Nic, just out of curiosity, what is the danish organisation for the blinds view on Apple products? I have a feeling, though i could be wrong, that the swedish blindness organisation is a bit on the conservative side when it comes to the Apple products, however i could be wrong. /Krister
15 apr 2010 kl. 09.14 skrev Nicolai Svendsen: > Hi, > > I seriously doubt that is the case. Apple accessibility has been around for > six years now, not three. I doubt NFB had anything to do with it. Apple is > going to keep it up because they are committed. The article about the lawsuit > doesn't actually mention Apple much. > > There is actually a very good point of view. Apple poses a threat to the NFB > of taking over the technical market. This is why NFB did not sue Skype, but > Apple. Agreement or not, I'm pretty sure they listened to users using > Outspoken and such, rather than an organization that can't even review the > product properly when it is out. Apple has done far more than anyone for > accessibility improvements. Apple said they had something in store, and they > sure did. I of course realize that it is a pretty serious statement. Of > course, I am not particularly a fan of the NFB at all. Saying that, NFB has > made some seriously inaccurate statements as well, far outweighing mine. NFB > actually has no reason to sue Apple. What would they sue them for, exactly? > Because their products are accessible, and they want everyone to pay more > than what a Macbook costs for assistive technology? That wouldn't actually > surprise me much. It's all about competition. If they think they're about to > be kicked out, of course they would consider Apple a threat. Because Apple > has done something Microsoft has not. All these things sound really twisted > and disgusting to me. > > Apple can hardly be sued for their effort. Their lawsuit had to do with > iTunes on the Windows side. Fair enough, but that is a pretty ridiculous suit > if it really is based on accessibility. That is not the case, however, as > there are plenty of other useful programs for PCs that are not anywhere near > as accessible as iTunes 9. And NFB doesn't care about that. Which, again, > leads me to believe that, because NFB is scared of being kicked out, they do > everything they can to stop people buying their product. That would make > sense. > > Windows users rely on scripts all the time to use any application. I suggest > you look through your jAWS folder to see what I mean. Have you even seen just > the download size of a JAWS installation? It's outrageous. People who moan > about iTunes not being accessible just because the interface accidentally > broke, just need to use scripts like they do for everything else. I'm > surprised that wasn't their first complaint. JAWS, or just Windows in > general, isn't even that stable. If JAWS crashes, it's stupidly difficult > most of the time to reload the product. Even if you manage to do so, you will > probably run into the screen not being read correctly when reading list boxes > or with the cursor. Or, the worst-case scenario. You have to uninstall JAWS > 11 after attempting to install Video Intercept, reinstall JAWS 10, install > VIdeo Intercept, uninstall JAWS 10 then reinstall JAWS 11. > > Maybe I'm slamming the NFB a bit, but really, they need a kick in the ass. > I'm just happy the Danish blindness organizations are not this corrupt and > twisted, and they actually review fairly and take a proper look at what a > company offers before suing them. I'll always be negative about the NFB, > though I am actually being neutral when talking about the actual lawsuit > itself. > > Say what you want to, it won't change my mind. Even if it is someone from NFB > saying it. Some NFB people are great. Some do incredibly good reviews. Some > don't. And in whole, I think the organization just sucks for filing > unnecessary lawsuits for nothing. Maybe I'm going on a childish tantrum here, > perhaps. But once in a while, you need to. A company is trying to provide > great accessibility for their products, and they are sued because of one > problem. iTunes is actually still useful on the Windows side, people. Quit > your darn nitpicking. > > Regards, > Nic > Skype: Kvalme > MSN Messenger: nico...@home3.gvdnet.dk > AIM: cincinster > yahoo Messenger: cin368 > Facebook Profile > My Twitter > > On Apr 15, 2010, at 8:08 AM, Rob Lambert wrote: > >> I just got wind, from a friend of mine, that the only reason Apple is >> accessible to us is because of a lawsuit by the NFB. The term of the >> agreement was for accessibility improvements for three years. Here's a >> question. First, what's your side of this ordeal? Second, who thinks Apple >> will keep up with the accessibility improvements after this three year term >> is up? I apologize for making smooth waters mirky, I just wanted to know >> what your take on this was. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "MacVisionaries" group. >> To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@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. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@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.
