Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Gordon Smith]

Hi Chris

My apologies for the delayed response, we are miles behind on E-Mail.  I take 
your points regarding professional circumstances.  You're correct, of course, 
in your assertion that one has to use the most appropriate tool to get the job 
done quickly and efficiently.  I have to confess that I still use Windows in my 
professional environment because I have too.  I have managed to get my head of 
department to come around to my way of thinking in terms of JFW, it has been 
abolished now from all of our networked machines.  We've moved over to the 
donation-based system but that's another story for another group.

I was not aware that there was a Sound Forge for Mac.  However, I'm very 
reluctant these days to install trials because of the mess they leave behind if 
you remove them.  Time, I guess, to dig out "TrashMe".  I also have a problem  
with Sony actually because Lynne bought a copy of the other Sound Forge a 
couple of years back.  We got the download links, but no serial number.  
Therefore, we never got to use it despite numerous attempts to contact the 
developers.  Again though that is for elsewhere.

Kind regards

<--- Gordon Smith --->



Telephone:

United Kingdom:  Free Phone:
0800 8620538

Mobile:
+44 7907 823971

Europe and other non-specified:
+44 1642 688095

United States Of America And Canada:
+1 646 9151493
Or:
+1 209 436 9443

Vic.  Australia:
+61 38 8205930
Vic.  Australia
+61 39 0284505

Fax:
+44 1642 365123

Follow Us On Twitter:


Skype:


--

On 22 Jul 2013, at 20:10, Chris Moore  wrote:

> Thanks for your response, and I have no desire to completely jump ship to 
> Windows.  I use Windows for work and Mac for pleasure (and some work).  I am 
> a mac boy, and will just keep nagging them until they eventually listen.
> 
> Tables is ok for basic stuff, but try using JAWS with Excel, it is actually 
> very good and has some very intuitive features to enable you to get the job 
> done much quicker.  As Donal pointed out there are a number of things which 
> can be done with Voiceover, but if you are in a hurry and need to perform 
> tasks as quick as your sighted colleagues, then you have to use the tools 
> which are fit for purpose.
> 
> I have not looked at tables for a while and not sure if it has a jump to 
> feature, supports VB script, Excel macros, and is able to read graphs and 
> charts.  Part of my job requires me to analyse and work with a lot of data 
> and figures.
> 
> It would be my dream to be able to ditch Windows all together.
> 
> Gordon, have you taken a look at Sony's Sound Forge for the Mac yet?  I 
> believe there is a free trial available.  I wonder if that might help you in 
> anyway at all.  

<--- Mac Access At Mac Access Dot Net --->

To reply to this post, please address your message to mac-access@mac-access.net

You can find an archive of all messages postedto the Mac-Access forum at 
either the list's own dedicated web archive:

or at the public Mail Archive:
.
Subscribe to the list's RSS feed from:


As the Mac Access Dot Net administrators, we do our very best to ensure that 
the Mac-Access E-Mal list remains malware, spyware, Trojan, virus and 
worm-free.  However, this should in no way replace your own security strategy.  
We assume neither liability nor responsibility should something unpredictable 
happen.

Please remember to update your membership preferences periodically by visiting 
the list website at:

macfortheblind resources [was Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)]

[Esther]

Hi Desi,

I'll answer for John by pointing you to his macfortheblind.com web site that is 
listed in his signature.  I know that we've picked up a lot of new members from 
folks who have visited John's web site.  Specifically, if you look on his 
"Links" page of resources and mailing lists, the mac-access list and its 
resources may be found there, Anne's Cecimac (French mailing list) hosted by 
Gordon and Lynne's services, and also John's own macfortheblind list on the 
freelists.

Here's the links page:
http://macfortheblind.com/links

Also, John does record a lot of useful tips and tricks from the various mailing 
lists on his web site. Have a look at his tips and tricks page links for Mac OS 
X and iOS:
http://macfortheblind.com/Tips-and-Tricks

It's a nice site to browse through.

HTH.  Cheers,

Esther

On Jul 23, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Desi Noller wrote:

> John,
> 
> Could you tell us about the email address you run and how to get on it?  I 
> love to tap multiple sources!  If this information isn't appropriate for this 
> list, could you send it to me directly?  Thanks so much!
> 
> Desi
> 
> On Jul 23, 2013, at 12:31 PM, John Panarese wrote:
>> 
>> Take Care
>> 
>> John D. Panarese
>> Director
>> Mac for the Blind
>> Tel, (631) 724-4479
>> Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
>> Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com
>> 
>> APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION
>> 
>> AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE
>> 
>> MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT

<--- Mac Access At Mac Access Dot Net --->

To reply to this post, please address your message to mac-access@mac-access.net

You can find an archive of all messages postedto the Mac-Access forum at 
either the list's own dedicated web archive:

or at the public Mail Archive:
.
Subscribe to the list's RSS feed from:


As the Mac Access Dot Net administrators, we do our very best to ensure that 
the Mac-Access E-Mal list remains malware, spyware, Trojan, virus and 
worm-free.  However, this should in no way replace your own security strategy.  
We assume neither liability nor responsibility should something unpredictable 
happen.

Please remember to update your membership preferences periodically by visiting 
the list website at:

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Desi Noller]

John,

Could you tell us about the email address you run and how to get on it?  I love 
to tap multiple sources!  If this information isn't appropriate for this list, 
could you send it to me directly?  Thanks so much!

