I think I like Apples' model better myself. To tha end, I wonder how we can communicate with Devs to encourage them to make more accessible apps. That there is a market, I think that Apple could encourage this too.
Egun On, Lagunak! Basque for G'day, Mates Louie P. (Pete) Nalda Http://www.myspace.com/lpnalda Http://www.facebook.com/lpnalda Http://www.linkedin.com/in/lpnalda Twitter @lpnalda On Jun 25, 2012, at 9:26 AM, Chris Blouch <cblo...@aol.com> wrote: > One of the double edged swords is that many apps work in the Jaws world > because the developer has written jaws-specific scripts for their app. These > scripts get around shortcomings in either the screen reader or the app's > communication with the accessibility APIs. They are often times written by a > contracted 3rd party and, by definition, are brittle. So when the next OS, > app or Jaws release comes out the scripts break and have to be fixed and > re-released. This cycle is the antithesis of future-proofing. Apple took a > different approach where the screen reader and accessibility APIs are robust > enough that this scripting shouldn't be needed but it also means that a > general app developer needs to care enough to bake accessibility in. This > also means they can't just make their app and farm out accessibility to some > 3rd party contractor as in the Jaws model. I'm convinced that the Apple model > is better long term but am concerned that it requires a general app developer > to now become aware of accessibility, which doesn't always happen. The good > part is that Apple's development frameworks get a lot of accessibility stuff > baked in 'for free'. The downside is that custom widgets or anything special > probably needs the developer to do extra accessibility work, which they often > do not. So it's not really Apple's fault that Microsoft has written their > entire app using their own custom widgets, but it is Microsoft's fault for > not hooking their widgets into the well defined accessibility APIs. Likewise > for Mozilla and many others. > > In the end, I want Apple's futureproof accessibility for free model to work, > I'm just unsure if developers are buying into the value of providing > accessible apps. The success record there has been kinda spotty. > > CB > > On 6/25/12 8:08 AM, William Windels wrote: >> Hello, >> After working for more than 3 years with the mac , it's my personal >> opinionthat more basic programs are accessible on windows then on the mac >> platform. >> >> I find it more stable to work on the mac because of the integration of the >> screenreader voiceover with the osx. >> The fact that the hardware is also adapted for us by the trackpad and the >> function-keys with the spoken values. >> And of course the flexible way we can install , manage the system with >> voiceover support everywhere. >> >> However, we can't e.g. configure dropbox with voiceover while this is >> possible on windows, office programs like microsoft office and also iWork's >> aren't fully accessible with lay-out tasks, in my opinion there are several >> usability issues with the browsers on the mac, some ellements of the os , >> like >> Tables, on websites and on numbers and pages, are very difficult to navigate >> e.g. you can't search for edit-fields on websites while they are in a table >> and in pages, you can't work with tables on a comfortable way. >> the icon's on the status bar, can't be reached on a normal way with >> voiceover... >> >> My conclusion: a paid screenreader for the mac that makes program's >> accessible with scripts (like screen readers on windows do), should be very >> welcome I think. >> With this kind of optional screenreader, blind users should be able to use >> all the equivalents on the mac of their windows favorites. Perhaps it >> should push apple to make their screenreader better on a faster speed. >> >> Why such screenreader doesn't exist yet? >> I see 2 reasons for this: >> 1. Apple should not be happy with this and the screenreader of apple should >> have more possibilities to integrate with the os then the external >> screenreader. >> 2. Other communities don't see a reason to make a screenreader for the mac >> while there is one built in. >> If it should be the second reason, any people with accessibility >> frustrations on the mac , should communicate this to other companies like gw >> micro, freedom scientific, baum... >> >> Any opinions about this meanings should be very welcome. >> kind regards, >> William Windels >> > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
