Thank you David, for talking sense. I hope we can change this topic now because I’m tired of reading people’s misgivings about what Apple should do with their accessibility stuff as we can be constructive instead rather than negative. Before someone says, I’m not on any platform’s side as each have advantages and disadvantages and I’m for whatever platform which will help me get the job done.
Thanks. Kawal. On 18 Dec 2013, at 20:33, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote: > Wow, such interesting arguments. When eBook readers do not have built-in > speakers, speech output is impossible. When the page of the book is a picture > of the page, a scanned image, speaking that page is impossible. When the law > is written such that the copyright holder has more rights around who can and > cannot access the book than the potential reader has, accessing the book may > not be legally possible. > > If you want to just flail around ineffectually making lots of noise but not > necessarily getting very far, your stated approach can have limited success. > However, would it not be better to learn the specifics in any particular > situation so you can actually become effective? For instance, the author's > guild is focused on keeping the copyrights law strong since writing and > controlling who and how the book is read specifically effects the author's > income. Authors do not earn any money for books which are checked out of > libraries. However, people who really like books they read in libraries have > a greater chance of purchasing their own copy. The argument against > text-to-speech in all eReaders has actually been, if text to speech is used, > people will not purchase the recorded versions of books, and the recorded > versions are much more profitable. This is why NLS is so strict about who can > access their professional recordings. > > When software is being designed, adding text-to-speech is significantly less > difficult than adding TTS access at a later date. The same is true for > wheelchair access to buildings. > > Depending on how the code is written, adding TTS and screen-reader navigation > may well be extremely complex. In some cases, the entire operating system > needs to be rewritten in order to add TTS and spoken navigation. To rewrite > an OS can take a few years. You have no idea how long the original software > was being developed before the company released the product, so the blanket > statement that adding speech is a trivial matter, is completely incorrect in > most cases. > > Bugs should be fixed quickly. I love this statement. It demonstrates > complete and total ignorance. Bugs usually take a lot longer to track down > and correct than adding new features. Operating systems are extremely > complex. Bugs may have several causes. Changing code to repair one bug may > cause a worse bug somewhere else in the system. Back when I studied > programming in university, I spent most of my programming time tracking down, > correcting, and then tracking down the bugs that the corrections generated. > Sometimes, I left minor bugs because they did not impair the program's > primary function, and I could not get the program to run any other way. > > All that said, unless you can either get a strong public upswell behind you > to get laws changed, or you can develop good will between you and the > developers, ineffectual flailing around may cause as much harm as good to > your efforts. > > David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA > Email: dchitten...@gmail.com > Mobile: +64 21 2288 288 > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 19 Dec 2013, at 8:35, eric oyen <eric.o...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> well, when I get what I want in a timely manner, I don't worry about it. Its >> when I get substandard service, features or it takes a lot longer than it >> should to get them,, then I am one of the most complaining bastards out >> there. I make no bones about it, I expect excellence and anything less >> deserves attention to resolve. >> >> Take, for example: the book famine for the blind. We have the same rights as >> the general public to access media, yet there are those that are fighting us >> tooth and nail because they don't want to deal with the problem. The >> American Authors ild is particularly strident on this. They won't allow the >> publication of content for the blind unless we sign up on a special registry >> (does anyone at the library have to do this just to borrow a book?). >> >> How about the E-book consortium which is trying to get a waiver based on >> flimsy reasons (such as design modifications to the hardware, etc). Most all >> functions on these devices are in SOFTWARE and is not difficult to code for. >> Yet Amazon (and others) seek to get that waiver knowing full well they are >> locking out a non-trivial market segment. >> >> Now apple did give us accessibility. However, that wouldn't have happened if >> these two conditions were not met: >> 1. we bitched to them for 4 years before they took notice >> 2. the blind represent the 2nd largest market segment for computer and >> smartphone technology among the disabled. >> >> in the 1970's, the deaf demanded (and got) close captioning (which started >> showing up on TV in the early 1980's). >> 2. wheel chair users fought for 20 years for accessibility rights (and got >> them with the ADA in 1992). >> Now, we the blind are the last to get anything and we are having to fight >> tooth and nail to get it. >> >> My point is this: we are being put last before anyone else. We get treated >> like incompetent idiots, yelled at because they think blindness equals >> deafness and generally