thought we would have access to
>>>>> these touch-screen devices to the level we do today. Actually when you
>>>>> consider the entire 20 plus years of screen reading technology and look
>>>>> just in the last five or six years at what has been accomplished, well
>>>>> it is pretty amazing.
>>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Just two other points here. Accessibility like any other project may
>>>>>> have it's priority rise and fall as other projects priorities change
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> as Apple perceives it's lead in the accessibility area growing or
>>>>>> shrinking. this is no different than any other project.
>>>>>> I agree that Apple has done a lot as a main stream company with
>>>>>> respect
>>>>>> to accessibility, but I'm not positive that their investment is light
>>>>>> years ahead of other main stream companies. I know for example,
>>>>>> Google
>>>>>> has quite a bit invested in accessibility right now between
>>>>>> ChromeVox,
>>>>>> Android and their on line services, such as Google Docs. IBM also
>>>>>> came
>>>>>> out with their own screen reader for OS/2, which I know is ancient
>>>>>> history, but their investment to accessibility has continued with
>>>>>> contributions to FireFox and the accessibility of products such as
>>>>>> Lotus
>>>>>> Notes, Sametime and Symphony.
>>>>>> I also don't see Apple changing on a dime just because Steve Jobs is
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> longer with them. Who knows how this will effect Apple in the long
>>>>>> run,
>>>>>> but I'm sure he delegated some things before his death, and I'm sure
>>>>>> there are others at Apple who shared and understood his vision.
>>>>>> On 17/09/12 09:36, Marc Rocheleau wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey Scott,
>>>>>>> I totally understand what you mean. Like I said, I'm trying not to
>>>>>>> jump the gun or anything -- it's more a paranoia of mine than a
>>>>>>> valid
>>>>>>> fear. I fully acknowledge that Apple has too much money to lose if
>>>>>>> they drop accessibility from their products, especially with the
>>>>>>> communities that have been created online (such as this one) because
>>>>>>> of it.
>>>>>>> I think it's more a case of it feeling too good to be true still. No
>>>>>>> other mainstream companies provide this level of support for the
>>>>>>> blind/visually-impaired, imo, and sometimes it feels like the other
>>>>>>> shoe should be dropping at any second. I know Apple does it for
>>>>>>> money
>>>>>>> but I don't really care as long as I am getting value for my money.
>>>>>>> There's a reason I'm switching to an iMac in the coming months, after
>>>>>>> all. :)
>>>>>>> -Marc
>>>>>>> On 9/17/12, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Marc,
>>>>>>>> Before folks go running off on a tangent about accessibility, Steve
>>>>>>>> Jobs,
>>>>>>>> and so forth I think it is important to point out:
>>>>>>>> 1. Steve Jobs, although a great man, was not the exclusive
>>>>>>>> determining
>>>>>>>> factor for Voiceover in Apple's products.
>>>>>>>> 2. Just because Steve has passed on does not mean Apple will
>>>>>>>> abandon
>>>>>>>> accessibility.
>>>>>>>> 3. There has been articles posted by the U.S. Department of Treasury
>>>>>>>> (a year
>>>>>>>> or two ago) that indicates there are over 100,000 blind/visually
>>>>>>>> impaired
>>>>>>>> users of iPhones. Note iPhones and the article did not mention iPads
>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>> 4. Apple has to balance accessibility against all the other projects
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> are ongoing. There are resources dedicated to many projects and
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> projects get more resources than others. Fact is accessibility may
>>>>>>>> not get
>>>>>>>> the same level of resources as other projects; however, you have to
>>>>>>>> understand it is always a challenge trying to be sure resources are
>>>>>>>> managed
>>>>>>>> in such a way to ensure overall mission/goals/objectives are
>>>>>>>> addressed
>>>>>>>> without impacting the largest user community. I may not be
>>>>>>>> explaining that
>>>>>>>> as well as I could, but the idea is you put the resources on
>>>>>>>> whatever will
>>>>>>>> maximize profits and make no mistake that Apple is about making
>>>>>>>> money. Oh
>>>>>>>> and I'm all for Apple making money and buckets of it. MOre money
>>>>>>>> means more
>>>>>>>> resources and more resources means more likelihood accessibility
>>>>>>>> gets
>>>>>>>> attention.
>>>>>>>> 5. Apple is the only "mainstream" company to my knowledge that has
>>>>>>>> invested
>>>>>>>> so heavily into accessibility.
>>>>>>>> 6. A lot of developers have committed to making their apps
>>>>>>>> accessible, so
>>>>>>>> accessibility has really gained such a considerable amount of
>>>>>>>> attention that
>>>>>>>> there is support beyond even this community. You can bet if Apple
>>>>>>>> ever
>>>>>>>> decided to drop accessibility, we would have a good deal of
>>>>>>>> support.
>>>>>>>> I'm not lecturing you here Marc, but merely pointing out (because
>>>>>>>> this comes
>>>>>>>> up on the list from time to time) that APple has committed to
>>>>>>>> accessibility
>>>>>>>> and like any other aspect of software things get broken and
>>>>>>>> hopefully fixed.
>>>>>>>> I think a lot of the issues we all have experienced from time to
>>>>>>>> time and
>>>>>>>> still do in some cases is not being ignored. When you consider the
>>>>>>>> size and
>>>>>>>> scope of a project such as iOS itself, you can imagine the number of
>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>> working on such a project. Add to that the layers of management and
>>>>>>>> development protocols etc… I'm not surprised that it takes a while
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> address problems.
>>>>>>>> On Sep 16, 2012, at 10:34 PM, Marc Rocheleau
>>>>>>>> <marcrochelea...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Wow, I sincerely hope that app developers who use VoiceOver have
>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>> reporting these problems to Apple's accessibility team. This is
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>>>>>>>> "VIPhone" Google
>>>>>>>> Group.
>>>>>>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
>>>>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this
I really do think, the amount of voiceover users using IOS and Macs, is the often mentioned drop in the bucket as far as pure numbers are concerned. I'm not saying we are any more or less important than the average user. I'm just saying, lets not over estimate our numbers, or, scheme in the big picture as far as Apple is concerned. Personally, I think much of this concern over the app store is much to do about nothing. Meaning, I don't think Apple would let such an accessibility issue linger for long on such a key component of IOS. If this is accurate, on Wednesday, everyone just drop Apple an e-mail informing them of the issue.
> It might seems like there're only 100,000 vip iphone users in the
> states, however, lets not forget those who's not in the states, and
> who is using the iphone as much as the vip users in the states.
> More so, perhaps 50% of these user, (those who users an iphone) would
> have second Apple product, either in the form of IPots IPads, or Macs.
> I don't think we can consider ourselves as minority population when
> come to using Apple products. Granted, Apple won't close down their
> business just because we don't use the products. at the same time, i
> don't think we realize how much of an impact we may have with
> accessibility and Apple, or with Androy even.
> Joanne
> On 18/09/2012, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't feel that is relevant and no I do not take anything from CF as far
>> as what they accomplished. I do not believe though that Apple took anything
>> from what CF learned.
>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Kawal Gucukoglu <kawa...@me.com> wrote:
>>> But you will agree or some of you will, Code Factory did start the
>>> possibility of touch screen and may be Apple did learn something from them
>>> don't some of you think?
>>> On 17 Sep 2012, at 22:09, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Yes and that is why APple is so innovative. I have always felt that there
>>>> would be a way for blind people to use a touch interface and Apple made
>>>> it happen in a much more meaningful way than Code Factory did with their
>>>> approach. I'm not saying CF was wrong in their approach necessarily, but
>>>> it certainly did not provide the type of meaningful interface that would
>>>> bring the level of productivity that iOS has.
>>>> Of course this is just my opinion. :)
>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 5:01 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> The fact is, before apple came out with their revolutionary touch-based
>>>>> screen reader, it was not believed blind people could work with touch
>>>>> screens in such a way. The closest thing was Mobile Speak who turned the
>>>>> touch-screen in to 4 large buttons, and created an invisible talking
>>>>> keyboard that covered the entire display. The professional research
>>>>> questions were all focused around how to ad tactile feedback in a way
>>>>> that would be meaningful to blind people. The basic premise has been
>>>>> that blind people could not effectively adapt to an ever-changing visual
>>>>> interface. As I read through the professional research and literature,
>>>>> this theme remains constant.
>>>>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>>>>> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
>>>>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> On 18/09/2012, at 3:28, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> You know I've not been much a fan of Chrome or the ChromVox, but you
>>>>>> know I understand it is still early in its development. WHat I am
>>>>>> pleased by is the fact that GOogle also is investing in accessibility
>>>>>> and I hope other companies will see the benefits and jump on the wagon
>>>>>> as well. Do I want to see vendors such as FS or GW Micro go out of
>>>>>> business? No, but at the same time if that were to happen it means that
>>>>>> finally accessibility has reached a "mainstream" status and that can be
>>>>>> a good (as well as a bad ) thing. All this means is if you looked back
>>>>>> just five or so years ago, who ever thought we would have access to
>>>>>> these touch-screen devices to the level we do today. Actually when you
>>>>>> consider the entire 20 plus years of screen reading technology and look
>>>>>> just in the last five or six years at what has been accomplished, well
>>>>>> it is pretty amazing.
>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Just two other points here. Accessibility like any other project may
>>>>>>> have it's priority rise and fall as other projects priorities change
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> as Apple perceives it's lead in the accessibility area growing or
>>>>>>> shrinking. this is no different than any other project.
>>>>>>> I agree that Apple has done a lot as a main stream company with
>>>>>>> respect
>>>>>>> to accessibility, but I'm not positive that their investment is light
>>>>>>> years ahead of other main stream companies. I know for example,
>>>>>>> Google
>>>>>>> has quite a bit invested in accessibility right now between
>>>>>>> ChromeVox,
>>>>>>> Android and their on line services, such as Google Docs. IBM also
>>>>>>> came
>>>>>>> out with their own screen reader for OS/2, which I know is ancient
>>>>>>> history, but their investment to accessibility has continued with
>>>>>>> contributions to FireFox and the accessibility of products such as
>>>>>>> Lotus
>>>>>>> Notes, Sametime and Symphony.
>>>>>>> I also don't see Apple changing on a dime just because Steve Jobs is
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>> longer with them. Who knows how this will effect Apple in the long
>>>>>>> run,
>>>>>>> but I'm sure he delegated some things before his death, and I'm sure
>>>>>>> there are others at Apple who shared and understood his vision.
>>>>>>> On 17/09/12 09:36, Marc Rocheleau wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hey Scott,
>>>>>>>> I totally understand what you mean. Like I said, I'm trying not to
>>>>>>>> jump the gun or anything -- it's more a paranoia of mine than a
>>>>>>>> valid
>>>>>>>> fear. I fully acknowledge that Apple has too much money to lose if
>>>>>>>> they drop accessibility from their products, especially with the
>>>>>>>> communities that have been created online (such as this one) because
>>>>>>>> of it.
>>>>>>>> I think it's more a case of it feeling too good to be true still. No
>>>>>>>> other mainstream companies provide this level of support for the
>>>>>>>> blind/visually-impaired, imo, and sometimes it feels like the other
>>>>>>>> shoe should be dropping at any second. I know Apple does it for
>>>>>>>> money
>>>>>>>> but I don't really care as long as I am getting value for my money.
>>>>>>>> There's a reason I'm switching to an iMac in the coming months, after
>>>>>>>> all. :)
>>>>>>>> -Marc
>>>>>>>> On 9/17/12, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Marc,
>>>>>>>>> Before folks go running off on a tangent about accessibility, Steve
>>>>>>>>> Jobs,
>>>>>>>>> and so forth I think it is important to point out:
>>>>>>>>> 1. Steve Jobs, although a great man, was not the exclusive
>>>>>>>>> determining
>>>>>>>>> factor for Voiceover in Apple's products.
>>>>>>>>> 2. Just because Steve has passed on does not mean Apple will
>>>>>>>>> abandon
>>>>>>>>> accessibility.
>>>>>>>>> 3. There has been articles posted by the U.S. Department of Treasury
>>>>>>>>> (a year
>>>>>>>>> or two ago) that indicates there are over 100,000 blind/visually
>>>>>>>>> impaired
>>>>>>>>> users of iPhones. Note iPhones and the article did not mention iPads
>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>> 4. Apple has to balance accessibility against all the other projects
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> are ongoing. There are resources dedicated to many projects and
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> projects get more resources than others. Fact is accessibility may
>>>>>>>>> not get
>>>>>>>>> the same level of resources as other projects; however, you have to
>>>>>>>>> understand it is always a challenge trying to be sure resources are
>>>>>>>>> managed
>>>>>>>>> in such a way to ensure overall mission/goals/objectives are
>>>>>>>>> addressed
>>>>>>>>> without impacting the largest user community. I may not be
>>>>>>>>> explaining that
>>>>>>>>> as well as I could, but the idea is you put the resources on
>>>>>>>>> whatever will
>>>>>>>>> maximize profits and make no mistake that Apple is about making
>>>>>>>>> money. Oh
>>>>>>>>> and I'm all for Apple making money and buckets of it. MOre money
>>>>>>>>> means more
>>>>>>>>> resources and more resources means more likelihood accessibility
>>>>>>>>> gets
>>>>>>>>> attention.