Desi

mailto:desiandca...@q.com
On Jul 23, 2013, at 12:31 PM, John Panarese  wrote:

>   Hopefully, this did not make the list the first time, as I might have sent 
> it has a draft this morning before it was complete.
> 
> Hi Chris,
> Arrogance?  Where do you get that from?  Maybe, it came across that way in 
> the vehicle as text, but anyone who knows me knows I am the farthest thing  
> from arrogant.  So, if it seemed that way to you or Mary, that was not my 
> intent and I apologize.
> 
> I made some general suggestions that have served me over the years from 
> having been on so many lists.  The thing about lists is though some people 
> subscribe to multiple  lists, many are on only one.  Thus, information they 
> might offer is only seen on that list.  For example, I know the area of web 
> design and VoiceOver compatibility was discussed on another list and someone 
> made a suggestion for an app and information on how to use it with VoiceOver. 
>  Heck if I can recall who it was, what list and the application.
> 
>You also might  want to you reread the tone and manner in which you have 
> posted as well, Chris.  Some of your own comments, whether intended or not, 
> came off as rather arrogant and definitive.  We often forget that our own 
> personal experiences do not necessarily reflect those of the majority, and 
> what we perceive as problems or shortcomings for an app or an operating 
> system may not be by others.  You and Donald, for instance, seem to have a 
> more specialized situation than most folks and, thus, what you need and 
> require is different than what others do.
> 
>  My suggestions to search other archives was not out of arrogance, but, 
> instead, experience.  As I said, a lot of the complaints I have read in this 
> thread have been addressed in a number of work arounds and helpful 
> suggestions.  No, not all, and it doesn’t solve the overall issue head on, 
> but as I said, just like with Windows, if there is a will, there is a way.  I 
> never inferred you or anyone else hadn't tried to do so.  I was pointing out 
> that this list is something that we all should go beyond if we can't get the 
> answers or information from our membership, as there could be other places 
> where it can be found.  I'd say the same thing on other lists, including the 
> one I run.
> 
>   .  As for my own Windows experience, to address Chris's assumptions, I use 
> Windows every day as well.  I have to.  I do training on that too for a 
> specific contract, and, well, to be honest, I like to keep on top of that 
> just for the times someone tries to imply or outright accuse me of not 
> knowing anything about Windows to speak with any knowledge.  I have a Windows 
> 7 laptop and I still have my Win 7 desktop computers.  They are kept up to 
> date with the latest screen reader updates and Windows updates.  I do, thus, 
> know Exactly what I am talking about on that front.  It also makes me very 
> glad that I can go back to my Macs when I am done working in that operating 
> system.  It's a nice place to visit, but not a place I want to nor need to 
> live any more.
> 
> As for my training, Chris, you can ask my clients what we cover and the 
> extent of what I do.  You’d be surprised just how diverse and far I have had 
> to go to help people and prepare myself for training situations.  As a 
> trainer, I’ve probably learned more about the Mac and Windows in the last 3 
> years than many users will need to know in their lives.  This is not spoken 
> out of arrogance either, but because of the reality that I Have to do so.  I 
> do not speak only from personal observations about the Mac, but from the 
> comments and testimonials from clients.  Reread my previous messages on that 
> subject.  Just as the Mac may not be the system to solve someone's work 
> needs, I just had a situation in which Windows could not flit the tab either. 
>  It's a unique situation in that specific types of applications are being 
> used, so the client is going to have to use both operating systems to 
> accomplish things.
> 
> Take Care
> 
> John D. Panarese
> Director
> Mac for the Blind
> Tel, (631) 724-4479
> Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
> Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com
> 
> APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION
> 
> AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE
> 
> MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 22, 2013, at 11:48 PM, Chris Moore  wrote:
> 
>> Mary,
>> 
>> I totally agree with everything you have said.
>> 
>> John, it appears you think I am being harsh an expressing an unfounded 
>> sweeping statement about Mac accessibility.  My opinion is based on fact and 
>> experience.  You have also assumed that I have not look

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[John Panarese]

   Hopefully, this did not make the list the first time, as I might have sent 
it has a draft this morning before it was complete.

Hi Chris,
 Arrogance?  Where do you get that from?  Maybe, it came across that way in the 
vehicle as text, but anyone who knows me knows I am the farthest thing  from 
arrogant.  So, if it seemed that way to you or Mary, that was not my intent and 
I apologize.

 I made some general suggestions that have served me over the years from having 
been on so many lists.  The thing about lists is though some people subscribe 
to multiple  lists, many are on only one.  Thus, information they might offer 
is only seen on that list.  For example, I know the area of web design and 
VoiceOver compatibility was discussed on another list and someone made a 
suggestion for an app and information on how to use it with VoiceOver.  Heck if 
I can recall who it was, what list and the application.

You also might  want to you reread the tone and manner in which you have 
posted as well, Chris.  Some of your own comments, whether intended or not, 
came off as rather arrogant and definitive.  We often forget that our own 
personal experiences do not necessarily reflect those of the majority, and what 
we perceive as problems or shortcomings for an app or an operating system may 
not be by others.  You and Donald, for instance, seem to have a more 
specialized situation than most folks and, thus, what you need and require is 
different than what others do.

  My suggestions to search other archives was not out of arrogance, but, 
instead, experience.  As I said, a lot of the complaints I have read in this 
thread have been addressed in a number of work arounds and helpful suggestions. 
 No, not all, and it doesn’t solve the overall issue head on, but as I said, 
just like with Windows, if there is a will, there is a way.  I never inferred 
you or anyone else hadn't tried to do so.  I was pointing out that this list is 
something that we all should go beyond if we can't get the answers or 
information from our membership, as there could be other places where it can be 
found.  I'd say the same thing on other lists, including the one I run.

   .  As for my own Windows experience, to address Chris's assumptions, I use 
Windows every day as well.  I have to.  I do training on that too for a 
specific contract, and, well, to be honest, I like to keep on top of that just 
for the times someone tries to imply or outright accuse me of not knowing 
anything about Windows to speak with any knowledge.  I have a Windows 7 laptop 
and I still have my Win 7 desktop computers.  They are kept up to date with the 
latest screen reader updates and Windows updates.  I do, thus, know Exactly 
what I am talking about on that front.  It also makes me very glad that I can 
go back to my Macs when I am done working in that operating system.  It's a 
nice place to visit, but not a place I want to nor need to live any more.

