Hay Scott, I think we both made our points. my main reason for continuing it was to try to make a point that on some very basic level there needs to be a consensus as to what is accessible. I think Apple is doing allot of very cool things right now but I still seem to be aware of a disconnect between the blind person using the technology and the sited engineer designing it. I feel that at least some of this may very well be caused by so much confusing feed-back that they receive as to what people find acceptable. That being said though, there are things that they have done in regards to a blind user that has totally amazed me. On the other hand, There are other things that I found frustrating. After observing them for a year now, I've decided that they are actually interested so hopefully what we see and what the developer sees will become much more indistinguishable. But I think that is going to take a high degree of thoughtfulness on our part as to what we report to them.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Howell" <s.how...@verizon.net> To: <macvisionaries@googlegroups.com> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 5:18 PM Subject: Re: Pages and VoiceOver > > Perhaps that is the point I did n't make clear. There are some aspects > that some may find difficult to navigate, but I myself may not. So, > perhaps that is more my point than whether it is accessible or not. I > understand what your saying, but I also submit that some find the > navigation difficult and that may very well make it seem as though it > is not accessible when it is. So, yeah, this is a thread really not > worth continuing, but I am sure you see where I'm going. > > On Jun 8, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Barry Hadder wrote: > >> >> Scott, >> >> I don't know what you mean as to what is accessible to one might not >> be to >> another. It either works or it doesn't. If your are suggesting that >> accessibility is determined on someone's opinion, I have to >> disagree. If a >> screen can be read and manipulated with voice over, than it is >> accessible >> with VO. Otherwise, it isn't. It isn't determined on the bases of >> somebody's opinion or VO skills. Whether or not a person likes it, >> or if >> the app in question can be made to work more productively is >> something else >> all together. Also, if a person is also deaf and there isn't a driver >> available for their Braille display, then that would be an >> accessibility >> issue. >> >> I don't mean to belabor the point, but I think it is important to >> avoid >> ambiguity when ever possible. >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Scott Howell" <s.how...@verizon.net> >> To: <macvisionaries@googlegroups.com> >> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 6:13 PM >> Subject: Re: Pages and VoiceOver >> >> >>> >>> I think you make some valid arguments, but remember that what is >>> accessible to one may not be to another. So, there are many aspects >>> of >>> iWOrk 09, which are accessible and others which need work and no >>> argument there. So, you may not always get the feedback or response >>> you want from Apple, but I think nine out of 10 times they take the >>> reports and filter them to the appropriate folks. Unfortunately, the >>> one thing we don't know is what the level of feedback/issues reported >>> are or the size of the staff handling them. So, I agree with you, but >>> remember the level of accessibility will vary from person to person >>> based on what one considers accessible. Do keep the feedback coming >>> and bug the hell out of them. :) >>> >>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