>>>>>>>>> 5. Apple is the only "mainstream" company to my knowledge that has
>>>>>>>>> invested
>>>>>>>>> so heavily into accessibility.
>>>>>>>>> 6. A lot of developers have committed to making their apps
>>>>>>>>> accessible, so
>>>>>>>>> accessibility has really gained such a considerable amount of
>>>>>>>>> attention that
>>>>>>>>> there is support beyond even this community. You can bet if Apple
>>>>>>>>> ever
>>>>>>>>> decided to drop accessibility, we would have a good deal of
>>>>>>>>> support.
>>>>>>>>> I'm not lecturing you here Marc, but merely pointing out (because
>>>>>>>>> this comes
>>>>>>>>> up on the list from time to time) that APple has committed to
>>>>>>>>> accessibility
>>>>>>>>> and like any other aspect of software things get broken and
>>>>>>>>> hopefully fixed.
>>>>>>>>> I think a lot of the issues we all have experienced from time to
>>>>>>>>> time and
Sure, CF demonstrated that blind people could spatially conceive four buttons on a touch-screen without any tactile feedback. The professionals were too busy proving why this was impossible. Apple merely completely rewrote the entire paradigm by advancing it a few generations in one swoop and turning the theories and assumptions on their heads.
David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
Sent from my iPhone
On 18/09/2012, at 9:23, Kawal Gucukoglu <kawa...@me.com> wrote:
> But you will agree or some of you will, Code Factory did start the possibility of touch screen and may be Apple did learn something from them don't some of you think?
> On 17 Sep 2012, at 22:09, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes and that is why APple is so innovative. I have always felt that there would be a way for blind people to use a touch interface and Apple made it happen in a much more meaningful way than Code Factory did with their approach. I'm not saying CF was wrong in their approach necessarily, but it certainly did not provide the type of meaningful interface that would bring the level of productivity that iOS has.
>> Of course this is just my opinion. :)
>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 5:01 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The fact is, before apple came out with their revolutionary touch-based screen reader, it was not believed blind people could work with touch screens in such a way. The closest thing was Mobile Speak who turned the touch-screen in to 4 large buttons, and created an invisible talking keyboard that covered the entire display. The professional research questions were all focused around how to ad tactile feedback in a way that would be meaningful to blind people. The basic premise has been that blind people could not effectively adapt to an ever-changing visual interface. As I read through the professional research and literature, this theme remains constant.
>>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>>> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
>>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On 18/09/2012, at 3:28, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> You know I've not been much a fan of Chrome or the ChromVox, but you know I understand it is still early in its development. WHat I am pleased by is the fact that GOogle also is investing in accessibility and I hope other companies will see the benefits and jump on the wagon as well. Do I want to see vendors such as FS or GW Micro go out of business? No, but at the same time if that were to happen it means that finally accessibility has reached a "mainstream" status and that can be a good (as well as a bad ) thing. All this means is if you looked back just five or so years ago, who ever thought we would have access to these touch-screen devices to the level we do today. Actually when you consider the entire 20 plus years of screen reading technology and look just in the last five or six years at what has been accomplished, well it is pretty amazing.
>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Just two other points here. Accessibility like any other project may
>>>>> have it's priority rise and fall as other projects priorities change or
>>>>> as Apple perceives it's lead in the accessibility area growing or
>>>>> shrinking. this is no different than any other project.
>>>>> I agree that Apple has done a lot as a main stream company with respect
>>>>> to accessibility, but I'm not positive that their investment is light
>>>>> years ahead of other main stream companies. I know for example, Google
>>>>> has quite a bit invested in accessibility right now between ChromeVox,
>>>>> Android and their on line services, such as Google Docs. IBM also came
>>>>> out with their own screen reader for OS/2, which I know is ancient
>>>>> history, but their investment to accessibility has continued with
>>>>> contributions to FireFox and the accessibility of products such as Lotus
>>>>> Notes, Sametime and Symphony.
>>>>> I also don't see Apple changing on a dime just because Steve Jobs is no
>>>>> longer with them. Who knows how this will effect Apple in the long run,
>>>>> but I'm sure he delegated some things before his death, and I'm sure
>>>>> there are others at Apple who shared and understood his vision.
>>>>> On 17/09/12 09:36, Marc Rocheleau wrote:
>>>>>> Hey Scott,
>>>>>> I totally understand what you mean. Like I said, I'm trying not to
>>>>>> jump the gun or anything -- it's more a paranoia of mine than a valid
>>>>>> fear. I fully acknowledge that Apple has too much money to lose if
>>>>>> they drop accessibility from their products, especially with the
>>>>>> communities that have been created online (such as this one) because
>>>>>> of it.
>>>>>> I think it's more a case of it feeling too good to be true still. No
>>>>>> other mainstream companies provide this level of support for the
>>>>>> blind/visually-impaired, imo, and sometimes it feels like the other
>>>>>> shoe should be dropping at any second. I know Apple does it for money
>>>>>> but I don't really care as long as I am getting value for my money.
>>>>>> There's a reason I'm switching to an iMac in the coming months, after all. :)
>>>>>> -Marc
>>>>>> On 9/17/12, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Marc,
>>>>>>> Before folks go running off on a tangent about accessibility, Steve Jobs,
>>>>>>> and so forth I think it is important to point out:
>>>>>>> 1. Steve Jobs, although a great man, was not the exclusive determining
>>>>>>> factor for Voiceover in Apple's products.
>>>>>>> 2. Just because Steve has passed on does not mean Apple will abandon
>>>>>>> accessibility.
>>>>>>> 3. There has been articles posted by the U.S. Department of Treasury (a year
>>>>>>> or two ago) that indicates there are over 100,000 blind/visually impaired
>>>>>>> users of iPhones. Note iPhones and the article did not mention iPads etc.
>>>>>>> 4. Apple has to balance accessibility against all the other projects that
>>>>>>> are ongoing. There are resources dedicated to many projects and some
>>>>>>> projects get more resources than others. Fact is accessibility may not get
>>>>>>> the same level of resources as other projects; however, you have to
>>>>>>> understand it is always a challenge trying to be sure resources are managed
>>>>>>> in such a way to ensure overall mission/goals/objectives are addressed
>>>>>>> without impacting the largest user community. I may not be explaining that
>>>>>>> as well as I could, but the idea is you put the resources on whatever will
>>>>>>> maximize profits and make no mistake that Apple is about making money. Oh
>>>>>>> and I'm all for Apple making money and buckets of it. MOre money means more
>>>>>>> resources and more resources means more likelihood accessibility gets
>>>>>>> attention.
>>>>>>> 5. Apple is the only "mainstream" company to my knowledge that has invested
>>>>>>> so heavily into accessibility.
>>>>>>> 6. A lot of developers have committed to making their apps accessible, so
>>>>>>> accessibility has really gained such a considerable amount of attention that
>>>>>>> there is support beyond even this community. You can bet if Apple ever
>>>>>>> decided to drop accessibility, we would have a good deal of support.
>>>>>>> I'm not lecturing you here Marc, but merely pointing out (because this comes
>>>>>>> up on the list from time to time) that APple has committed to accessibility
>>>>>>> and like any other aspect of software things get broken and hopefully fixed.
>>>>>>> I think a lot of the issues we all have experienced from time to time and
>>>>>>> still do in some cases is not being ignored. When you consider the size and
>>>>>>> scope of a project such as iOS itself, you can imagine the number of people
>>>>>>> working on such a project. Add to that the layers of management and
>>>>>>> development protocols etc… I'm not surprised that it takes a while to
>>>>>>> address problems.
>>>>>>> On Sep 16, 2012, at 10:34 PM, Marc Rocheleau <marcrochelea...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Wow, I sincerely hope that app developers who use VoiceOver have been
>>>>>>>> reporting these problems to Apple's accessibility team. This is
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google
>>>>>>> Group.
>>>>>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
>>>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>>>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
>>>>> -- >>>>> Christopher (CJ)
>>>>> chaltain at Gmail
>>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
>>>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
>>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
>>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more
You are correct for the Mac. For iOS devices, however, this is not the case. Most of the professional proofs and studies clearly demonstrated that blind peepul, as a whole, did not have the necessary spatial awareness, and attempting to memorise, without good tactile clues, would be almost impossible for most blind people. Therefore, an accessible pure touch-screen device was not expected or required. After all aside from some basic functionality, it couldn't be done anyway. Those poor blind people.
David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
Sent from my iPhone
On 18/09/2012, at 9:34, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with David here, but I also wonder how much of Apple's sales are
> effected by their commitment to accessibility. For example, how many
> government sales or small business sales or educational sales wouldn't
> have even been possible if they weren't able to demonstrate that they
> had an accessible solution and meet the various regulations and laws, at
> least here in the US? I think this would explode the 100K figure by
> quite a bit, although I'm not sure it's possible to capture such a
> number. I also don't mean to take away from Apple's commitment to
> accessibility. I think their commitment goes beyond just bottom line
> dollars and cents, although they are a business, and I don't think
> they're doing it entirely out of the kindness of their corporate hearts.
> On 17/09/12 16:05, Scott Howell wrote:
>> David,
>> True, but my point is that although a small portion of the overall sales, APple still considers this segment worth the investment. I would love to know what the real numbers are across all Apple products including the Macs.
>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 4:19 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Do not consider 100,000 iPhones to blind folk to be much of a market in this case. This number represents 0.3% of 1 quarter year of Apple's iPhone sales, but includes all models of iPhones for the past 3 years. In other words, if Apple were to stop supporting VO, they wouldn't even notice the tiny bump to their profits. Apple is not supporting concepts of universal access for their bottom line.
> -- > Christopher (CJ)
> chaltain at Gmail
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
The fact is, blindness, including legal blindness, is between .5% and .6% of the world population. We are a very tiny minority of any population. Many companies have discontinued products which were very popular amongst the blind because the sighted were not interested. We do not matter when considered as market potential save for small start-ups and specialty companies.
David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
Sent from my iPhone
On 18/09/2012, at 12:11, Joanne Chua <shuang.an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It might seems like there're only 100,000 vip iphone users in the
> states, however, lets not forget those who's not in the states, and
> who is using the iphone as much as the vip users in the states.
> More so, perhaps 50% of these user, (those who users an iphone) would
> have second Apple product, either in the form of IPots IPads, or Macs.
> I don't think we can consider ourselves as minority population when
> come to using Apple products. Granted, Apple won't close down their
> business just because we don't use the products. at the same time, i
> don't think we realize how much of an impact we may have with
> accessibility and Apple, or with Androy even.
> Joanne
> On 18/09/2012, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't feel that is relevant and no I do not take anything from CF as far
>> as what they accomplished. I do not believe though that Apple took anything
>> from what CF learned.
>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Kawal Gucukoglu <kawa...@me.com> wrote:
>>> But you will agree or some of you will, Code Factory did start the
>>> possibility of touch screen and may be Apple did learn something from them
>>> don't some of you think?
>>> On 17 Sep 2012, at 22:09, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Yes and that is why APple is so innovative. I have always felt that there
>>>> would be a way for blind people to use a touch interface and Apple made
>>>> it happen in a much more meaningful way than Code Factory did with their
>>>> approach. I'm not saying CF was wrong in their approach necessarily, but
>>>> it certainly did not provide the type of meaningful interface that would
>>>> bring the level of productivity that iOS has.
>>>> Of course this is just my opinion. :)
>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 5:01 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> The fact is, before apple came out with their revolutionary touch-based
>>>>> screen reader, it was not believed blind people could work with touch
>>>>> screens in such a way. The closest thing was Mobile Speak who turned the
>>>>> touch-screen in to 4 large buttons, and created an invisible talking
>>>>> keyboard that covered the entire display. The professional research
>>>>> questions were all focused around how to ad tactile feedback in a way
>>>>> that would be meaningful to blind people. The basic premise has been
>>>>> that blind people could not effectively adapt to an ever-changing visual
>>>>> interface. As I read through the professional research and literature,
>>>>> this theme remains constant.