 As for my training, Chris, you can ask my clients what we cover and the extent 
of what I do.  You’d be surprised just how diverse and far I have had to go to 
help people and prepare myself for training situations.  As a trainer, I’ve 
probably learned more about the Mac and Windows in the last 3 years than many 
users will need to know in their lives.  This is not spoken out of arrogance 
either, but because of the reality that I Have to do so.  I do not speak only 
from personal observations about the Mac, but from the comments and 
testimonials from clients.  Reread my previous messages on that subject.  Just 
as the Mac may not be the system to solve someone's work needs, I just had a 
situation in which Windows could not flit the tab either.  It's a unique 
situation in that specific types of applications are being used, so the client 
is going to have to use both operating systems to accomplish things.

Take Care

John D. Panarese
Director
Mac for the Blind
Tel, (631) 724-4479
Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com

APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION

AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE

MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT




On Jul 22, 2013, at 11:48 PM, Chris Moore  wrote:

> Mary,
> 
> I totally agree with everything you have said.
> 
> John, it appears you think I am being harsh an expressing an unfounded 
> sweeping statement about Mac accessibility.  My opinion is based on fact and 
> experience.  You have also assumed that I have not looked for solution either 
> via Google or user group such as these which I think is rather arrogant.  You 
> have also admitted yourself that you do not know everything, but yet you were 
> quick to slap me down for daring to ask more of the Mac years after they were 
> so kind to give us a screen reader.  I wonder if Photoshop users should 
> downgrade to iPhoto, as it covers the basic right?
> 
> John, how long is it since you have used Windows on a regular basis with u

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Brian Fischler]

Yes, Chris, the busy busy in numbers got to the point where it was ridiculous 
and slowed my productivity to a halt. I was using large spread sheets I had 
built over time to manage a large amount of data, and finally just had enough 
with it with the busy issues and voiceover completely stopping allowing me to 
enter text in a cell causing me to have to constantly quit numbers and reopen 
so I could enter info in to cells. I had contacted apple accessibility several 
times but continued to get the we are aware of the problem but don't know when 
it will be fixed. After about a year of that, I finally made the jump to using 
tap forms. Is it as good as using a spread sheet program like numbers, no, but 
it doesn't crash and I have had very minor issues using it. I am keeping my 
fingers crossed for a major update to numbers in Maverisk. I also use pages, 
and guess I am not doing much complex stuff with tables or fonts because I have 
had very little issue with it as far as accessibility, and use it on a daily 
basis. 
On Jul 22, 2013, at 2:41 PM, Chris Moore  wrote:

> I totally share your pain with Numbers.  I do a great deal of spreadsheet 
> work and would love to use Numbers.  The applications is a nightmare, and 
> such a let down with Voiceover.  Real shame, as it actually has the potential 
> to be very good.  I prefer to use a spreadsheet that can cope with more than 
> a few cells before constantly announcing how busy it is. 
> On 22 Jul 2013, at 19:20, Brian Fischler  wrote:
> 
>> Hey Gordon,
>> 
>> First, my bad, as I get all these emails in one mail folder, and just 
>> assumed this was the Google group, macvisionaries where several months ago I 
>> got blasted on that one for expressing my opinion about numbers having so 
>> many issues. I have not been blasted on this list which I enjoy very much, 
>> and love people having a difference of opinions and being able to express 
>> them in a polite way. I will reach out to you later and explain my issue 
>> with numbers, but I stopped using it a few months ago because of these 
>> issues, and I pretty much summed it up in a post here, but will send you 
>> something later today. Thanks
>> On Jul 22, 2013, at 1:22 PM, Gordon Smith  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Brian
>>> 
>>> A couple of things here.  Firstly, I dispute your assertion that you were 
>>> "Blasted" on this list.  In this group we have a policy of no flaming, no 
>>> blasting.  So if you can highlight any specifics I would like to know about 
>>> it.  Of course, what you may consider blasting is possibly not what others 
>>> would.  So let me just use this opportunity to remind everybody that no 
>>> flaming is accepted.  We have 0 tolerance of that kind of behaviour.
>>> 
>>> Regarding Apple and accessibility, would you mind getting back to me off 
>>> list and highlighting precisely as possible, the steps you are taking to 
>>> reproduce this behaviour?  I am not disputing it, neither am I saying 
>>> you're mistaken.  However, I would be most interested to know exactly what 
>>> you're doing and what your expectation was when you did this.
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> 
>>> Kind regards
>>> 
>>> <--- Gordon Smith --->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Telephone:
>>> 
>>> United Kingdom:  Free Phone:
>>> 0800 8620538
>>> 
>>> Mobile:
>>> +44 7907 823971
>>> 
>>> Europe and other non-specified:
>>> +44 1642 688095
>>> 
>>> United States Of America And Canada:
>>> +1 646 9151493
>>> Or:
>>> +1 209 436 9443
>>> 
>>> Vic.  Australia:
>>> +61 38 8205930
>>> Vic.  Australia
>>> +61 39 0284505
>>> 
>>> Fax:
>>> +44 1642 365123
>>> 
>>> Follow Us On Twitter:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Skype:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 20 Jul 2013, at 18:30, Brian Fischler  wrote:
>>> 
 Hey All,
 
 Funny as the message you got from Apple on Logic is the same exact 
 response I have gotten for years from Apple about the awful accessibility 
 of Numbers which I now no longer use. I got blasted on this list for 
 listing several issues with mountain lion and voiceover when it came out. 
 One of the biggest being how they reversed webspots in safari. How in the 
 world could this not have been noticed if they are actually testing 
 accessibility? In Lion you would hit VO command right bracket and you 
 could go down down a page to the next webspot, not in Mountain Lion they 
 reversed it which makes no sense as you click VO command right bracket and 
 instead of going down and to the right, right bracket takes you to the 
 left, and left bracket takes you to the right. Ok, simple enough to fix I 
 assumed, and assumed in the next mountain lion update it would be 
 corrected. Nope, they never fixed what seemed to me to probably be one of 
 the easiest things to fix. There have been virtually zero improvements to 
 VO in any mountain lion updates. I will continue using my mac, and do love 
 my mac, but ha

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Dónal Fitzpatrick]

Hi Mary,

Your use-cases are very interesting and mirror mine.  The reality is that 
sometimes having a PDF in continuous view mode and just letting voiceover read 
it isn't what people need.  I frequently need to have Preview set to single 
page mode and VO, and this is not a gripe supposition or anything else, is 
broken in that mode.  And before anyone nay-says that, Apple have confirmed and 
acknowledged it as the case in a response to my bug report.  

