I saw they did and was surprised, and happy, to see that.
Sent from my iPod
On Apr 15, 2010, at 1:22 AM, "James & Nash" <james.austin1...@googlemail.com
> wrote:
Although i've already posted on this, I just wanted to add that
despite the criticism that has been levelled at NFB - and rightly,
they have commended Apple's commitment to accesibility on the IPad.
TC
James, Lyn, Nash & Twinny
On 15 Apr 2010, at 09:16, Rob wrote:
Thank you for your input, Nic. Much appreciated. :)
Sent from my iPod
On Apr 15, 2010, at 1:12 AM, Charlie Doremus
<giantdolp...@gmail.com> wrote:
I would also like to thank you, Nic, for saving my bacon. Like
Anne I was going to take issue with NFB and others who love to
gripe for the sake of griping. You saved me from being called
tactless twice in the same week. Even though I don't use Jaws the
idea of uninstall, install, uninstall, install, no matter what
program, gives me the creeps.
Sent from the iPad I wish I had
On Apr 14, 2010, at 9:30 PM, Anne Robertson <a...@anarchie.org.uk>
wrote:
Hello Nic,
Thank you for this post. You've just saved me from going on a
major rant along the same lines.
Cheers,
Anne
On Apr 15, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Nicolai Svendsen wrote:
Hi,
I seriously doubt that is the case. Apple accessibility has been
around for six years now, not three. I doubt NFB had anything to
do with it. Apple is going to keep it up because they are
committed. The article about the lawsuit doesn't actually
mention Apple much.
There is actually a very good point of view. Apple poses a
threat to the NFB of taking over the technical market. This is
why NFB did not sue Skype, but Apple. Agreement or not, I'm
pretty sure they listened to users using Outspoken and such,
rather than an organization that can't even review the product
properly when it is out. Apple has done far more than anyone for
accessibility improvements. Apple said they had something in
store, and they sure did. I of course realize that it is a
pretty serious statement. Of course, I am not particularly a fan
of the NFB at all. Saying that, NFB has made some seriously
inaccurate statements as well, far outweighing mine. NFB
actually has no reason to sue Apple. What would they sue them
for, exactly? Because their products are accessible, and they
want everyone to pay more than what a Macbook costs for
assistive technology? That wouldn't actually surprise me much.
It's all about competition. If they think they're about to be
kicked out, of course they would consider Apple a threat.
Because Apple has done something Microsoft has not. All these
things sound really twisted and disgusting to me.
Apple can hardly be sued for their effort. Their lawsuit had to
do with iTunes on the Windows side. Fair enough, but that is a
pretty ridiculous suit if it really is based on accessibility.
That is not the case, however, as there are plenty of other
useful programs for PCs that are not anywhere near as accessible
as iTunes 9. And NFB doesn't care about that. Which, again,
leads me to believe that, because NFB is scared of being kicked
out, they do everything they can to stop people buying their
product. That would make sense.
Windows users rely on scripts all the time to use any
application. I suggest you look through your jAWS folder to see
what I mean. Have you even seen just the download size of a JAWS
installation? It's outrageous. People who moan about iTunes not
being accessible just because the interface accidentally broke,
just need to use scripts like they do for everything else. I'm
surprised that wasn't their first complaint. JAWS, or just
Windows in general, isn't even that stable. If JAWS crashes,
it's stupidly difficult most of the time to reload the product.
Even if you manage to do so, you will probably run into the
screen not being read correctly when reading list boxes or with
the cursor. Or, the worst-case scenario. You have to uninstall
JAWS 11 after attempting to install Video Intercept, reinstall
JAWS 10, install VIdeo Intercept, uninstall JAWS 10 then
reinstall JAWS 11.
Maybe I'm slamming the NFB a bit, but really, they need a kick
in the ass. I'm just happy the Danish blindness organizations
are not this corrupt and twisted, and they actually review
fairly and take a proper look at what a company offers before
suing them. I'll always be negative about the NFB, though I am
actually being neutral when talking about the actual lawsuit
itself.
Say what you want to, it won't change my mind. Even if it is
someone from NFB saying it. Some NFB people are great. Some do
incredibly good reviews. Some don't. And in whole, I think the
organization just sucks for filing unnecessary lawsuits for
nothing. Maybe I'm going on a childish tantrum here, perhaps.
But once in a while, you need to. A company is trying to provide
great accessibility for their products, and they are sued
because of one problem. iTunes is actually still useful on the
Windows side, people. Quit your darn nitpicking.
Regards,
Nic
Skype: Kvalme
MSN Messenger: nico...@home3.gvdnet.dk
AIM: cincinster
yahoo Messenger: cin368
Facebook Profile
My Twitter
On Apr 15, 2010, at 8:08 AM, Rob Lambert wrote:
I just got wind, from a friend of mine, that the only reason
Apple is accessible to us is because of a lawsuit by the NFB.
The term of the agreement was for accessibility improvements
for three years. Here's a question. First, what's your side of
this ordeal? Second, who thinks Apple will keep up with the
accessibility improvements after this three year term is up? I
apologize for making smooth waters mirky, I just wanted to know
what your take on this was.
--
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
.
--
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
macvisionar...@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 macvisionar...@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 macvisionar...@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 macvisionar...@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.