>>>>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>>>>> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
>>>>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> On 18/09/2012, at 3:28, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> You know I've not been much a fan of Chrome or the ChromVox, but you
>>>>>> know I understand it is still early in its development. WHat I am
>>>>>> pleased by is the fact that GOogle also is investing in accessibility
>>>>>> and I hope other companies will see the benefits and jump on the wagon
>>>>>> as well. Do I want to see vendors such as FS or GW Micro go out of
>>>>>> business? No, but at the same time if that were to happen it means that
>>>>>> finally accessibility has reached a "mainstream" status and that can be
>>>>>> a good (as well as a bad ) thing. All this means is if you looked back
>>>>>> just five or so years ago, who ever thought we would have access to
>>>>>> these touch-screen devices to the level we do today. Actually when you
>>>>>> consider the entire 20 plus years of screen reading technology and look
>>>>>> just in the last five or six years at what has been accomplished, well
>>>>>> it is pretty amazing.
>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Just two other points here. Accessibility like any other project may
>>>>>>> have it's priority rise and fall as other projects priorities change
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> as Apple perceives it's lead in the accessibility area growing or
>>>>>>> shrinking. this is no different than any other project.
>>>>>>> I agree that Apple has done a lot as a main stream company with
>>>>>>> respect
>>>>>>> to accessibility, but I'm not positive that their investment is light
>>>>>>> years ahead of other main stream companies. I know for example,
>>>>>>> Google
>>>>>>> has quite a bit invested in accessibility right now between
>>>>>>> ChromeVox,
>>>>>>> Android and their on line services, such as Google Docs. IBM also
>>>>>>> came
>>>>>>> out with their own screen reader for OS/2, which I know is ancient
>>>>>>> history, but their investment to accessibility has continued with
>>>>>>> contributions to FireFox and the accessibility of products such as
>>>>>>> Lotus
>>>>>>> Notes, Sametime and Symphony.
>>>>>>> I also don't see Apple changing on a dime just because Steve Jobs is
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>> longer with them. Who knows how this will effect Apple in the long
>>>>>>> run,
>>>>>>> but I'm sure he delegated some things before his death, and I'm sure
>>>>>>> there are others at Apple who shared and understood his vision.
>>>>>>> On 17/09/12 09:36, Marc Rocheleau wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hey Scott,
>>>>>>>> I totally understand what you mean. Like I said, I'm trying not to
>>>>>>>> jump the gun or anything -- it's more a paranoia of mine than a
>>>>>>>> valid
>>>>>>>> fear. I fully acknowledge that Apple has too much money to lose if
>>>>>>>> they drop accessibility from their products, especially with the
>>>>>>>> communities that have been created online (such as this one) because
>>>>>>>> of it.
>>>>>>>> I think it's more a case of it feeling too good to be true still. No
>>>>>>>> other mainstream companies provide this level of support for the
>>>>>>>> blind/visually-impaired, imo, and sometimes it feels like the other
>>>>>>>> shoe should be dropping at any second. I know Apple does it for
>>>>>>>> money
>>>>>>>> but I don't really care as long as I am getting value for my money.
>>>>>>>> There's a reason I'm switching to an iMac in the coming months, after
>>>>>>>> all. :)
>>>>>>>> -Marc
>>>>>>>> On 9/17/12, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Marc,
>>>>>>>>> Before folks go running off on a tangent about accessibility, Steve
>>>>>>>>> Jobs,
>>>>>>>>> and so forth I think it is important to point out:
>>>>>>>>> 1. Steve Jobs, although a great man, was not the exclusive
>>>>>>>>> determining
>>>>>>>>> factor for Voiceover in Apple's products.
>>>>>>>>> 2. Just because Steve has passed on does not mean Apple will
>>>>>>>>> abandon
>>>>>>>>> accessibility.
>>>>>>>>> 3. There has been articles posted by the U.S. Department of Treasury
>>>>>>>>> (a year
>>>>>>>>> or two ago) that indicates there are over 100,000 blind/visually
>>>>>>>>> impaired
>>>>>>>>> users of iPhones. Note iPhones and the article did not mention iPads
>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>> 4. Apple has to balance accessibility against all the other projects
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> are ongoing. There are resources dedicated to many projects and
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> projects get more resources than others. Fact is accessibility may
>>>>>>>>> not get
>>>>>>>>> the same level of resources as other projects; however, you have to
>>>>>>>>> understand it is always a challenge trying to be sure resources are
>>>>>>>>> managed
>>>>>>>>> in such a way to ensure overall mission/goals/objectives are
>>>>>>>>> addressed
>>>>>>>>> without impacting the largest user community. I may not be
>>>>>>>>> explaining that
>>>>>>>>> as well as I could, but the idea is you put the resources on
>>>>>>>>> whatever will
>>>>>>>>> maximize profits and make no mistake that Apple is about making
>>>>>>>>> money. Oh
>>>>>>>>> and I'm all for Apple making money and buckets of it. MOre money
>>>>>>>>> means more
>>>>>>>>> resources and more resources means more likelihood accessibility
>>>>>>>>> gets
>>>>>>>>> attention.
>>>>>>>>> 5. Apple is the only "mainstream" company to my knowledge that has
>>>>>>>>> invested
>>>>>>>>> so heavily into accessibility.
>>>>>>>>> 6. A lot of developers have committed to making their apps
>>>>>>>>> accessible, so
>>>>>>>>> accessibility has really gained such a considerable amount of
>>>>>>>>> attention that
>>>>>>>>> there is support beyond even this community. You can bet if Apple
>>>>>>>>> ever
>>>>>>>>> decided to drop accessibility, we would have a good deal of
>>>>>>>>> support.
>>>>>>>>> I'm not lecturing you here Marc, but merely pointing out (because
>>>>>>>>> this comes
>>>>>>>>> up on the list from time to time) that APple has committed to
>>>>>>>>> accessibility
>>>>>>>>> and like any other aspect of software things get broken and
>>>>>>>>> hopefully fixed.
>>>>>>>>> I think a lot of the issues we all have experienced from time to
>>>>>>>>> time and
>>>>>>>>> still do in some cases is not being ignored. When you consider the
>>>>>>>>> size and
>>>>>>>>> scope of a project such as iOS itself, you can imagine the number of
>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>> working on such a project. Add to that the layers of management
-----Original Message-----
From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Scott Howell
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 5:10 PM
To: viphone@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: a warning to voice over users concerning IOS 6
Yes and that is why APple is so innovative. I have always felt that there
would be a way for blind people to use a touch interface and Apple made it
happen in a much more meaningful way than Code Factory did with their
approach. I'm not saying CF was wrong in their approach necessarily, but it
certainly did not provide the type of meaningful interface that would bring
the level of productivity that iOS has.
Of course this is just my opinion. :)
On Sep 17, 2012, at 5:01 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The fact is, before apple came out with their revolutionary touch-based
screen reader, it was not believed blind people could work with touch
screens in such a way. The closest thing was Mobile Speak who turned the
touch-screen in to 4 large buttons, and created an invisible talking
keyboard that covered the entire display. The professional research
questions were all focused around how to ad tactile feedback in a way that
would be meaningful to blind people. The basic premise has been that blind
people could not effectively adapt to an ever-changing visual interface. As
I read through the professional research and literature, this theme remains
constant.
> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 18/09/2012, at 3:28, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You know I've not been much a fan of Chrome or the ChromVox, but you know
I understand it is still early in its development. WHat I am pleased by is
the fact that GOogle also is investing in accessibility and I hope other
companies will see the benefits and jump on the wagon as well. Do I want to
see vendors such as FS or GW Micro go out of business? No, but at the same
time if that were to happen it means that finally accessibility has reached
a "mainstream" status and that can be a good (as well as a bad ) thing. All
this means is if you looked back just five or so years ago, who ever thought
we would have access to these touch-screen devices to the level we do today.
Actually when you consider the entire 20 plus years of screen reading
technology and look just in the last five or six years at what has been
accomplished, well it is pretty amazing.
>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>> Just two other points here. Accessibility like any other project may >>> have it's priority rise and fall as other projects priorities change >>> or as Apple perceives it's lead in the accessibility area growing or >>> shrinking. this is no different than any other project.
>>> I agree that Apple has done a lot as a main stream company with >>> respect to accessibility, but I'm not positive that their investment >>> is light years ahead of other main stream companies. I know for >>> example, Google has quite a bit invested in accessibility right now >>> between ChromeVox, Android and their on line services, such as >>> Google Docs. IBM also came out with their own screen reader for >>> OS/2, which I know is ancient history, but their investment to >>> accessibility has continued with contributions to FireFox and the >>> accessibility of products such as Lotus Notes, Sametime and Symphony.
>>> I also don't see Apple changing on a dime just because Steve Jobs is >>> no longer with them. Who knows how this will effect Apple in the >>> long run, but I'm sure he delegated some things before his death, >>> and I'm sure there are others at Apple who shared and understood his
vision.
>>> On 17/09/12 09:36, Marc Rocheleau wrote:
>>>> Hey Scott,
>>>> I totally understand what you mean. Like I said, I'm trying not to >>>> jump the gun or anything -- it's more a paranoia of mine than a >>>> valid fear. I fully acknowledge that Apple has too much money to >>>> lose if they drop accessibility from their products, especially >>>> with the communities that have been created online (such as this >>>> one) because of it.
>>>> I think it's more a case of it feeling too good to be true still. >>>> No other mainstream companies provide this level of support for the >>>> blind/visually-impaired, imo, and sometimes it feels like the other >>>> shoe should be dropping at any second. I know Apple does it for >>>> money but I don't really care as long as I am getting value for my
money.
>>>> There's a reason I'm switching to an iMac in the coming months, >>>> after all. :)
>>>> -Marc
>>>> On 9/17/12, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Marc,
>>>>> Before folks go running off on a tangent about accessibility, >>>>> Steve Jobs, and so forth I think it is important to point out:
>>>>> 1. Steve Jobs, although a great man, was not the exclusive >>>>> determining factor for Voiceover in Apple's products.
>>>>> 2. Just because Steve has passed on does not mean Apple will >>>>> abandon accessibility.
>>>>> 3. There has been articles posted by the U.S. Department of >>>>> Treasury (a year or two ago) that indicates there are over 100,000 >>>>> blind/visually impaired users of iPhones. Note iPhones and the article
did not mention iPads etc.
>>>>> 4. Apple has to balance accessibility against all the other >>>>> projects that are ongoing. There are resources dedicated to many >>>>> projects and some projects get more resources than others. Fact is >>>>> accessibility may not get the same level of resources as other >>>>> projects; however, you have to understand it is always a challenge >>>>> trying to be sure resources are managed in such a way to ensure >>>>> overall mission/goals/objectives are addressed without impacting >>>>> the largest user community. I may not be explaining that as well >>>>> as I could, but the idea is you put the resources on whatever will >>>>> maximize profits and make no mistake that Apple is about making >>>>> money. Oh and I'm all for Apple making money and buckets of it. >>>>> MOre money means more resources and more resources means more
likelihood accessibility gets attention.
>>>>> 5. Apple is the only "mainstream" company to my knowledge that has >>>>> invested so heavily into accessibility.
>>>>> 6. A lot of developers have committed to making their apps >>>>> accessible, so accessibility has really gained such a considerable >>>>> amount of attention that there is support beyond even this >>>>> community. You can bet if Apple ever decided to drop accessibility, we
would have a good deal of support.
>>>>> I'm not lecturing you here Marc, but merely pointing out (because >>>>> this comes up on the list from time to time) that APple has >>>>> committed to accessibility and like any other aspect of software
things get broken and hopefully fixed.
>>>>> I think a lot of the issues we all have experienced from time to >>>>> time and still do in some cases is not being ignored. When you >>>>> consider the size and scope of a project such as iOS itself, you >>>>> can imagine the number of people working on such a project. Add to >>>>> that the layers of management and development protocols etc. I'm >>>>> not surprised that it takes a while to address problems.
>>>>> On Sep 16, 2012, at 10:34 PM, Marc Rocheleau >>>>> <marcrochelea...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Wow, I sincerely hope that app developers who use VoiceOver have >>>>>> been reporting these problems to Apple's accessibility team. This >>>>>> is
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>> "VIPhone" Google Group.
>>>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit >>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
>>> --
>>> Christopher (CJ)
>>> chaltain at Gmail
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone"
Google Group.
>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone"
Google Group.
>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone"
Google Group.
> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone"
If that is the case of what you said, we "poor blind people", why
Apple should care on putting voiceover in their touch screen products?
Not only that, Apple also advertise that their products are friendly
to people with access needs.
Just a thought
Regards
Joanne
On 18/09/2012, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are correct for the Mac. For iOS devices, however, this is not the case.