The key to using a mac in a fast-moving, highly business oriented environment 
is to rely on workarounds.  Yes, as I said, a lot can be done because of very 
diligent users who have come up with lots of very innovative ways to work 
around the limitations between voiceover and Mac software.  I contend that the 
need for so many workarounds should be diminishing and it is not.

cheers,

Dónal
On 22 Jul 2013, at 23:13, Mary Otten  wrote:

> John,
> Seems to me you didn't really address some of Chris's specific issues with 
> Mac as compared to his use of Jaws or NVDA with Windows. pdf on the Mac is a 
> joke compared with Windows; sorry, but cutting and pasting in to text edit 
> isn't my idea of reasonable access. And the fact that I can't read tables in 
> pdf documents is a serious drawback. I know there are work arounds involving 
> the use of Pages with tables and numbers, but again, cutting and pasting back 
> and forth just to do something that ought to be done within a single app is 
> not the same level of usability as you get with a good Windows screen reader. 
> If Apple fixes this issue with the next release of iWork, which ought to be 
> coming soon, then good for them. In the mean time, I don't see how you can 
> say Mac is just as good as Windows for folks who need to do a lot of table 
> reading and editing, or document changes tracking, which is working in MS 
> Word for Windows with screen reader but not with VO and Pages. 
> You made a statement that a lot of folks who criticize Apple accessibility as 
> compared with Windows don't have sufficient knowledge of Mac usage to make 
> such a statement. I would argue that the opposite is also true. I've seen 
> statements from people who admit to not having used Windows ever or to not 
> having used it in years, but they nonetheless feel justified in making 
> statements that are as exaggerated about Windows as the ones you rightly call 
> out re the Mac. 
> There are plenty of things I like about the MacMy other complaint about use 
> of the Mac, which isn't an Apple issue but does affect the usability of the 
> system is the problem producing braille. I understand that there is a Duxbury 
> product in the works for the Mac, although it will be interesting to see how 
> that's going to work, given the state of inaccessibilitry of MS Word and 
> uncertainty about whether Dux will be able to tightly integrate with the new 
> iWork, as it does in Windows with Word. I have a use case involving the 
> receipt of pdf documents that are both text and pictures. I have to integrate 
> these by running ocr on the image only document, then pasting that in between 
> sections of the text-based pdf that have been pasted in to Word. Then I 
> produce ahard copy braille document from that for use each week. I can't do 
> that at all on the Mac. It is easy with Windows. I admit that is a 
> specialized use case. But it does highlight some of the shortcomings that may 
> be encounter
> ed by blind folks who want to produce hard copy braille and need to do so in 
> an efficient manner. One of the things I think that some folks minimize is 
> the difference between something that is accessible, at least in name, and 
> something that is efficiently usable. Some of this is learning curve, to be 
> sure. But some of it is just simple efficiency and/or ergonomics, e.g. the 
> business with the cutting and pasting of tables between Pages and Numbers. 
> 
> I really hope that Mavericks sees some VO improvements and especially that 
> the new iWork becomes as efficiently usable with VO as it is with JAWS or 
> even NVDA. My Windows machine is close to the end of its life, and I don't 
> want to buy another one, but given some of my use cases, I will need to do 
> that if some stuff isn't made more efficiently usable or accessible at all 
> with the Mac in the next several months.
> Mary
> Mary Otten
> motte...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> <--- Mac Access At Mac Access Dot Net --->
> 
> To reply to this post, please address your message to 
> mac-access@mac-access.net
> 
> You can find an archive of all messages postedto the Mac-Access forum at 
> either the list's own dedicated web archive:
> 
> or at the public Mail Archive:
> .
> Subscribe to the list's RSS feed from:
> 
> 
> As the Mac Access Dot Net administrators, we do our very best to 

Re: HTML coding [was Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)]

[Dónal Fitzpatrick]

Morning Esther,

Multi Markdown is a very very handy thing indeed if you just want to knock out 
a very fast and fairly primitive webpage.  It's worth a look for those not 
bothered about getting into the whole website development thing actually.

Cheers,

Dónal
On 22 Jul 2013, at 22:42, Esther  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I know this may not be exactly what Chris and Dónal are asking for, but for 
> several types of fast web page design, are people using MultiMarkdown?  This 
> is probably what I would use if I wanted to take care of web pages, and 
> especially be able to work directly from text files on iOS devices, too.
> 
> I suspect Dónal needs and uses some other formatting options, but this is an 
> option.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Esther
> 
> 
> On 22 Jul 2013, at 11:21, John Panarese wrote:
> 
>>  I think that is one.  To be honest, I don't have the time right now to 
>> start searching archives and list serves, but I know there were solutions 
>> offered to web design Chris is not taking into account.  The only really 
>> "strong" point that has been made is in regard to text tables.  Otherwise, 
>> as I said, there are solutions out there.  Search the archives here or if 
>> you are on other lists.  Those are the kinds of questions that come up all 
>> of the time, and there is always someone who offers an app that no one knows 
>> about or does not get attention that the other common ones have.  I know 
>> someone, for example, found an app pretty comparable to MS Word access with 
>> VoiceOver or, at least, found something pretty close to what some high end 
>> users needed.  The problem with being subscribed to eight lists dealing with 
>> the Mac or iDevices is you can hardly recall who said what on which list.
>> 
>> 
>> Take Care
>> 
>> John D. Panarese
>> Director
>> Mac for the Blind
>> Tel, (631) 724-4479
>> Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
>> Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com
>> 
>> APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION
>> 
>> AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE
>> 
>> MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 22, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Orin  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> What about RapidWeaver? I've heard of several people using it, but I 
>>> haven't figured it out. There's also another popular one that I forgot the 
>>> name of. These are Wisiwig editors.
>>> 
>>> Orin
>>> orin8...@gmail.com
>>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/orinks
>>> Skype: orin1112
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 22, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Chris Moore  wrote:
>>> 
 John,
 
 I am not negative, I just live in the real world.
 
