Useful/useless is often a function of the user. My guess is that the
folks who think the shuffle is useless are the ones who *need* to see
what they're looking at. It's not that the shuffle isn't useful,
it's that they don't want to take the time to learn it. Simply using
a visual system allows them to not bother actually learning anything,
they can simply follow the prompts on screen, and thereby have full
access to the device.
I still submit that the shuffle is accessible 100%.
Why?
Because it allows to access *all* of the functions of the device
without sighted assistance, and we do it exactly the same way a
sighted person does. If this isn't an accessible device, then my
guess you'll never find what you call an accessible device.
Usefulness is simply a subjective judgment, and if sighted folks call
it useless, that doesn't mean it's not accessible. There's lots of
programs I don't use, because I find them useless, but others both
have no problem with them, and consider them essential tools. That
doesn't make them inaccessible, it simply makes them not useful for me.
I don't think we need a flowchart for this one.
How many times have blind folks complained that a device couldn't be
accessed either at all, or in the same way sighted folks do, then
along comes the shuffle, which does both, and still folks are calling
it not accessible. I fail to see what's inaccessible about it.
Sure, you can't see (or hear)the title of the songs, but guess what?
The sighted person using the shuffle can't see (or hear) that info
eithher. I for one am greatful anytime a device becomes available
that's accessible, even if it is accidental.
Plus, according to sale figures on the shuffle, I'm thinking a *lot*
of sighted folks find the shuffle just fine for their purposes.
