Back at the turn of the century, I went to the Consumer Electronics Show, CES, every year, searching for general market products which could be used, or easily modified to be used, by the blind. I had been a distributor for AT for a few years, and I became frustrated at the lack of vision of the AT developers. During my first year at CES, I had a very painful and rude awakening. No general market tech company wanted to have anything to do with making their products accessible. As several told me, We are not a charity. We are in business to make money.
So, I started working on changing my approach. I found that smaller start-ups tended to be much more responsive, especially when I focused on how certain features could make products more universally usable. That was where I learned that the majority of sighted people do not necessarily want sound cues unless the sounds are subtle and pleasing to the ear, and they definitely do not want talking products except in very limited and controlled ways. Yes, we all know some sighted people who believe the talking products are so very cool, and they go so far as to acquire their own talking devices. This is very much the exception rather than the rule. Until people can have human-like conversational interactions with their technology, they do not want speech very much at all. And yes, we are such a tiny minority market that we are easily, and often, overlooked. Including people who read large print, we are about one out of every 200 people. At the level of just light perception or worse, we are just one out of 1000 people. How many of us know 199 other people? Well, if that is a random group, each of us is the only legally blind person in the group. How many of us know 1000 people? If you are totally blind, you are the only one in that group of 1000 people. David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA Email: dchitten...@gmail.com Mobile: +64 21 2288 288 Sent from my iPhone > On 19 Dec 2013, at 14:37, eric oyen <eric.o...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I can see the problems I have raised. However, the E-book readers actually do > have an audio port (how else are you going to hear other multimedia content). > THe authors guild doesn't necessarily represent all authors (in fact, a lot > of them are actually starting to publish via amazon and others). If you look > at their actions over the last 20 years, you will see that they have actually > acted to defend major publishers. > > Now, the issue of scanned images containing text can be worked around > effectively (there are several inexpensive OCR apps for windows or OS X that > work well). > > THe purpose of a library is the same as its always been: the free sharing of > information. We the blind have as much right to access to this information > that the sighted take for granted, yet the onerousness of copyright laws > makes this extremely difficult. This situation is not improving (as evidenced > by recent actions against both Apple and Google for their books online). > Again, we get left out of consideration when such actions are taken. > > Now, complaining does work, if done correctly and to the right people. If the > vendor doesn't want to listen, one can always spend money elsewhere. THere is > also legal action (I would use this as a last resort when all other > negotiations fail). As for voting with your wallet, this only works when > there is enough people doing the same thing. This also only works if there is > more than one vendor offering that product with those features desired. One > other way that also works is to be able to produce a competing product > cheaper (NVDA is an example of this).If its as good or better, people will > flock to it, thus forcing the higher priced vendor to improve their product > or lower the price. This is simple economics 101. > > As for adding accessibility to an OS, the API's have already been developed > for Linux and OS X. Windows has one as well, but it (like the rest of the OS) > is practically a joke. THe problem here is that MS doesn't stick to their own > standards, so you end up with different versions of the OS not being able to > do some specific things. These days, coding in accessibility to an app is > pretty much a trivial affair if the proper API is followed Developers don't > have to go reinventing the wheel when it comes to TTS. > Again, we need to go back to the original point here. Should we, as blind > people, suffer in silence as we get second or third class treatment? Being > treated as less than human is demeaning and insulting. It may make me look > like an ass, but there are times when furious anger will get the point across > (I just wouldn't use it except as a last resort). It is incredibly hard not > to fly off the handle when someone insults me. > > Anyway, I think I have ranted enough. > > -eric > >> On Dec 18, 2013, at 1:33 PM, David Chittenden 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. -- 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.