> Most of the professional proofs and studies clearly demonstrated that blind
> peepul, as a whole, did not have the necessary spatial awareness, and
> attempting to memorise, without good tactile clues, would be almost
> impossible for most blind people. Therefore, an accessible pure touch-screen
> device was not expected or required. After all aside from some basic
> functionality, it couldn't be done anyway. Those poor blind people.
> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 18/09/2012, at 9:34, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree with David here, but I also wonder how much of Apple's sales are
>> effected by their commitment to accessibility. For example, how many
>> government sales or small business sales or educational sales wouldn't
>> have even been possible if they weren't able to demonstrate that they
>> had an accessible solution and meet the various regulations and laws, at
>> least here in the US? I think this would explode the 100K figure by
>> quite a bit, although I'm not sure it's possible to capture such a
>> number. I also don't mean to take away from Apple's commitment to
>> accessibility. I think their commitment goes beyond just bottom line
>> dollars and cents, although they are a business, and I don't think
>> they're doing it entirely out of the kindness of their corporate hearts.
>> On 17/09/12 16:05, Scott Howell wrote:
>>> David,
>>> True, but my point is that although a small portion of the overall sales,
>>> APple still considers this segment worth the investment. I would love to
>>> know what the real numbers are across all Apple products including the
>>> Macs.
>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 4:19 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Do not consider 100,000 iPhones to blind folk to be much of a market in
>>>> this case. This number represents 0.3% of 1 quarter year of Apple's
>>>> iPhone sales, but includes all models of iPhones for the past 3 years.
>>>> In other words, if Apple were to stop supporting VO, they wouldn't even
>>>> notice the tiny bump to their profits. Apple is not supporting concepts
>>>> of universal access for their bottom line.
>> --
>> Christopher (CJ)
>> chaltain at Gmail
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone"
>> Google Group.
>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google
> Group.
> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
Please forgive my cynicism in my final statement of those poor blind people. I am preparing my proposal for my doctoral research. My proposed topic is how are blind people able to adapt to touch screen devices, so I am currently reading all the academic and professional research I can find on the topic.
I do not know why Apple shifted its core values to include accessibility within its business model. If we look at the numbers, especially with iOS, it would appear to be a bad decision considering that there was no expectation for it, and Apple would not lose any governmental or education contracts over it. Consider that Microsoft has not lost any government contracts even though they removed accessibility from Windows Phone Seven and still have not put it back in.
We do know that Apple is committed to the end-user experience. The visual actions of the display have many affects which make it extremely pleasing for sighted people. Microsoft and Google are constantly trying to copy many of these affects with mixed results (according to sighted friends). Sighted people I know who are not at all computer savvy talk excitedly about their iPhones, MacBooks, and even Airport Xtreme routers because they are so intuitive and even fun to use. I only hear geek friends talk about Windows or Android that way.
I suspect, therefore, that Apple perceives universal accessibility in a similar vein, that it should be innovative, and should encompass the sighted experience as much as possible. And, they obviously do not pay attention to what the experts in the field say.
David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
Sent from my iPhone
On 18/09/2012, at 13:51, Joanne Chua <shuang.an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If that is the case of what you said, we "poor blind people", why
> Apple should care on putting voiceover in their touch screen products?
> Not only that, Apple also advertise that their products are friendly
> to people with access needs.
> Just a thought
> Regards
> Joanne
> On 18/09/2012, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You are correct for the Mac. For iOS devices, however, this is not the case.
>> Most of the professional proofs and studies clearly demonstrated that blind
>> peepul, as a whole, did not have the necessary spatial awareness, and
>> attempting to memorise, without good tactile clues, would be almost
>> impossible for most blind people. Therefore, an accessible pure touch-screen
>> device was not expected or required. After all aside from some basic
>> functionality, it couldn't be done anyway. Those poor blind people.
>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On 18/09/2012, at 9:34, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I agree with David here, but I also wonder how much of Apple's sales are
>>> effected by their commitment to accessibility. For example, how many
>>> government sales or small business sales or educational sales wouldn't
>>> have even been possible if they weren't able to demonstrate that they
>>> had an accessible solution and meet the various regulations and laws, at
>>> least here in the US? I think this would explode the 100K figure by
>>> quite a bit, although I'm not sure it's possible to capture such a
>>> number. I also don't mean to take away from Apple's commitment to
>>> accessibility. I think their commitment goes beyond just bottom line
>>> dollars and cents, although they are a business, and I don't think
>>> they're doing it entirely out of the kindness of their corporate hearts.
>>> On 17/09/12 16:05, Scott Howell wrote:
>>>> David,
>>>> True, but my point is that although a small portion of the overall sales,
>>>> APple still considers this segment worth the investment. I would love to
>>>> know what the real numbers are across all Apple products including the
>>>> Macs.
>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 4:19 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Do not consider 100,000 iPhones to blind folk to be much of a market in
>>>>> this case. This number represents 0.3% of 1 quarter year of Apple's
>>>>> iPhone sales, but includes all models of iPhones for the past 3 years.
>>>>> In other words, if Apple were to stop supporting VO, they wouldn't even
>>>>> notice the tiny bump to their profits. Apple is not supporting concepts
>>>>> of universal access for their bottom line.
>>> --
>>> Christopher (CJ)
>>> chaltain at Gmail
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone"
>>> Google Group.
>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google
>> Group.
>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
The issue of blind folk and touch screens is quite fascinating. I've always had trouble with spatial orientation, and if it weren't for the constant audible feedback, I'd get losT on a Magic Trackpad for the Mac or the screen on my IPOD. That said, I am really beginning to appreciate the spatial plcement, and I'm getting much more comfortable with it.
As for Apple's accessibility commitment, I think it's fantastic, but in a capitalist economy, it can only go so far, unless charities step in and help, or unless Apfle had various foundations for the purpose. I reY wouldn't have guessed this level of accessibility would exist a few years back, and frankly, this is why I buy Apple products. I support this commitment with my wallet. :)
Teresa
On Sep 17, 2012, at 6:17 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are correct for the Mac. For iOS devices, however, this is not the case. Most of the professional proofs and studies clearly demonstrated that blind peepul, as a whole, did not have the necessary spatial awareness, and attempting to memorise, without good tactile clues, would be almost impossible for most blind people. Therefore, an accessible pure touch-screen device was not expected or required. After all aside from some basic functionality, it couldn't be done anyway. Those poor blind people.
> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 18/09/2012, at 9:34, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree with David here, but I also wonder how much of Apple's sales are
>> effected by their commitment to accessibility. For example, how many
>> government sales or small business sales or educational sales wouldn't
>> have even been possible if they weren't able to demonstrate that they
>> had an accessible solution and meet the various regulations and laws, at
>> least here in the US? I think this would explode the 100K figure by
>> quite a bit, although I'm not sure it's possible to capture such a
>> number. I also don't mean to take away from Apple's commitment to
>> accessibility. I think their commitment goes beyond just bottom line
>> dollars and cents, although they are a business, and I don't think
>> they're doing it entirely out of the kindness of their corporate hearts.
>> On 17/09/12 16:05, Scott Howell wrote:
>>> David,
>>> True, but my point is that although a small portion of the overall sales, APple still considers this segment worth the investment. I would love to know what the real numbers are across all Apple products including the Macs.
>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 4:19 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Do not consider 100,000 iPhones to blind folk to be much of a market in this case. This number represents 0.3% of 1 quarter year of Apple's iPhone sales, but includes all models of iPhones for the past 3 years. In other words, if Apple were to stop supporting VO, they wouldn't even notice the tiny bump to their profits. Apple is not supporting concepts of universal access for their bottom line.
>> -- >> Christopher (CJ)
>> chaltain at Gmail
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
How do you know Apple wouldn't have lost any educational or governmental
contracts if they hadn't made IOS accessible? I recall a situation where
the DoJ blocked the use of Kindles (at least I think it was Kindles) to
distribute text books as ebooks. Plus, more and more businesses are
using and requiring their employees to use cell phones and tablets. I
could definitely see a situation where Apple would be losing sales of
iPhones and iPads to small businesses, governments agencies and
educational institutions if Android were an accessible option and IOS
hadn't been made accessible. Of course, Apple deserves the credit for
being ahead of that curve and doing it in such an innovative way.
I'm not sure Windows Phone 7 is much of a counter example at the moment.
I doubt they've lost any contracts due to a lack of accessibility, but I
figure it's more likely that they're just such a niche player right now
that they're just not considered a viable option yet.
> Please forgive my cynicism in my final statement of those poor blind people. I am preparing my proposal for my doctoral research. My proposed topic is how are blind people able to adapt to touch screen devices, so I am currently reading all the academic and professional research I can find on the topic.
> I do not know why Apple shifted its core values to include accessibility within its business model. If we look at the numbers, especially with iOS, it would appear to be a bad decision considering that there was no expectation for it, and Apple would not lose any governmental or education contracts over it. Consider that Microsoft has not lost any government contracts even though they removed accessibility from Windows Phone Seven and still have not put it back in.
> We do know that Apple is committed to the end-user experience. The visual actions of the display have many affects which make it extremely pleasing for sighted people. Microsoft and Google are constantly trying to copy many of these affects with mixed results (according to sighted friends). Sighted people I know who are not at all computer savvy talk excitedly about their iPhones, MacBooks, and even Airport Xtreme routers because they are so intuitive and even fun to use. I only hear geek friends talk about Windows or Android that way.
> I suspect, therefore, that Apple perceives universal accessibility in a similar vein, that it should be innovative, and should encompass the sighted experience as much as possible. And, they obviously do not pay attention to what the experts in the field say.
> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 18/09/2012, at 13:51, Joanne Chua <shuang.an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi David,
>> If that is the case of what you said, we "poor blind people", why
>> Apple should care on putting voiceover in their touch screen products?
>> Not only that, Apple also advertise that their products are friendly
>> to people with access needs.
>> Just a thought
>> Regards
>> Joanne
>> On 18/09/2012, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You are correct for the Mac. For iOS devices, however, this is not the case.
>>> Most of the professional proofs and studies clearly demonstrated that blind
>>> peepul, as a whole, did not have the necessary spatial awareness, and
>>> attempting to memorise, without good tactile clues, would be almost
>>> impossible for most blind people. Therefore, an accessible pure touch-screen
>>> device was not expected or required. After all aside from some basic
>>> functionality, it couldn't be done anyway. Those poor blind people.
>>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>>> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
>>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On 18/09/2012, at 9:34, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I agree with David here, but I also wonder how much of Apple's sales are
>>>> effected by their commitment to accessibility. For example, how many
>>>> government sales or small business sales or educational sales wouldn't
>>>> have even been possible if they weren't able to demonstrate that they
>>>> had an accessible solution and meet the various regulations and laws, at
>>>> least here in the US? I think this would explode the 100K figure by
>>>> quite a bit, although I'm not sure it's possible to capture such a
>>>> number. I also don't mean to take away from Apple's commitment to
>>>> accessibility. I think their commitment goes beyond just bottom line
>>>> dollars and cents, although they are a business, and I don't think
>>>> they're doing it entirely out of the kindness of their corporate hearts.
>>>> On 17/09/12 16:05, Scott Howell wrote:
>>>>> David,
>>>>> True, but my point is that although a small portion of the overall sales,
>>>>> APple still considers this segment worth the investment. I would love to
>>>>> know what the real numbers are across all Apple products including the
>>>>> Macs.
>>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 4:19 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Do not consider 100,000 iPhones to blind folk to be much of a market in
>>>>>> this case. This number represents 0.3% of 1 quarter year of Apple's
>>>>>> iPhone sales, but includes all models of iPhones for the past 3 years.
>>>>>> In other words, if Apple were to stop supporting VO, they wouldn't even
>>>>>> notice the tiny bump to their profits. Apple is not supporting concepts
>>>>>> of universal access for their bottom line.
>>>> --
>>>> Christopher (CJ)
>>>> chaltain at Gmail
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone"
>>>> Google Group.
>>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google
>>> Group.
>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
My memory may be failing me, but I seem to recall, at a time--perhaps 2004--something like RockBox was software to make the Ipod Classic accessible with speech, that I heard Apple was developing what became known as VoiceOver primarily as a way for sighted folks to navigate their iPod's while otherwise visually preoccupied, such as while driving, for example. The potential for use by blind and visually-impaired folks was a secondary or coincidental consideration or discovery, and not a primary driving force.
This view may be cynical and inaccurate. I recall it arising during conversation with others, and not based on any particular source I was aware of.