 If you require very basic small spreadsheets, with voiceover quirks 
 compared to complex large  Excel spreadsheets, then fine.  A word 
 processor offering full Microsoft document support which is the industry 
 standard? None of the word processors you mention can't hold a torch to 
 Microsoft Word and can't even produce headings and tables which can be 
 read by voiceover.  Keynotes accessibility is also below par, so 
 Powerpoint is out of the question.  Open Office is also not even a viable 
 option on the Mac.
 
 There are also no accessible WYSWYG HTML editors on the Mac which support 
 VO, you are stud with either stuck with applications for marking down for 
 use  with a CMS, or basic RTF editors.  
 
 The Mac does the basics, some of us users have more demanding requirement. 
  Is that a bad thing?
 
 All these tasks can be achieved if you have enough vision not to require 
 Voiceover, is it too much to ask for Voiceover users to expect the same 
 level of productivity as our sighted Mac users?  I do not think I am being 
 negative at all.
 
 Chris 
 
 On 22 Jul 2013, at 18:00, John Panarese  wrote:
 
> I still don't know what you mean that people can't use the Mac in a 
> professional environment.  I think this is strictly your opinion and not 
> anything based on fact.  There are at least a half dozen high end word 
> processing applications, including iText, Pages Multi Markdown Composer.  
> Additionally, there are two spreadsheet alternatives that can be used 
> accessibly.  As I said, I have trained people who use their Macs for 
> business.  To say VoiceOver is not on par with JAWS or a windows screen 
> reader is a very narrow viewpoint.  Yes, Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard, 
> I could not have argued that pint, but not any more.  I guess my 
> experience as a trainer gives me a much wider perspective, but as was 
> initially said, everyone is entitled to their opinions.  I'm just glad 
> there are a lot of people who don't see things in such a negative way.
> 
> 
> Take Care
> 
> John D. Panarese
> Director
> Mac for the Blind
> Tel, (631) 724-4479
> Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
> Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com
> 
> APPL

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Chris Moore]

Mary,

I totally agree with everything you have said.

John, it appears you think I am being harsh an expressing an unfounded sweeping 
statement about Mac accessibility.  My opinion is based on fact and experience. 
 You have also assumed that I have not looked for solution either via Google or 
user group such as these which I think is rather arrogant.  You have also 
admitted yourself that you do not know everything, but yet you were quick to 
slap me down for daring to ask more of the Mac years after they were so kind to 
give us a screen reader.  I wonder if Photoshop users should downgrade to 
iPhoto, as it covers the basic right?

John, how long is it since you have used Windows on a regular basis with up to 
date software?  Yes, the Mac has improved since Tiger, but so has the scene on 
Windows and if  u were able to put your feet in both camps you would understand 
where many of us advanced users require more than just editing RTF files, 
reading emails and using the read all command on a PDF.
You would be able to appreciate how some tasks are much superior on Windows.  
This is partially due to competition between various screen reader vendors on 
Windows and the fact that bugs fixes and updates appear more regularly to the 
screen readers in comparison to the Mac.  Talkback on Android also benefits 
from this approach.

I can only assume you do not require the ability to create tables in documents, 
track changes and share documents, work with tagged PDF documents and be able 
to use their various elements.  To be fair, Preview was only ever designed to.. 
well 'preview' I guess! So I suppose we can let Apple off for not including 
structured elements.  I guess Adobe Reader should fill the gap here, as they 
have proven they can develop accessible software such as their e-book reading 
solution..  It is not all bad though, as I do like the way Voiceover announces 
that a word has been spelt incorrectly after hitting the spacebar.  The 
equivalent on Windows is F7 which still does not check spelling as you type, 
despite sighted users getting this information live as a red underline appears 
to indicate an error.

There is no way I would recommend any professional using Windows to switch to 
the Mac at this stage.  I am not sure exactly what your training programme 
covers or what you use your  Mac for on a daily basis.  I am glad it meets your 
needs and I wonder if you ever did move back to Windows if you would be more at 
home with Dolphin's Guides software.

Right, I am going to try and go back to sleep if the thunder and lightning 
allows me.

Take care 

Chris 

On 22 Jul 2013, at 23:13, Mary Otten  wrote:

> John,
> Seems to me you didn't really address some of Chris's specific issues with 
> Mac as compared to his use of Jaws or NVDA with Windows. pdf on the Mac is a 
> joke compared with Windows; sorry, but cutting and pasting in to text edit 
> isn't my idea of reasonable access. And the fact that I can't read tables in 
> pdf documents is a serious drawback. I know there are work arounds involving 
> the use of Pages with tables and numbers, but again, cutting and pasting back 
> and forth just to do something that ought to be done within a single app is 
> not the same level of usability as you get with a good Windows screen reader. 
> If Apple fixes this issue with the next release of iWork, which ought to be 
> coming soon, then good for them. In the mean time, I don't see how you can 
> say Mac is just as good as Windows for folks who need to do a lot of table 
> reading and editing, or document changes tracking, which is working in MS 
> Word for Windows with screen reader but not with VO and Pages. 
> You made a statement that a lot of folks who criticize Apple accessibility as 
> compared with Windows don't have sufficient knowledge of Mac usage to make 
> such a statement. I would argue that the opposite is also true. I've seen 
> statements from people who admit to not having used Windows ever or to not 
> having used it in years, but they nonetheless feel justified in making 
> statements that are as exaggerated about Windows as the ones you rightly call 
> out re the Mac. 
> There are plenty of things I like about the MacMy other complaint about use 
> of the Mac, which isn't an Apple issue but does affect the usability of the 
> system is the problem producing braille. I understand that there is a Duxbury 
> product in the works for the Mac, although it will be interesting to see how 
> that's going to work, given the state of inaccessibilitry of MS Word and 
> uncertainty about whether Dux will be able to tightly integrate with the new 
> iWork, as it does in Windows with Word. I have a use case involving the 
> receipt of pdf documents that are both text and pictures. I have to integrate 
> these by running ocr on the image only document, then pasting that in between 
> sections of the text-based pdf that have been pasted in to Word. Then I 
> produce ahard copy braille d

