Office for Mac is still 32 bit, and still carbon. They wanted to concentrate on compatibility with the Windows sister suite before adopting the Cocoa framework. Apparently the next release will implement Cocoa so Office can take advantage of 64 bit. Outlook was rewritten (previously known as Entourage) in cocoa, including the ribbon. However, this does not guarantee accessibility, I am assuming Microsoft are using some customs APis here. On 5 May 2011, at 18:46, Nickus de Vos wrote:
> Hi all just want to give my 3 cents. This is a good idea and I think > it is worth a shot you never no even with a multi bilion dollar > company like microsoft. It is important however to consider the actual > programming of the software. Microsoft office is written using the C++ > language which is microsofts own language developed by them. Apples > main programming language is Coco and the other older one is Carbon. > The magic of voiceover lies in Coco, if any software is developed > using Coco it's accessible using voiceover or mostly ment to be anyway > and this is why some 3rd party developers can make applications > accessible without even realising as long as they properly use the > Coco code. Microsoft office as said, is written in C++. Ok so mac OS > can read c++ applications modified a little and this is why office > works on mac but office for mac is still a c++ application modified to > work on mac. In order to make it accessible it has to be written from > the ground up using Coco and this is why I don't think microsoft will > consider making office accessible. It will cost them a lot of time and > money and for what? For them it is firstly Apple which is the > opposition and secondly disabled mac users is only a small drop of > water in their ocian of office users. I think before developing office > from scratch using Coco they would rather invest money in > accessibility on windows in order to try draw more disabled users to > their software. Basically they have got us by the short and curlies, > we are mac users, we want to use office but can't, and they know it. > But as I said it is still worth a try we'll never know before we try, > maybe they surprise us so I say give it a go... > > On May 5, 1:39 am, Chris Moore <moor...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> I totally agree, fancy dropping them a line? I have been in touch with the >> RNIB over here and a couple of other organisations on this side of the pond. >> Will keep you posted of any outcome. >> On 4 May 2011, at 22:49, Laura McGlynn wrote: >> >> >> >>> I think I've said this before, but what I find annoying is the silence of >>> blind-oriented organisations, like NFB. If it was a big deal for Apple not >>> to have accessibility built into iTunes, I'm not sure why Microsoft gets a >>> pass, especially when Office is so ubiquitous. The lack of Office support >>> isn't the only reason agencies are reluctant to offer the Mac as a viable >>> solution for blind users, but I bet it doesn't help. In that respect, >>> Microsoft's failure is a much bigger deal than Apple's was with iTunes. >> >>> I know some people will say that's exactly why organisations like the NFB >>> aren't making a big deal about it, but I'm not sure that's true. Either >>> way, why they're not doing it at the moment isn't as important as letting >>> them know that there's a problem, and that there's a sizeable number of >>> blind users who want them to do something. Targeting them to take action >>> might be as good an effort as targeting Microsoft directly. Because, as >>> noted, our market share is tiny. It's going to take more than just us >>> telling them they're losing money to bring change, and that's what >>> organisations designed to advocate for the blind should be good at, IMO. >> >>>> "Tony Hernandez" <tonyhspe...@gmail.com> May 04 10:20AM -0400 ^ >> >>>> It seems to me that this effort is aimed at trying to creaet the force of a >>>> number of people rather than just one. Also, another problem is that the >>>> office formats are industry standard, so as Carolyn says, "Microsoft knows >>>> they have the public around the neck." Gates meant serious business when he >>>> said, "A computer in every home, and Microsoft software on every computer." >>>> He's pretty much achieved this as much as anyone can, so the company is >>>> quite complacent. Our market share is chickenfeed compared to that which >>>> they already hold, not that I think Gates himself is to blame for the >>>> accessibility issues, but MS as a company has no reason at present to try >>>> to >>>> expand their customer base. That being said, I see no reason why the effort >>>> should not be made to bring this issue to the attention of Microsoft, >>>> especially since Apple is outdoing them by leaps and bounds on >>>> accessibility >>>> for the blind, the deaf, and those who have motor difficulties. >> >>>> Tony Hernandez >> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> athttp://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > -- > 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.