-----Original Message-----
From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Chittenden
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 9:41 PM
To: viphone@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Apple's commitment to accessibility [was "Re: a warning to voice over users concerning IOS 6"]
Hello,
Please forgive my cynicism in my final statement of those poor blind people. I am preparing my proposal for my doctoral research. My proposed topic is how are blind people able to adapt to touch screen devices, so I am currently reading all the academic and professional research I can find on the topic.
I do not know why Apple shifted its core values to include accessibility within its business model. If we look at the numbers, especially with iOS, it would appear to be a bad decision considering that there was no expectation for it, and Apple would not lose any governmental or education contracts over it. Consider that Microsoft has not lost any government contracts even though they removed accessibility from Windows Phone Seven and still have not put it back in.
We do know that Apple is committed to the end-user experience. The visual actions of the display have many affects which make it extremely pleasing for sighted people. Microsoft and Google are constantly trying to copy many of these affects with mixed results (according to sighted friends). Sighted people I know who are not at all computer savvy talk excitedly about their iPhones, MacBooks, and even Airport Xtreme routers because they are so intuitive and even fun to use. I only hear geek friends talk about Windows or Android that way.
I suspect, therefore, that Apple perceives universal accessibility in a similar vein, that it should be innovative, and should encompass the sighted experience as much as possible. And, they obviously do not pay attention to what the experts in the field say.
David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
Sent from my iPhone
On 18/09/2012, at 13:51, Joanne Chua <shuang.an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi David,
> If that is the case of what you said, we "poor blind people", why
> Apple should care on putting voiceover in their touch screen products?
> Not only that, Apple also advertise that their products are friendly
> to people with access needs.
> Just a thought
> Regards
> Joanne
> On 18/09/2012, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You are correct for the Mac. For iOS devices, however, this is not the case.
>> Most of the professional proofs and studies clearly demonstrated that blind
>> peepul, as a whole, did not have the necessary spatial awareness, and
>> attempting to memorise, without good tactile clues, would be almost
>> impossible for most blind people. Therefore, an accessible pure touch-screen
>> device was not expected or required. After all aside from some basic
>> functionality, it couldn't be done anyway. Those poor blind people.
>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On 18/09/2012, at 9:34, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I agree with David here, but I also wonder how much of Apple's sales are
>>> effected by their commitment to accessibility. For example, how many
>>> government sales or small business sales or educational sales wouldn't
>>> have even been possible if they weren't able to demonstrate that they
>>> had an accessible solution and meet the various regulations and laws, at
>>> least here in the US? I think this would explode the 100K figure by
>>> quite a bit, although I'm not sure it's possible to capture such a
>>> number. I also don't mean to take away from Apple's commitment to
>>> accessibility. I think their commitment goes beyond just bottom line
>>> dollars and cents, although they are a business, and I don't think
>>> they're doing it entirely out of the kindness of their corporate hearts.
>>> On 17/09/12 16:05, Scott Howell wrote:
>>>> David,
>>>> True, but my point is that although a small portion of the overall sales,
>>>> APple still considers this segment worth the investment. I would love to
>>>> know what the real numbers are across all Apple products including the
>>>> Macs.
>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 4:19 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Do not consider 100,000 iPhones to blind folk to be much of a market in
>>>>> this case. This number represents 0.3% of 1 quarter year of Apple's
>>>>> iPhone sales, but includes all models of iPhones for the past 3 years.
>>>>> In other words, if Apple were to stop supporting VO, they wouldn't even
>>>>> notice the tiny bump to their profits. Apple is not supporting concepts
>>>>> of universal access for their bottom line.
>>> --
>>> Christopher (CJ)
>>> chaltain at Gmail
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone"
>>> Google Group.
>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google
>> Group.
>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
First, don't confuse timelines. Original Android accessibility was only with physical buttons and keyboards, and this was after VO was released on the iPhone.
Before VO was released on the iPhone, it was known that accessibility was not very possible on a touch-screen. In other words, the limited possibilities for touch-screen access were obviously impossible and expensive, so the ADA was satisfied because it was not practical to have blindness accessibility. The possible access was limited and easily arguably too expensive, so meaningless. Therefore, businesses and government were only required to provide a partially accessible alternative. This meant, the blind person would get a basic cell phone with buttons that could be felt, and if necessary, a laptop or netbook running a screen reader, or an accessible note taker such as BrailleNote or PACMate. Code Factory did not make enough of an impact to change the government register (yes, I checked in 2008), so slight accommodation was perfectly acceptible and met the law.
Windows Phone Seven became inaccessible, yet Microsoft did not lose any government contracts over it. Therefore, we can easily argue that the lack of accessibility in the mobile phone market meant no companies would lose government contracts. The TeleCommunications Act said at least an entry level usably accessible phone needs to be provided by each carrier. This does not mean each phone manufacturer was required to make an accessible version, and the provided phone just needed to be useable, not all of its advanced features need to be accessible. I did clarify this information with an accessibility law specialist in 2008.
As for the case of the Kindle, this happened in 2010 at Arizona State University. ASU required Kindles for certain classes and did not provide any accessible alternatives. Amazon could not argue that accessibility was impossible in a handheld device because, as was successfully argued, Apple's VoiceOver made the iPhone and the iPad fully accessible. Therefore, Amazon developed an accessible Kindle. It should be noted that the accessible Kindle has buttons and no touch screen, and the newest models, according to information I have recently received, are not accessible.
Even Blackberry phones were inaccessible and Rim did not lose any government or business contracts because of it. Rim started having other problems, but that was not related, in any way, to their lack of accessibility.
The fact is, Apple completely changed the paradigm around accessibility, and they are still significantly ahead of the competition. Will this continue? Only time can answer that question. However, Apple's pattern since 2005 speaks for itself, and gives me high confidence that it will continue in to the foreseeable future. The only other company which I have similar confidence about at this time is Google's Android, and my confidence is not as high.
David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
Sent from my iPhone
On 18/09/2012, at 15:09, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How do you know Apple wouldn't have lost any educational or governmental
> contracts if they hadn't made IOS accessible? I recall a situation where
> the DoJ blocked the use of Kindles (at least I think it was Kindles) to
> distribute text books as ebooks. Plus, more and more businesses are
> using and requiring their employees to use cell phones and tablets. I
> could definitely see a situation where Apple would be losing sales of
> iPhones and iPads to small businesses, governments agencies and
> educational institutions if Android were an accessible option and IOS
> hadn't been made accessible. Of course, Apple deserves the credit for
> being ahead of that curve and doing it in such an innovative way.
> I'm not sure Windows Phone 7 is much of a counter example at the moment.
> I doubt they've lost any contracts due to a lack of accessibility, but I
> figure it's more likely that they're just such a niche player right now
> that they're just not considered a viable option yet.
> On 17/09/12 21:41, David Chittenden wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Please forgive my cynicism in my final statement of those poor blind people. I am preparing my proposal for my doctoral research. My proposed topic is how are blind people able to adapt to touch screen devices, so I am currently reading all the academic and professional research I can find on the topic.
>> I do not know why Apple shifted its core values to include accessibility within its business model. If we look at the numbers, especially with iOS, it would appear to be a bad decision considering that there was no expectation for it, and Apple would not lose any governmental or education contracts over it. Consider that Microsoft has not lost any government contracts even though they removed accessibility from Windows Phone Seven and still have not put it back in.
>> We do know that Apple is committed to the end-user experience. The visual actions of the display have many affects which make it extremely pleasing for sighted people. Microsoft and Google are constantly trying to copy many of these affects with mixed results (according to sighted friends). Sighted people I know who are not at all computer savvy talk excitedly about their iPhones, MacBooks, and even Airport Xtreme routers because they are so intuitive and even fun to use. I only hear geek friends talk about Windows or Android that way.
>> I suspect, therefore, that Apple perceives universal accessibility in a similar vein, that it should be innovative, and should encompass the sighted experience as much as possible. And, they obviously do not pay attention to what the experts in the field say.
>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On 18/09/2012, at 13:51, Joanne Chua <shuang.an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>> If that is the case of what you said, we "poor blind people", why
>>> Apple should care on putting voiceover in their touch screen products?
>>> Not only that, Apple also advertise that their products are friendly
>>> to people with access needs.
>>> Just a thought
>>> Regards
>>> Joanne
>>> On 18/09/2012, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> You are correct for the Mac. For iOS devices, however, this is not the case.
>>>> Most of the professional proofs and studies clearly demonstrated that blind
>>>> peepul, as a whole, did not have the necessary spatial awareness, and
>>>> attempting to memorise, without good tactile clues, would be almost
>>>> impossible for most blind people. Therefore, an accessible pure touch-screen
>>>> device was not expected or required. After all aside from some basic
>>>> functionality, it couldn't be done anyway. Those poor blind people.
>>>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>>>> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
>>>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> On 18/09/2012, at 9:34, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I agree with David here, but I also wonder how much of Apple's sales are
>>>>> effected by their commitment to accessibility. For example, how many
>>>>> government sales or small business sales or educational sales wouldn't
>>>>> have even been possible if they weren't able to demonstrate that they
>>>>> had an accessible solution and meet the various regulations and laws, at
>>>>> least here in the US? I think this would explode the 100K figure by
>>>>> quite a bit, although I'm not sure it's possible to capture such a
>>>>> number. I also don't mean to take away from Apple's commitment to
>>>>> accessibility. I think their commitment goes beyond just bottom line
>>>>> dollars and cents, although they are a business, and I don't think
>>>>> they're doing it entirely out of the kindness of their corporate hearts.
>>>>> On 17/09/12 16:05, Scott Howell wrote:
>>>>>> David,
>>>>>> True, but my point is that although a small portion of the overall sales,
>>>>>> APple still considers this segment worth the investment. I would love to
>>>>>> know what the real numbers are across all Apple products including the
>>>>>> Macs.
>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 4:19 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Do not consider 100,000 iPhones to blind folk to be much of a market in
>>>>>>> this case. This number represents 0.3% of 1 quarter year of Apple's
>>>>>>> iPhone sales, but includes all models of iPhones for the past 3 years.
>>>>>>> In other words, if Apple were to stop supporting VO, they wouldn't even
>>>>>>> notice the tiny bump to their profits. Apple is not supporting concepts
>>>>>>> of universal access for their bottom line.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Christopher (CJ)
>>>>> chaltain at Gmail
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone"
>>>>> Google Group.
>>>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google
>>>> Group.
>>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit this group at
My understanding is that The initial spoken track information which was added to songs (if requested) was set up primarily for blind people. This occurred a few years after Apple brought accessibility inhouse, and the iPods did not have the processing power for a full screen reader as Apple felt it should be accomplished. The iPod was not as powerful a device as other RocBox enabled MP3 players, from what I understood at the time, but it was more intuitive to use. I would love to see Apple's internal documentation to learn when they actually decided to develop VO for their portable devices.
David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
Sent from my iPhone
On 18/09/2012, at 15:15, "Kramlinger, Keith G., M.D." <kramlinger.ke...@mayo.edu> wrote:
> My memory may be failing me, but I seem to recall, at a time--perhaps 2004--something like RockBox was software to make the Ipod Classic accessible with speech, that I heard Apple was developing what became known as VoiceOver primarily as a way for sighted folks to navigate their iPod's while otherwise visually preoccupied, such as while driving, for example. The potential for use by blind and visually-impaired folks was a secondary or coincidental consideration or discovery, and not a primary driving force.
> This view may be cynical and inaccurate. I recall it arising during conversation with others, and not based on any particular source I was aware of.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Chittenden
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 9:41 PM
> To: viphone@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Apple's commitment to accessibility [was "Re: a warning to voice over users concerning IOS 6"]
> Hello,
> Please forgive my cynicism in my final statement of those poor blind people. I am preparing my proposal for my doctoral research. My proposed topic is how are blind people able to adapt to touch screen devices, so I am currently reading all the academic and professional research I can find on the topic.
> I do not know why Apple shifted its core values to include accessibility within its business model. If we look at the numbers, especially with iOS, it would appear to be a bad decision considering that there was no expectation for it, and Apple would not lose any governmental or education contracts over it. Consider that Microsoft has not lost any government contracts even though they removed accessibility from Windows Phone Seven and still have not put it back in.
> We do know that Apple is committed to the end-user experience. The visual actions of the display have many affects which make it extremely pleasing for sighted people. Microsoft and Google are constantly trying to copy many of these affects with mixed results (according to sighted friends). Sighted people I know who are not at all computer savvy talk excitedly about their iPhones, MacBooks, and even Airport Xtreme routers because they are so intuitive and even fun to use. I only hear geek friends talk about Windows or Android that way.
> I suspect, therefore, that Apple perceives universal accessibility in a similar vein, that it should be innovative, and should encompass the sighted experience as much as possible. And, they obviously do not pay attention to what the experts in the field say.
> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 18/09/2012, at 13:51, Joanne Chua <shuang.an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi David,
>> If that is the case of what you said, we "poor blind people", why
>> Apple should care on putting voiceover in their touch screen products?
>> Not only that, Apple also advertise that their products are friendly
>> to people with access needs.
>> Just a thought
>> Regards
>> Joanne
>> On 18/09/2012, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You are correct for the Mac. For iOS devices, however, this is not the case.
>>> Most of the professional proofs and studies clearly demonstrated that blind
>>> peepul, as a whole, did not have the necessary spatial awareness, and
>>> attempting to memorise, without good tactile clues, would be almost
>>> impossible for most blind people. Therefore, an accessible pure touch-screen
>>> device was not expected or required. After all aside from some basic
>>> functionality, it couldn't be done anyway. Those poor blind people.
>>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>>> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
>>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On 18/09/2012, at 9:34, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I agree with David here, but I also wonder how much of Apple's sales are
>>>> effected by their commitment to accessibility. For example, how many
>>>> government sales or small business sales or educational sales wouldn't
>>>> have even been possible if they weren't able to demonstrate that they
>>>> had an accessible solution and meet the various regulations and laws, at
>>>> least here in the US? I think this would explode the 100K figure by
>>>> quite a bit, although I'm not sure it's possible to capture such a
>>>> number. I also don't mean to take away from Apple's commitment to
>>>> accessibility. I think their commitment goes beyond just bottom line
>>>> dollars and cents, although they are a business, and I don't think
>>>> they're doing it entirely out of the kindness of their corporate hearts.
>>>> On 17/09/12 16:05, Scott Howell wrote:
>>>>> David,
>>>>> True, but my point is that although a small portion of the overall sales,
>>>>> APple still considers this segment worth the investment. I would love to
>>>>> know what the real numbers are across all Apple products including the
>>>>> Macs.
>>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 4:19 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Do not consider 100,000 iPhones to blind folk to be much of a market in
>>>>>> this case. This number represents 0.3% of 1 quarter year of Apple's
>>>>>> iPhone sales, but includes all models of iPhones for the past 3 years.
>>>>>> In other words, if Apple were to stop supporting VO, they wouldn't even
>>>>>> notice the tiny bump to their profits. Apple is not supporting concepts
>>>>>> of universal access for their bottom line.
>>>> --
>>>> Christopher (CJ)
>>>> chaltain at Gmail
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone"
>>>> Google Group.
>>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google
>>> Group.
>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
Apple stresses "accessibility" as a concept which means not just
accessibility for the blind or visually impaired, but also for those with
hearing impairments, physical impairments and even those with mental and
learning disabilities. Throw all of those numbers in a pot and they are not
so small and they do generate good will from those who care about this.
Include all the families and friends of those who benefit from accessible
iPhones and iDevices and while not everybody may buy an iPhone because his
or her blind aunt, nephew or Grandpa can benefit, some may be influenced by
this and the numbers grow even further. In any case, I think Apple has made
a commitment, made this commitment public and they will continue to stick
with it. Hopefully their example may result in others following in their
footsteps.
-----Original Message-----
From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Joanne Chua
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 6:52 PM
To: viphone@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Apple's commitment to accessibility [was "Re: a warning to
voice over users concerning IOS 6"]
Hi David,
If that is the case of what you said, we "poor blind people", why Apple
should care on putting voiceover in their touch screen products?
Not only that, Apple also advertise that their products are friendly to
people with access needs.
Just a thought
Regards
Joanne
On 18/09/2012, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are correct for the Mac. For iOS devices, however, this is not the
case.
> Most of the professional proofs and studies clearly demonstrated that > blind peepul, as a whole, did not have the necessary spatial > awareness, and attempting to memorise, without good tactile clues, > would be almost impossible for most blind people. Therefore, an > accessible pure touch-screen device was not expected or required. > After all aside from some basic functionality, it couldn't be done anyway.
Those poor blind people.
> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 18/09/2012, at 9:34, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree with David here, but I also wonder how much of Apple's sales >> are effected by their commitment to accessibility. For example, how >> many government sales or small business sales or educational sales >> wouldn't have even been possible if they weren't able to demonstrate >> that they had an accessible solution and meet the various regulations >> and laws, at least here in the US? I think this would explode the >> 100K figure by quite a bit, although I'm not sure it's possible to >> capture such a number. I also don't mean to take away from Apple's >> commitment to accessibility. I think their commitment goes beyond >> just bottom line dollars and cents, although they are a business, and >> I don't think they're doing it entirely out of the kindness of their
corporate hearts.
>> On 17/09/12 16:05, Scott Howell wrote:
>>> David,
>>> True, but my point is that although a small portion of the overall >>> sales, APple still considers this segment worth the investment. I >>> would love to know what the real numbers are across all Apple >>> products including the Macs.
>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 4:19 PM, David Chittenden >>> <dchitten...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Do not consider 100,000 iPhones to blind folk to be much of a >>>> market in this case. This number represents 0.3% of 1 quarter year >>>> of Apple's iPhone sales, but includes all models of iPhones for the
past 3 years.
>>>> In other words, if Apple were to stop supporting VO, they wouldn't >>>> even notice the tiny bump to their profits. Apple is not supporting >>>> concepts of universal access for their bottom line.
>> --
>> Christopher (CJ)
>> chaltain at Gmail
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone"
>> Google Group.
>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit >> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" > Google Group.
> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit > http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google
Group.
To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
If Apple will continue as is on naking its products accessible is exactly wasI was asking myself awhile ago, especially with the talk these past few days on here about the App store breaking Voiceover accessible, as I asked myself what could I expect on ny next IPhone in Febuary of 2014 when this IPhone's contract expires, and seeking a new IPhone comes into the picture? As long as the IPhone continues to be accessible for us the blind, I've had such awesome experience with so much one can accomplish(once passing the frustration phase all new IUsers go through) that I wouldn't go back to Nokia with Talks!
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El 17/09/2012, a las 23:15, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> escribió:
> First, don't confuse timelines. Original Android accessibility was only with physical buttons and keyboards, and this was after VO was released on the iPhone.
> Before VO was released on the iPhone, it was known that accessibility was not very possible on a touch-screen. In other words, the limited possibilities for touch-screen access were obviously impossible and expensive, so the ADA was satisfied because it was not practical to have blindness accessibility. The possible access was limited and easily arguably too expensive, so meaningless. Therefore, businesses and government were only required to provide a partially accessible alternative. This meant, the blind person would get a basic cell phone with buttons that could be felt, and if necessary, a laptop or netbook running a screen reader, or an accessible note taker such as BrailleNote or PACMate. Code Factory did not make enough of an impact to change the government register (yes, I checked in 2008), so slight accommodation was perfectly acceptible and met the law.
> Windows Phone Seven became inaccessible, yet Microsoft did not lose any government contracts over it. Therefore, we can easily argue that the lack of accessibility in the mobile phone market meant no companies would lose government contracts. The TeleCommunications Act said at least an entry level usably accessible phone needs to be provided by each carrier. This does not mean each phone manufacturer was required to make an accessible version, and the provided phone just needed to be useable, not all of its advanced features need to be accessible. I did clarify this information with an accessibility law specialist in 2008.
> As for the case of the Kindle, this happened in 2010 at Arizona State University. ASU required Kindles for certain classes and did not provide any accessible alternatives. Amazon could not argue that accessibility was impossible in a handheld device because, as was successfully argued, Apple's VoiceOver made the iPhone and the iPad fully accessible. Therefore, Amazon developed an accessible Kindle. It should be noted that the accessible Kindle has buttons and no touch screen, and the newest models, according to information I have recently received, are not accessible.
> Even Blackberry phones were inaccessible and Rim did not lose any government or business contracts because of it. Rim started having other problems, but that was not related, in any way, to their lack of accessibility.
> The fact is, Apple completely changed the paradigm around accessibility, and they are still significantly ahead of the competition. Will this continue? Only time can answer that question. However, Apple's pattern since 2005 speaks for itself, and gives me high confidence that it will continue in to the foreseeable future. The only other company which I have similar confidence about at this time is Google's Android, and my confidence is not as high.
> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 18/09/2012, at 15:09, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> How do you know Apple wouldn't have lost any educational or governmental
>> contracts if they hadn't made IOS accessible? I recall a situation where
>> the DoJ blocked the use of Kindles (at least I think it was Kindles) to
>> distribute text books as ebooks. Plus, more and more businesses are
>> using and requiring their employees to use cell phones and tablets. I
>> could definitely see a situation where Apple would be losing sales of
>> iPhones and iPads to small businesses, governments agencies and
>> educational institutions if Android were an accessible option and IOS
>> hadn't been made accessible. Of course, Apple deserves the credit for
>> being ahead of that curve and doing it in such an innovative way.
>> I'm not sure Windows Phone 7 is much of a counter example at the moment.
>> I doubt they've lost any contracts due to a lack of accessibility, but I
>> figure it's more likely that they're just such a niche player right now
>> that they're just not considered a viable option yet.
>> On 17/09/12 21:41, David Chittenden wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> Please forgive my cynicism in my final statement of those poor blind people. I am preparing my proposal for my doctoral research. My proposed topic is how are blind people able to adapt to touch screen devices, so I am currently reading all the academic and professional research I can find on the topic.
>>> I do not know why Apple shifted its core values to include accessibility within its business model. If we look at the numbers, especially with iOS, it would appear to be a bad decision considering that there was no expectation for it, and Apple would not lose any governmental or education contracts over it. Consider that Microsoft has not lost any government contracts even though they removed accessibility from Windows Phone Seven and still have not put it back in.
>>> We do know that Apple is committed to the end-user experience. The visual actions of the display have many affects which make it extremely pleasing for sighted people. Microsoft and Google are constantly trying to copy many of these affects with mixed results (according to sighted friends). Sighted people I know who are not at all computer savvy talk excitedly about their iPhones, MacBooks, and even Airport Xtreme routers because they are so intuitive and even fun to use. I only hear geek friends talk about Windows or Android that way.
>>> I suspect, therefore, that Apple perceives universal accessibility in a similar vein, that it should be innovative, and should encompass the sighted experience as much as possible. And, they obviously do not pay attention to what the experts in the field say.
>>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>>> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
>>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On 18/09/2012, at 13:51, Joanne Chua <shuang.an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi David,
>>>> If that is the case of what you said, we "poor blind people", why
>>>> Apple should care on putting voiceover in their touch screen products?
>>>> Not only that, Apple also advertise that their products are friendly
>>>> to people with access needs.
>>>> Just a thought
>>>> Regards
>>>> Joanne
>>>> On 18/09/2012, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> You are correct for the Mac. For iOS devices, however, this is not the case.
>>>>> Most of the professional proofs and studies clearly demonstrated that blind
>>>>> peepul, as a whole, did not have the necessary spatial awareness, and
>>>>> attempting to memorise, without good tactile clues, would be almost
>>>>> impossible for most blind people. Therefore, an accessible pure touch-screen
>>>>> device was not expected or required. After all aside from some basic
>>>>> functionality, it couldn't be done anyway. Those poor blind people.
>>>>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>>>>> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
>>>>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> On 18/09/2012, at 9:34, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I agree with David here, but I also wonder how much of Apple's sales are
>>>>>> effected by their commitment to accessibility. For example, how many
>>>>>> government sales or small business sales or educational sales wouldn't
>>>>>> have even been possible if they weren't able to demonstrate that they
>>>>>> had an accessible solution and meet the various regulations and laws, at
>>>>>> least here in the US? I think this would explode the 100K figure by
>>>>>> quite a bit, although I'm not sure it's possible to capture such a
>>>>>> number. I also don't mean to take away from Apple's commitment to
>>>>>> accessibility. I think their commitment goes beyond just bottom line
>>>>>> dollars and cents, although they are a business, and I don't think
>>>>>> they're doing it entirely out of the kindness of their corporate hearts.
>>>>>> On 17/09/12 16:05, Scott Howell wrote:
>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>> True, but my point is that although a small portion of the overall sales,
>>>>>>> APple still considers this segment worth the investment. I would love to
>>>>>>> know what the real numbers are across all Apple products including the
>>>>>>> Macs.
>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 4:19 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Do not consider 100,000 iPhones to blind folk to be much of a market in
>>>>>>>> this case. This number represents 0.3% of 1 quarter year of Apple's
>>>>>>>> iPhone sales, but includes all models of iPhones for the past 3 years.