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[John Panarese]

Hi Mary,
Here is the problem.  Firstly, having been on email lists for years, these 
types of discussions come up, people make suggestions and find solutions, and 
the subject is lost.  Being that I am on so many lists, I have no idea who said 
what and where.

My point is, a lot of what people report or even complain about is either 
subjective or they may not be aware of solutions that others have found.

 For example, with PDFs.  I don’t have the problems you seem to have and I know 
of two clients who extensively have to access PDF documents for their work.  
They use Skim to do so.  I am fine with Preview.  No, Preview will not deal 
with an image PDF.  You need to OCR that first as there is no text VoiceOver 
can read.

 As for word processors and such, again, I have seen at least a half dozen, if 
not more suggestions offered by people on lists and step by step instructions 
how to deal with a variety of issues people find themselves facing.  
Unfortunately, when you go through 500 emails a day on average, it doesn’t 
always stick with me.  Sometimes, I manage to jot down notes or grab a message 
for future reference, but of late, that has become more and more difficult for 
me, as I just don’t have time.  I know the problem of MS word formatting and 
compatibility ,  accessing tables and a variety of other matters have been 
addressed here and in other places.

 My overall point is instead of tossing out general statements about ones 
perceived notions of what can or can’t be done, do a little foot work and 
research on this list’s archives and the other lists out there.  I am far from 
the be all and end all to knowing every accessible application or work around 
for a situation, and I spend a lot of time having to find information for 
others.  It’s out there.  You just have to be willing to look.  Considering 
that the vast majority of us have come from Windows, we should be used to 
having to sometimes think outside the box for solutions.  Accessibility is far 
from perfect on the Mac and I also said initially that I can list my gripes 
just like anyone else, but I don’t find it necessary to  present those gripes 
in broad strokes nor make dramatic statements about Apple’s accessibility 
efforts when I have benefited from those efforts over the last 9 years and no 
how far VoiceOver has come compared to my old iBook running Tiger or my 
original Mac Book running Snow Leopard.  

 As I initially said, for every problem one can toss out in regard to the Mac 
and VoiceOver, someone else can probably toss out three times as many with 
JAWS, Windows Eys, NVDA or any Windows screen reader.  No solution is perfect, 
but I have found, in my own personal experience, and in training clients on the 
Mac for 3 years, that switchers find their Mac experience so much better than 
Windows and I have yet to encounter a client who has told me they can’t do 
something on the Mac that they can do on Windows with the exception of a few 
minor specialty apps and games.  Then again, I have had more clients tell me 
that they have been able to find more solutions on the Mac for things they 
couldn’t do in Windows.

However, this discussion, I think, is running its course, and I personally have 
spent too much time addressing it at this point. My apologies to Gordon and 
Lynne for the diversion.



Take Care

John D. Panarese
Director
Mac for the Blind
Tel, (631) 724-4479
Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com

APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION

AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE

MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT




On Jul 22, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Mary Otten  wrote:

> John,
> Seems to me you didn't really address some of Chris's specific issues with 
> Mac as compared to his use of Jaws or NVDA with Windows. pdf on the Mac is a 
> joke compared with Windows; sorry, but cutting and pasting in to text edit 
> isn't my idea of reasonable access. And the fact that I can't read tables in 
> pdf documents is a serious drawback. I know there are work arounds involving 
> the use of Pages with tables and numbers, but again, cutting and pasting back 
> and forth just to do something that ought to be done within a single app is 
> not the same level of usability as you get with a good Windows screen reader. 
> If Apple fixes this issue with the next release of iWork, which ought to be 
> coming soon, then good for them. In the mean time, I don't see how you can 
> say Mac is just as good as Windows for folks who need to do a lot of table 
> reading and editing, or document changes tracking, which is working in MS 
> Word for Windows with screen reader but not with VO and Pages. 
> You made a statement that a lot of folks who criticize Apple accessibility as 
> compared with Windows don't have sufficient knowledge of Mac usage to make 
> such a statement. I would argue that the opposite is also true. I've seen 
> statements from people who admit

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Sarah k Alawami]

You can save it as word, rtf and other formats and it works well. Iused it to 
read articles sent to me by my prof. Passed the class to. and the service was 
almost flawless. Listen to the video. I think I showed a pdf image thing on 
there.