get disrespected in general public. If you are happy >> with this situation, fine. Just don't expect the rest of us to just lay down >> and accept it. I want whats mine and I will work to get it. If this means >> that I go into court to get what is legally mine, I will. Why be satisfied >> with anything less than what everyone else gets without even asking for it? >> >> If anyone says I can't do a thing because of my blindness, then they had >> better stay out of my way while I prove them wrong (in the most public >> manner possible). >> >> We have rights and its time we had them enforced. >> >> -eric >> >>> On Dec 18, 2013, at 2:52 AM, Krister Ekstrom wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, and it doesn’t matter if we get what we want, because then we whimper >>> and whine about the fact that we have gotten what we want, either it is too >>> late, too little, too much or just plain spoken the wrong way. I know that >>> what i now will say is gonna offend people and i apologize in advance for >>> that, but if we bash Apple accessibility and Apple decides that they don’t >>> want to have anything whatsoever to do with the blind community then it’s a >>> catastrophy that we deserve. Don’t misunderstand me, pointing to bugs and >>> things that aren’t right isn’t wrong and shall be done provided it’s done >>> in a constructive, polite and creative way, complaining serves no purpose >>> and in the long run could end up really badly for us. >>> /Krister >>> >>>> 18 dec 2013 kl. 03:42 skrev David Tanner <david.tanner...@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>> Well, Robert it probably does more to hurt all blind users of Apple >>>> devices than it ever will to help make things better. But, as I am sure >>>> you known blind people have a long history of being hateful, spiteful, not >>>> appreciating what is done for them, and constant complainers. >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my accessible iPhone >>>> >>>>> On Dec 17, 2013, at 7:53 AM, ROBERT CARTER <nc5rn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I think the idea that accessibility is less important to Apple since the >>>>> death of Steve Jobs is nothing more than pure speculation and if anyone >>>>> can prove otherwise, I would love to see the evidence. I see no value in >>>>> such comments. >>>>> >>>>> Robert Carter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 17, 2013, at 7:42 AM, Scott B. <sb356...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Absolutely right. They can talking to engineering. But engeeniering >>>>>> has the final say. I agree since the great Steve Jobs has passed we're >>>>>> probably not seeing as much interaction from Accessibility as people saw >>>>>> before. To sum it up very briefly Accessibility is where you take the >>>>>> accessibility suggestions or problems. They either act upon them y >>>>>> supporting you the person who needs help or passing it on to the >>>>>> engineering team by escalation. Please also keep in mind these are tier >>>>>> 2 support personnel so they can't know everything either so be easy on >>>>>> these people. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/17/2013 03:37, Ray Foret Jr wrote: >>>>>>> Of late, I have noticed complaints against the Apple accessibility team >>>>>>> as if to suggest that we are being ignored. It seems to be the belief >>>>>>> of some that the Apple accessibility team fixes accessibility bugs and >>>>>>> problems with Voice Over. I do not believe that this is the case. It >>>>>>> is my belief that the Apple accessibility team has, in fact, a very >>>>>>> limited role at Apple. Frankly, with the passing of the late great >>>>>>> Steve Jobs, that role has perhaps demenished greatly. I believe that >>>>>>> the Apple accessibility team never has had actual decision making >>>>>>> capacity with respect to actual implementation of fixes for Voice Over. >>>>>>> They didn’t even have this power under Steve Jobs. Unless I am very >>>>>>> much mistaken, all the accessibility team has any power to do is to >>>>>>> forward our findings over to the development teams but nothing more. >>>>>>> They cannot even tell us whether or not our reports will be acted upon. >>>>>>> Now, this last is most likely a part of Apple’s non disclosure policy: >>>>>>> however, I suspect that even if this was not so, Apple’s accessibility >>>>>>> team would not be informed in any case. In short, it seems that the >>>>>>> only function that this accessibility team has and will ever have at >>>>>>> Apple is not much more than a kind of clearing house of feedback from >>>>>>> us blind users. I cannot help wonder how many Apple app developmental >>>>>>> teams look at submissions from the accessibility team and say to >>>>>>> themselves, “Oh, no, not again.”. I suspect that this explains why it >>>>>>> is that our reports seem to go unheeded. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my Mac, the only computer with full accessibility for the >>>>>>> blind built-in! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>>> The Constantly Barefooted Ray, still a very happy Mac and Iphone 5 user! >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Scott Berry >>>>>> Email: sb356...@gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus >>>>>> protection is active. >>>>>> http://www.avast.com >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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. >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >> >> -- >> 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. > > -- > 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. -- 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.