>>>>>>>> In other words, if Apple were to stop supporting VO, they wouldn't even
>>>>>>>> notice the tiny bump to their profits. Apple is not supporting concepts
>>>>>>>> of universal access for their bottom line.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Christopher (CJ)
>>>>>> chaltain at Gmail
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone"
>>>>>> Google
I'm not sure what you mean by the "capitalist economy" since all economies are capitalist in nature. In fact I'd argue that without capitalism Apple would not have any incentive to consider accessibility. I'm not sure where charities fit into this conversation either. The fact is APple chose to make accessibility a core component of their business model because APple decided at some point that everyone should have equal access. Regardless of how small a market segment the disable population is, Apple has made the commitment and will continue to do so. Just as app developers have responded in most cases very favorably to making their apps accessible. I suspect it is not just because it is the "right thing" to do, but because there is a segment of the market that could be tapped for sales. Capitalism really is a good thing because it gives people the incentive to strive for your money. :)
On Sep 17, 2012, at 11:02 PM, Teresa Cochran <vegaspipistre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The issue of blind folk and touch screens is quite fascinating. I've always had trouble with spatial orientation, and if it weren't for the constant audible feedback, I'd get losT on a Magic Trackpad for the Mac or the screen on my IPOD. That said, I am really beginning to appreciate the spatial plcement, and I'm getting much more comfortable with it.
> As for Apple's accessibility commitment, I think it's fantastic, but in a capitalist economy, it can only go so far, unless charities step in and help, or unless Apfle had various foundations for the purpose. I reY wouldn't have guessed this level of accessibility would exist a few years back, and frankly, this is why I buy Apple products. I support this commitment with my wallet. :)
> Teresa
> On Sep 17, 2012, at 6:17 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You are correct for the Mac. For iOS devices, however, this is not the case. Most of the professional proofs and studies clearly demonstrated that blind peepul, as a whole, did not have the necessary spatial awareness, and attempting to memorise, without good tactile clues, would be almost impossible for most blind people. Therefore, an accessible pure touch-screen device was not expected or required. After all aside from some basic functionality, it couldn't be done anyway. Those poor blind people.
>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On 18/09/2012, at 9:34, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I agree with David here, but I also wonder how much of Apple's sales are
>>> effected by their commitment to accessibility. For example, how many
>>> government sales or small business sales or educational sales wouldn't
>>> have even been possible if they weren't able to demonstrate that they
>>> had an accessible solution and meet the various regulations and laws, at
>>> least here in the US? I think this would explode the 100K figure by
>>> quite a bit, although I'm not sure it's possible to capture such a
>>> number. I also don't mean to take away from Apple's commitment to
>>> accessibility. I think their commitment goes beyond just bottom line
>>> dollars and cents, although they are a business, and I don't think
>>> they're doing it entirely out of the kindness of their corporate hearts.
>>> On 17/09/12 16:05, Scott Howell wrote:
>>>> David,
>>>> True, but my point is that although a small portion of the overall sales, APple still considers this segment worth the investment. I would love to know what the real numbers are across all Apple products including the Macs.
>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 4:19 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Do not consider 100,000 iPhones to blind folk to be much of a market in this case. This number represents 0.3% of 1 quarter year of Apple's iPhone sales, but includes all models of iPhones for the past 3 years. In other words, if Apple were to stop supporting VO, they wouldn't even notice the tiny bump to their profits. Apple is not supporting concepts of universal access for their bottom line.
>>> -- >>> Christopher (CJ)
>>> chaltain at Gmail
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
Hello all speaking of the sighted I tell sighted iPhone or other iDevice users about VoiceOver and they are just amazed, some to the extent that they are delighted in what Apple has done even though they may never have met a disabled person in their lives. So I am spreading the word for sure.
> Apple stresses "accessibility" as a concept which means not just
> accessibility for the blind or visually impaired, but also for those with
> hearing impairments, physical impairments and even those with mental and
> learning disabilities. Throw all of those numbers in a pot and they are not
> so small and they do generate good will from those who care about this.
> Include all the families and friends of those who benefit from accessible
> iPhones and iDevices and while not everybody may buy an iPhone because his
> or her blind aunt, nephew or Grandpa can benefit, some may be influenced by
> this and the numbers grow even further. In any case, I think Apple has made
> a commitment, made this commitment public and they will continue to stick
> with it. Hopefully their example may result in others following in their
> footsteps.
> Regards,
> Sieghard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
> Of Joanne Chua
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 6:52 PM
> To: viphone@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Apple's commitment to accessibility [was "Re: a warning to
> voice over users concerning IOS 6"]
> Hi David,
> If that is the case of what you said, we "poor blind people", why Apple
> should care on putting voiceover in their touch screen products?
> Not only that, Apple also advertise that their products are friendly to
> people with access needs.
> Just a thought
> Regards
> Joanne
> On 18/09/2012, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You are correct for the Mac. For iOS devices, however, this is not the
> case.
>> Most of the professional proofs and studies clearly demonstrated that
>> blind peepul, as a whole, did not have the necessary spatial
>> awareness, and attempting to memorise, without good tactile clues,
>> would be almost impossible for most blind people. Therefore, an
>> accessible pure touch-screen device was not expected or required.
>> After all aside from some basic functionality, it couldn't be done anyway.
> Those poor blind people.
>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On 18/09/2012, at 9:34, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I agree with David here, but I also wonder how much of Apple's sales
>>> are effected by their commitment to accessibility. For example, how
>>> many government sales or small business sales or educational sales
>>> wouldn't have even been possible if they weren't able to demonstrate
>>> that they had an accessible solution and meet the various regulations
>>> and laws, at least here in the US? I think this would explode the
>>> 100K figure by quite a bit, although I'm not sure it's possible to
>>> capture such a number. I also don't mean to take away from Apple's
>>> commitment to accessibility. I think their commitment goes beyond
>>> just bottom line dollars and cents, although they are a business, and
>>> I don't think they're doing it entirely out of the kindness of their
> corporate hearts.
>>> On 17/09/12 16:05, Scott Howell wrote:
>>>> David,
>>>> True, but my point is that although a small portion of the overall
>>>> sales, APple still considers this segment worth the investment. I
>>>> would love to know what the real numbers are across all Apple
>>>> products including the Macs.
>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 4:19 PM, David Chittenden
>>>> <dchitten...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Do not consider 100,000 iPhones to blind folk to be much of a
>>>>> market in this case. This number represents 0.3% of 1 quarter year
>>>>> of Apple's iPhone sales, but includes all models of iPhones for the
> past 3 years.
>>>>> In other words, if Apple were to stop supporting VO, they wouldn't
>>>>> even notice the tiny bump to their profits. Apple is not supporting
>>>>> concepts of universal access for their bottom line.
>>> --
>>> Christopher (CJ)
>>> chaltain at Gmail
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone"
>>> Google Group.
>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone"
>> Google Group.
>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google
> Group.
> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
Same senario here in a developing country when I've showed the ILhone to family: they're amazed I know more than they! I think that by exanple is ghe way to go in creating awareness of Aple's commitnent on integrating us the blind into something as bassic as the Digital Age. It sure feels awesome being part along with everybody else, independent of disability.
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El 18/09/2012, a las 06:29, Chris <christopher...@gmail.com> escribió:
> Hello all speaking of the sighted I tell sighted iPhone or other iDevice users about VoiceOver and they are just amazed, some to the extent that they are delighted in what Apple has done even though they may never have met a disabled person in their lives. So I am spreading the word for sure.
> On 18/09/2012 06:30, Sieghard Weitzel wrote:
>> Joanne,
>> Apple stresses "accessibility" as a concept which means not just
>> accessibility for the blind or visually impaired, but also for those with
>> hearing impairments, physical impairments and even those with mental and
>> learning disabilities. Throw all of those numbers in a pot and they are not
>> so small and they do generate good will from those who care about this.
>> Include all the families and friends of those who benefit from accessible
>> iPhones and iDevices and while not everybody may buy an iPhone because his
>> or her blind aunt, nephew or Grandpa can benefit, some may be influenced by
>> this and the numbers grow even further. In any case, I think Apple has made
>> a commitment, made this commitment public and they will continue to stick
>> with it. Hopefully their example may result in others following in their
>> footsteps.
>> Regards,
>> Sieghard
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
>> Of Joanne Chua
>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 6:52 PM
>> To: viphone@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: Apple's commitment to accessibility [was "Re: a warning to
>> voice over users concerning IOS 6"]
>> Hi David,
>> If that is the case of what you said, we "poor blind people", why Apple
>> should care on putting voiceover in their touch screen products?
>> Not only that, Apple also advertise that their products are friendly to
>> people with access needs.
>> Just a thought
>> Regards
>> Joanne
>> On 18/09/2012, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You are correct for the Mac. For iOS devices, however, this is not the
>> case.
>>> Most of the professional proofs and studies clearly demonstrated that
>>> blind peepul, as a whole, did not have the necessary spatial
>>> awareness, and attempting to memorise, without good tactile clues,
>>> would be almost impossible for most blind people. Therefore, an
>>> accessible pure touch-screen device was not expected or required.
>>> After all aside from some basic functionality, it couldn't be done anyway.
>> Those poor blind people.
>>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>>> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
>>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On 18/09/2012, at 9:34, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I agree with David here, but I also wonder how much of Apple's sales
>>>> are effected by their commitment to accessibility. For example, how
>>>> many government sales or small business sales or educational sales
>>>> wouldn't have even been possible if they weren't able to demonstrate
>>>> that they had an accessible solution and meet the various regulations
>>>> and laws, at least here in the US? I think this would explode the
>>>> 100K figure by quite a bit, although I'm not sure it's possible to
>>>> capture such a number. I also don't mean to take away from Apple's
>>>> commitment to accessibility. I think their commitment goes beyond
>>>> just bottom line dollars and cents, although they are a business, and
>>>> I don't think they're doing it entirely out of the kindness of their
>> corporate hearts.
>>>> On 17/09/12 16:05, Scott Howell wrote:
>>>>> David,
>>>>> True, but my point is that although a small portion of the overall
>>>>> sales, APple still considers this segment worth the investment. I
>>>>> would love to know what the real numbers are across all Apple
>>>>> products including the Macs.
>>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 4:19 PM, David Chittenden
>>>>> <dchitten...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Do not consider 100,000 iPhones to blind folk to be much of a
>>>>>> market in this case. This number represents 0.3% of 1 quarter year
>>>>>> of Apple's iPhone sales, but includes all models of iPhones for the
>> past 3 years.
>>>>>> In other words, if Apple were to stop supporting VO, they wouldn't
>>>>>> even notice the tiny bump to their profits. Apple is not supporting
>>>>>> concepts of universal access for their bottom line.
>>>> --
>>>> Christopher (CJ)
>>>> chaltain at Gmail
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone"
>>>> Google Group.
>>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone"
>>> Google Group.
>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google
>> Group.
>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
My response was regarding Joanne's sentiment that more should be done for blind people because we need it. Well, not all economies are Capitalist, but that's a side issue. In any case, my point was that I applaud Apple's commitment, but I don't see them spending a lot of money on accessibility simply because we need it. They need to have an incentive to keep the commitment and make money at the same time.
Teresa
On Sep 18, 2012, at 3:40 AM, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by the "capitalist economy" since all economies are capitalist in nature. In fact I'd argue that without capitalism Apple would not have any incentive to consider accessibility. I'm not sure where charities fit into this conversation either. The fact is APple chose to make accessibility a core component of their business model because APple decided at some point that everyone should have equal access. Regardless of how small a market segment the disable population is, Apple has made the commitment and will continue to do so. Just as app developers have responded in most cases very favorably to making their apps accessible. I suspect it is not just because it is the "right thing" to do, but because there is a segment of the market that could be tapped for sales. Capitalism really is a good thing because it gives people the incentive to strive for your money. :)
> On Sep 17, 2012, at 11:02 PM, Teresa Cochran <vegaspipistre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The issue of blind folk and touch screens is quite fascinating. I've always had trouble with spatial orientation, and if it weren't for the constant audible feedback, I'd get losT on a Magic Trackpad for the Mac or the screen on my IPOD. That said, I am really beginning to appreciate the spatial plcement, and I'm getting much more comfortable with it.
>> As for Apple's accessibility commitment, I think it's fantastic, but in a capitalist economy, it can only go so far, unless charities step in and help, or unless Apfle had various foundations for the purpose. I reY wouldn't have guessed this level of accessibility would exist a few years back, and frankly, this is why I buy Apple products. I support this commitment with my wallet. :)
>> Teresa
>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 6:17 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You are correct for the Mac. For iOS devices, however, this is not the case. Most of the professional proofs and studies clearly demonstrated that blind peepul, as a whole, did not have the necessary spatial awareness, and attempting to memorise, without good tactile clues, would be almost impossible for most blind people. Therefore, an accessible pure touch-screen device was not expected or required. After all aside from some basic functionality, it couldn't be done anyway. Those poor blind people.