Tc all.
On Jul 22, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Mary Otten  wrote:

> Actually, you can also deal with an image only pdf with docuscan plus, which 
> I have. But there is no way to clean up errors, except laboriously by hand, 
> which is a time suck, and then when I'm done, I have an html document, which 
> I guess is ok unless I want to interact and copy bits and pieces, but would 
> probably work well for many folks. Does this app you're talking about offer 
> any sort of means of automating corrections like you can do with k1000 on the 
> Windows side? 
> 
> Mary
> Mary Otten
> motte...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> <--- Mac Access At Mac Access Dot Net --->
> 
> To reply to this post, please address your message to 
> mac-access@mac-access.net
> 
> You can find an archive of all messages postedto the Mac-Access forum at 
> either the list's own dedicated web archive:
> 
> or at the public Mail Archive:
> .
> Subscribe to the list's RSS feed from:
> 
> 
> As the Mac Access Dot Net administrators, we do our very best to ensure that 
> the Mac-Access E-Mal list remains malware, spyware, Trojan, virus and 
> worm-free.  However, this should in no way replace your own security 
> strategy.  We assume neither liability nor responsibility should something 
> unpredictable happen.
> 
> Please remember to update your membership preferences periodically by 
> visiting the list website at:
> 
> 

<--- Mac Access At Mac Access Dot Net --->

To reply to this post, please address your message to mac-access@mac-access.net

You can find an archive of all messages postedto the Mac-Access forum at 
either the list's own dedicated web archive:

or at the public Mail Archive:
.
Subscribe to the list's RSS feed from:


As the Mac Access Dot Net administrators, we do our very best to ensure that 
the Mac-Access E-Mal list remains malware, spyware, Trojan, virus and 
worm-free.  However, this should in no way replace your own security strategy.  
We assume neither liability nor responsibility should something unpredictable 
happen.

Please remember to update your membership preferences periodically by visiting 
the list website at:

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Mary Otten]

Actually, you can also deal with an image only pdf with docuscan plus, which I 
have. But there is no way to clean up errors, except laboriously by hand, which 
is a time suck, and then when I'm done, I have an html document, which I guess 
is ok unless I want to interact and copy bits and pieces, but would probably 
work well for many folks. Does this app you're talking about offer any sort of 
means of automating corrections like you can do with k1000 on the Windows side? 

Mary
Mary Otten
motte...@gmail.com


<--- Mac Access At Mac Access Dot Net --->

To reply to this post, please address your message to mac-access@mac-access.net

You can find an archive of all messages postedto the Mac-Access forum at 
either the list's own dedicated web archive:

or at the public Mail Archive:
.
Subscribe to the list's RSS feed from:


As the Mac Access Dot Net administrators, we do our very best to ensure that 
the Mac-Access E-Mal list remains malware, spyware, Trojan, virus and 
worm-free.  However, this should in no way replace your own security strategy.  
We assume neither liability nor responsibility should something unpredictable 
happen.

Please remember to update your membership preferences periodically by visiting 
the list website at:

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Josh Gregory]

Right, my community college where I attend college is using version nine 
something.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 22, 2013, at 8:24 PM, Sarah k Alawami  wrote:

> Actually for me black board is usable, unless you want to view  an attachment 
> sent by a professor. That might have changed, but my university I think is  
> still using black board from 2009. I can use it fine with firefox and another 
> OS and it is totally usable so there again is a difference of equipment but 
> this time on the university side of things. OH btw black board works a lot 
> better w chrome.
> 
> Tc.
> On Jul 22, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Josh Gregory  wrote:
> 
>> Alright, I, myself, am a political science major in college. I will admit 
>> that the Mac may have some accessibility issues, but none that can't be 
>> fixed with a bit of software updating and hole patching. I understand that 
>> some users have more high-end demand, and that's fine, but what I use the 
>> Mac for, mainly PowerPoint reading in preview, which works, maybe takes a 
>> bit of fiddling
>> with it at first but it does work, and reading PDFs and preview, which, if 
>> they're tagged properly, does work. Finally, as I've mentioned to somebody 
>> off list, I was able to Get through an online class with blackboard, which, 
>> on a separate platform, I know would not have been doable whatsoever.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Jul 22, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Mary Otten  wrote:
>> 
>>> John,
>>> Seems to me you didn't really address some of Chris's specific issues with 
>>> Mac as compared to his use of Jaws or NVDA with Windows. pdf on the Mac is 
>>> a joke compared with Windows; sorry, but cutting and pasting in to text 
>>> edit isn't my idea of reasonable access. And the fact that I can't read 
>>> tables in pdf documents is a serious drawback. I know there are work 
>>> arounds involving the use of Pages with tables and numbers, but again, 
>>> cutting and pasting back and forth just to do something that ought to be 
>>> done within a single app is not the same level of usability as you get with 
>>> a good Windows screen reader. If Apple fixes this issue with the next 
>>> release of iWork, which ought to be coming soon, then good for them. In the 
>>> mean time, I don't see how you can say Mac is just as good as Windows for 
>>> folks who need to do a lot of table reading and editing, or document 
>>> changes tracking, which is working in MS Word for Windows with screen 
>>> reader but not with VO and Pages. 
>>> You made a statement that a lot of folks who criticize Apple accessibility 
>>> as compared with Windows don't have sufficient knowledge of Mac usage to 
>>> make such a statement. I would argue that the opposite is also true. I've 
>>> seen statements from people who admit to not having used Windows ever or to 
>>> not having used it in years, but they nonetheless feel justified in making 
>>> statements that are as exaggerated about Windows as the ones you rightly 
>>> call out re the Mac. 
>>> There are plenty of things I like about the MacMy other complaint about use 
>>> of the Mac, which isn't an Apple issue but does affect the usability of the 
>>> system is the problem producing braille. I understand that there is a 
>>> Duxbury product in the works for the Mac, although it will be interesting 
>>> to see how that's going to work, given the state of inaccessibilitry of MS 
>>> Word and uncertainty about whether Dux will be able to tightly integrate 
>>> with the new iWork, as it does in Windows with Word. I have a use case 
>>> involving the receipt of pdf documents that are both text and pictures. I 
>>> have to integrate these by running ocr on the image only document, then 
>>> pasting that in between sections of the text-based pdf that have been 
>>> pasted in to Word. Then I produce ahard copy braille document from that for 
>>> use each week. I can't do that at all on the Mac. It is easy with Windows. 
>>> I admit that is a specialized use case. But it does highlight some of the 
>>> shortcomings that may be encou
 n
> t
>> er
>>> ed by blind folks who want to produce hard copy braille and need to do so 
>>> in an efficient manner. One of the things I think that some folks minimize 
>>> is the difference between something that is accessible, at least in name, 
>>> and something that is efficiently usable. Some of this is learning curve, 
>>> to be sure. But some of it is just simple efficiency and/or ergonomics, 
>>> e.g. the business with the cutting and pasting of tables between Pages and 
>>> Numbers. 
>>> 
>>> I really hope that Mavericks sees some VO improvements and especially that 
>>> the new iWork becomes as efficiently usable with VO as it is with JAWS or 
>>> even NVDA. My Windows machine is close to the end of its life, and I don't 
>>> want to buy another one, but given some of my use cases, I will need to do 
>>> that if some stuff isn't made more efficiently usable or accessible at all 
>>> with the Mac in the next seve

