Would be nice to have a way to give an accessibility 'star rating' for
apps that would get aggregated. So I could then search/sort apps from
most to least accessible from user feedback just like any other kind of
rating system. That covers the issue around "accessible" being just a
true/false checkbox and hopefully the wisdom of crowds would average out
any outlier. Of course that means new apps are still going to have no
accessibility rating, just as they initially have no user reviews.
CB
On 9/12/13 7:40 AM, Nicholas Parsons wrote:
I agree that providing refunds for inaccessible apps would be a good policy,
but I accept that there would have to be some limitations. Firstly, sometimes
what one person says is inaccessible, another person claims is accessible.
Sometimes things are only accessible once you learn how to use them. Secondly,
accessibility is often a matter of degree, not a matter of absolutes. Thirdly,
what if a developer makes his or her app accessible after a user has received a
refund, will they then have to pay again? Fourthly, Apple doesn't know whether
we really are blind or not, and only takes us at our word. This means that the
whole process is vulnerable to abuse, and I'm not surprised Apple makes these
decisions on a case-by-case basis, rather than a simple blanket policy that
anyone can have a refund if they say the app is inaccessible. One thing in
particular I imagine they look at, and rightly so, is how frequently you
request a refund on this basis. I imagine if it's a one off, or if you buy lots
of apps without asking for refunds, they'll be more happy to refund the money.
If, however, you frequently ask for refunds they might be reluctant. Especially
if it's an expensive app, I think it's probably prudent to contact the
developer first or make some other enquiries to check whether the app is
accessible before purchasing it.
With regard to making accessibility mandatory, I agree with Josh de Lioncourt
from Maccessibility.net that it's not a good idea. Do you want it to be
mandatory that apps are accessible only for people who are blind or have low
vision, or for anyone with a disability? Clearly it would be discriminatory to
make them accessible for people who are blind or have low vision, but not for
people with other disabilities. If they are to be accessible to people whatever
their disability, do you realise how many apps we use on a day-to-day basis
would fail this test? There are plenty of apps we use – e.g. audio games,
braille typing apps etc – which would not be accessible to people who are deaf
or have other disabilities. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible,
for a blind developer, for instance, to make their audio game accessible to
deaf people. Moreover, there are plenty of mainstream apps, and I'm thinking
here particularly of games, which it would just be impossible to make
completely accessible for someone who is blind. Many games require just too
much speed in hand-eye coordination for a blind person to use; and in many
instances it wouldn't be worth making these apps accessible. Sometimes, sadly,
it's just not possible for someone who is blind to do the same things as
someone who can see. In these instances, we're better off with a specialised
solution rather than making the mainstream app accessible.
Then there are other problems with mandatory accessibility. What would the
standard of accessibility be? Does every single feature need to be accessible,
or only some, or only most? Does it need to be blind user friendly, or only
possible to use? What happens if one blind person says the app is accessible,
but another says it's not accessible? Can you imagine how much the app approval
process would be slowed down if every single app and update needed to be
thoroughly tested by a VoiceOver user? Developers already complain that Apple
is slow in approving apps. But it wouldn't just have to be tested by a
VoiceOver user, it would also need to be tested by deaf users, people with
motor disabilities etc.
This is not to say that the process couldn't be improved. I think we could find
a middle road. I suspect that the best solution would simply be for Apple to
allow demos of any app in the App Store. If we could simply test an app before
buying it, we wouldn't have this problem. Moreover, this solution would likely
be welcomed by both users and developers.
Nic
--
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