>>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>>> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
>>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On 18/09/2012, at 9:34, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I agree with David here, but I also wonder how much of Apple's sales are
>>>> effected by their commitment to accessibility. For example, how many
>>>> government sales or small business sales or educational sales wouldn't
>>>> have even been possible if they weren't able to demonstrate that they
>>>> had an accessible solution and meet the various regulations and laws, at
>>>> least here in the US? I think this would explode the 100K figure by
>>>> quite a bit, although I'm not sure it's possible to capture such a
>>>> number. I also don't mean to take away from Apple's commitment to
>>>> accessibility. I think their commitment goes beyond just bottom line
>>>> dollars and cents, although they are a business, and I don't think
>>>> they're doing it entirely out of the kindness of their corporate hearts.
>>>> On 17/09/12 16:05, Scott Howell wrote:
>>>>> David,
>>>>> True, but my point is that although a small portion of the overall sales, APple still considers this segment worth the investment. I would love to know what the real numbers are across all Apple products including the Macs.
>>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 4:19 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Do not consider 100,000 iPhones to blind folk to be much of a market in this case. This number represents 0.3% of 1 quarter year of Apple's iPhone sales, but includes all models of iPhones for the past 3 years. In other words, if Apple were to stop supporting VO, they wouldn't even notice the tiny bump to their profits. Apple is not supporting concepts of universal access for their bottom line.
>>>> -- >>>> Christopher (CJ)
>>>> chaltain at Gmail
>>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
>>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
Very good and thanks for the clarification and true not all economies are capitalist. More correctly stated I should say in my opinion, a free market economy is more successful and is most likely capitalist. :) Either way I agree that APple should not do more just because of blindness. APple should do more to the benefit of all including their bottom line. :)
Apple certainly is not a charity and nor would I want them to be.
On Sep 18, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Teresa Cochran <vegaspipistre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My response was regarding Joanne's sentiment that more should be done for blind people because we need it. Well, not all economies are Capitalist, but that's a side issue. In any case, my point was that I applaud Apple's commitment, but I don't see them spending a lot of money on accessibility simply because we need it. They need to have an incentive to keep the commitment and make money at the same time.
Right, I agree with everything here. I'm just wondering though if Apple
didn't realize that creating an accessible mobile platform wasn't going
to give them an edge or open up new opportunities in government, small
business and educational facilities. I mean if Android had made this
paradigm shift before Apple, then Apple could be or might be missing out
on some deals in the future.
I also understand that the FCC requires cell phone carriers to carry an
accessible option, but if a government facility is going to require all
of their employees to carry a cell phone to receive text messages and
look up information on the agency's internal web site then this wouldn't
be covered by the FCC but by other US laws.
> First, don't confuse timelines. Original Android accessibility was only with physical buttons and keyboards, and this was after VO was released on the iPhone.
> Before VO was released on the iPhone, it was known that accessibility was not very possible on a touch-screen. In other words, the limited possibilities for touch-screen access were obviously impossible and expensive, so the ADA was satisfied because it was not practical to have blindness accessibility. The possible access was limited and easily arguably too expensive, so meaningless. Therefore, businesses and government were only required to provide a partially accessible alternative. This meant, the blind person would get a basic cell phone with buttons that could be felt, and if necessary, a laptop or netbook running a screen reader, or an accessible note taker such as BrailleNote or PACMate. Code Factory did not make enough of an impact to change the government register (yes, I checked in 2008), so slight accommodation was perfectly acceptible and met the law.
> Windows Phone Seven became inaccessible, yet Microsoft did not lose any government contracts over it. Therefore, we can easily argue that the lack of accessibility in the mobile phone market meant no companies would lose government contracts. The TeleCommunications Act said at least an entry level usably accessible phone needs to be provided by each carrier. This does not mean each phone manufacturer was required to make an accessible version, and the provided phone just needed to be useable, not all of its advanced features need to be accessible. I did clarify this information with an accessibility law specialist in 2008.
> As for the case of the Kindle, this happened in 2010 at Arizona State University. ASU required Kindles for certain classes and did not provide any accessible alternatives. Amazon could not argue that accessibility was impossible in a handheld device because, as was successfully argued, Apple's VoiceOver made the iPhone and the iPad fully accessible. Therefore, Amazon developed an accessible Kindle. It should be noted that the accessible Kindle has buttons and no touch screen, and the newest models, according to information I have recently received, are not accessible.
> Even Blackberry phones were inaccessible and Rim did not lose any government or business contracts because of it. Rim started having other problems, but that was not related, in any way, to their lack of accessibility.
> The fact is, Apple completely changed the paradigm around accessibility, and they are still significantly ahead of the competition. Will this continue? Only time can answer that question. However, Apple's pattern since 2005 speaks for itself, and gives me high confidence that it will continue in to the foreseeable future. The only other company which I have similar confidence about at this time is Google's Android, and my confidence is not as high.
> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
> Sent from my iPhone
> On 18/09/2012, at 15:09, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> How do you know Apple wouldn't have lost any educational or governmental
>> contracts if they hadn't made IOS accessible? I recall a situation where
>> the DoJ blocked the use of Kindles (at least I think it was Kindles) to
>> distribute text books as ebooks. Plus, more and more businesses are
>> using and requiring their employees to use cell phones and tablets. I
>> could definitely see a situation where Apple would be losing sales of
>> iPhones and iPads to small businesses, governments agencies and
>> educational institutions if Android were an accessible option and IOS
>> hadn't been made accessible. Of course, Apple deserves the credit for
>> being ahead of that curve and doing it in such an innovative way.
>> I'm not sure Windows Phone 7 is much of a counter example at the moment.
>> I doubt they've lost any contracts due to a lack of accessibility, but I
>> figure it's more likely that they're just such a niche player right now
>> that they're just not considered a viable option yet.
>> On 17/09/12 21:41, David Chittenden wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> Please forgive my cynicism in my final statement of those poor blind people. I am preparing my proposal for my doctoral research. My proposed topic is how are blind people able to adapt to touch screen devices, so I am currently reading all the academic and professional research I can find on the topic.
>>> I do not know why Apple shifted its core values to include accessibility within its business model. If we look at the numbers, especially with iOS, it would appear to be a bad decision considering that there was no expectation for it, and Apple would not lose any governmental or education contracts over it. Consider that Microsoft has not lost any government contracts even though they removed accessibility from Windows Phone Seven and still have not put it back in.
>>> We do know that Apple is committed to the end-user experience. The visual actions of the display have many affects which make it extremely pleasing for sighted people. Microsoft and Google are constantly trying to copy many of these affects with mixed results (according to sighted friends). Sighted people I know who are not at all computer savvy talk excitedly about their iPhones, MacBooks, and even Airport Xtreme routers because they are so intuitive and even fun to use. I only hear geek friends talk about Windows or Android that way.
>>> I suspect, therefore, that Apple perceives universal accessibility in a similar vein, that it should be innovative, and should encompass the sighted experience as much as possible. And, they obviously do not pay attention to what the experts in the field say.
>>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>>> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
>>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On 18/09/2012, at 13:51, Joanne Chua <shuang.an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi David,
>>>> If that is the case of what you said, we "poor blind people", why
>>>> Apple should care on putting voiceover in their touch screen products?
>>>> Not only that, Apple also advertise that their products are friendly
>>>> to people with access needs.
>>>> Just a thought
>>>> Regards
>>>> Joanne
>>>> On 18/09/2012, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> You are correct for the Mac. For iOS devices, however, this is not the case.
>>>>> Most of the professional proofs and studies clearly demonstrated that blind
>>>>> peepul, as a whole, did not have the necessary spatial awareness, and
>>>>> attempting to memorise, without good tactile clues, would be almost
>>>>> impossible for most blind people. Therefore, an accessible pure touch-screen
>>>>> device was not expected or required. After all aside from some basic
>>>>> functionality, it couldn't be done anyway. Those poor blind people.
>>>>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
>>>>> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
>>>>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> On 18/09/2012, at 9:34, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I agree with David here, but I also wonder how much of Apple's sales are
>>>>>> effected by their commitment to accessibility. For example, how many
>>>>>> government sales or small business sales or educational sales wouldn't
>>>>>> have even been possible if they weren't able to demonstrate that they
>>>>>> had an accessible solution and meet the various regulations and laws, at
>>>>>> least here in the US? I think this would explode the 100K figure by
>>>>>> quite a bit, although I'm not sure it's possible to capture such a
>>>>>> number. I also don't mean to take away from Apple's commitment to
>>>>>> accessibility. I think their commitment goes beyond just bottom line
>>>>>> dollars and cents, although they are a business, and I don't think
>>>>>> they're doing it entirely out of the kindness of their corporate hearts.
>>>>>> On 17/09/12 16:05, Scott Howell wrote:
>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>> True, but my point is that although a small portion of the overall sales,
>>>>>>> APple still considers this segment worth the investment. I would love to
>>>>>>> know what the real numbers are across all Apple products including the
>>>>>>> Macs.
>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 4:19 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Do not consider 100,000 iPhones to blind folk to be much of a market in
>>>>>>>> this case. This number represents 0.3% of 1 quarter year of Apple's
>>>>>>>> iPhone sales, but includes all models of iPhones for the past 3 years.
>>>>>>>> In other words, if Apple were to stop supporting VO, they wouldn't even
>>>>>>>> notice the tiny bump to their profits. Apple is not supporting concepts
>>>>>>>> of universal access for their bottom line.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Christopher (CJ)
>>>>>> chaltain at Gmail
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
The fact is, blindness, including legal blindness, is between .5% and .6% of the world population.
David, can you tell me where you get this information? I have always wondered about the percent of the population that suffers from visual disabilities and other such things.
Like Windows, Apple relied on a 3rd party program, OutSpoken, for blindness accessibility back in the 90's. When Berkeley Systems went out of business, another company bought OutSpoken from them, but only worked on the PC version of OutSpoken for a couple years. The new company let the Mac version die immediately.
In the early 2000's (2002 or 2003 if memory serves), the Department of Education informed Apple that they would no longer be able to purchase Macs because of lack of accessibility for the blind. Education was one of Apple's largest sales streams. According to a friend who will remain nameless, Apple discussed developing a screen reader with him and others before they decided to take development inhouse in 2003. The original VoiceOver was released in OSX Tiger in 2005 (if memory serves), and was a decent screen reader. It was more functional than Microsoft's Narrator, but was not super impressive.
And yet, from those humble beginnings, a core shift occurred in Apple's business model. Accessibility somehow became part of Apple's core structure. VoiceOver in OSX improved by leaps and bounds with every update of the OS.
More interestingly, Apple developed a purely touch-based screen reader, from the ground up, for the iPhone 3GS. Apple stated at the time that the 3GS was the first mobile phone which had enough processing power to accommodate their screen reader. Considering that Apple does not apologise for what they do, and they do not use focus groups, and they are driven by improving the end-user's experience (not the computer-savvy "geek" experience), I strongly suspect the screen reader had been developed much earlier and Apple was waiting for the powerful processor to be ready. The initial 3GS VO was far too polished compared with the initial OSX Tiger VO.
Microsoft and Google cannot claim that the phone processor chips did not have enough power for their screen readers. Android's screen reader is following the expected progression of a new screen reader that is being developed. It is finally acquiring something close to VO's polish of the 3GS generation. In another year, if Google continues as they are going now, I expect TalkBack to achieve VO's current polish. By that time, of course, I expect VO to be further along. Apple is the market leader here because they truly have accessibility as part of their core business. And, they continue appearing to be the only company which has made such a complete core shift.
I happen to know that Microsoft's accessibility department is available for any other MS division which requests accessibility assistance. However, as of a couple years ago, no MS division was required to consult with the accessibility team. It is the decision of each MS division / department.
According to a friend who did some technical consulting with Apple a few years ago, divisions in Apple were required to consult with the accessibility team.
David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA
Email: dchitten...@gmail.com
Mobile: +64 21 2288 288
Sent from my iPhone
On 18/09/2012, at 9:05, Scott Howell <scottn3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> True, but my point is that although a small portion of the overall sales, APple still considers this segment worth the investment. I would love to know what the real numbers are across all Apple products including the Macs.
> On Sep 17, 2012, at 4:19 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Do not consider 100,000 iPhones to blind folk to be much of a market in this case. This number represents 0.3% of 1 quarter year of Apple's iPhone sales, but includes all models of iPhones for the past 3 years. In other words, if Apple were to stop supporting VO, they wouldn't even notice the tiny bump to their profits. Apple is not supporting concepts of universal access for their bottom line.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group.
> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/.
> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