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Sarah k Alawami]

The way to deal with image only pdfs is to use a service   I I found at 
http://www.onlineocr.net

You can find my youtube video I did here. In fact the devs loved the thing so 
much I got some free creds. lol! And normally my videos suck. lol! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgFyG6LciRs


Tc all.On Jul 22, 2013, at 4:04 PM, Mary Otten  wrote:

> Josh,
> I'm sorry, but how do you read tables in pdf documents and how do you deal 
> with those pdf documents you receive which are image onkly? The problem with 
> expecting pdf docs to be properly tagged is that the huge majority of them 
> are not, because people don't know anything about tagging pdf documents. If 
> you get good results with preview and pdf, more power to you. My results have 
> been so bad that I have, honestly, just given up on it. I've had some luck 
> with iBooks on my phone and pdf. But I need to interact with pdf docs, copy 
> and paste from them and access the tables that show up in them from time to 
> time. Can't do that with the Mac. And that is pretty basic. Given that the 
> cost of Mac hardware far outstrips the cost of Windows hardware, even though 
> there is some merit in the saying that you get what you pay for, I'm not 
> amused at all that a hissing war between Adobe and Apple results in the 
> sub-par accessibility we have for pdf files on the Mac. Hoping for better 
> things in
  t
> he coming os upgrade.
> Mary
> 
> Mary Otten
> motte...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> <--- Mac Access At Mac Access Dot Net --->
> 
> To reply to this post, please address your message to 
> mac-access@mac-access.net
> 
> You can find an archive of all messages postedto the Mac-Access forum at 
> either the list's own dedicated web archive:
> 
> or at the public Mail Archive:
> .
> Subscribe to the list's RSS feed from:
> 
> 
> As the Mac Access Dot Net administrators, we do our very best to ensure that 
> the Mac-Access E-Mal list remains malware, spyware, Trojan, virus and 
> worm-free.  However, this should in no way replace your own security 
> strategy.  We assume neither liability nor responsibility should something 
> unpredictable happen.
> 
> Please remember to update your membership preferences periodically by 
> visiting the list website at:
> 
> 

<--- Mac Access At Mac Access Dot Net --->

To reply to this post, please address your message to mac-access@mac-access.net

You can find an archive of all messages postedto the Mac-Access forum at 
either the list's own dedicated web archive:

or at the public Mail Archive:
.
Subscribe to the list's RSS feed from:


As the Mac Access Dot Net administrators, we do our very best to ensure that 
the Mac-Access E-Mal list remains malware, spyware, Trojan, virus and 
worm-free.  However, this should in no way replace your own security strategy.  
We assume neither liability nor responsibility should something unpredictable 
happen.

Please remember to update your membership preferences periodically by visiting 
the list website at:

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Sarah k Alawami]

Actually for me black board is usable, unless you want to view  an attachment 
sent by a professor. That might have changed, but my university I think is  
still using black board from 2009. I can use it fine with firefox and another 
OS and it is totally usable so there again is a difference of equipment but 
this time on the university side of things. OH btw black board works a lot 
better w chrome.

Tc.
On Jul 22, 2013, at 3:52 PM, Josh Gregory  wrote:

> Alright, I, myself, am a political science major in college. I will admit 
> that the Mac may have some accessibility issues, but none that can't be fixed 
> with a bit of software updating and hole patching. I understand that some 
> users have more high-end demand, and that's fine, but what I use the Mac for, 
> mainly PowerPoint reading in preview, which works, maybe takes a bit of 
> fiddling
> with it at first but it does work, and reading PDFs and preview, which, if 
> they're tagged properly, does work. Finally, as I've mentioned to somebody 
> off list, I was able to Get through an online class with blackboard, which, 
> on a separate platform, I know would not have been doable whatsoever.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jul 22, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Mary Otten  wrote:
> 
>> John,
>> Seems to me you didn't really address some of Chris's specific issues with 
>> Mac as compared to his use of Jaws or NVDA with Windows. pdf on the Mac is a 
>> joke compared with Windows; sorry, but cutting and pasting in to text edit 
>> isn't my idea of reasonable access. And the fact that I can't read tables in 
>> pdf documents is a serious drawback. I know there are work arounds involving 
>> the use of Pages with tables and numbers, but again, cutting and pasting 
>> back and forth just to do something that ought to be done within a single 
>> app is not the same level of usability as you get with a good Windows screen 
>> reader. If Apple fixes this issue with the next release of iWork, which 
>> ought to be coming soon, then good for them. In the mean time, I don't see 
>> how you can say Mac is just as good as Windows for folks who need to do a 
>> lot of table reading and editing, or document changes tracking, which is 
>> working in MS Word for Windows with screen reader but not with VO and Pages. 
>> You made a statement that a lot of folks who criticize Apple accessibility 
>> as compared with Windows don't have sufficient knowledge of Mac usage to 
>> make such a statement. I would argue that the opposite is also true. I've 
>> seen statements from people who admit to not having used Windows ever or to 
>> not having used it in years, but they nonetheless feel justified in making 
>> statements that are as exaggerated about Windows as the ones you rightly 
>> call out re the Mac. 
>> There are plenty of things I like about the MacMy other complaint about use 
>> of the Mac, which isn't an Apple issue but does affect the usability of the 
>> system is the problem producing braille. I understand that there is a 
>> Duxbury product in the works for the Mac, although it will be interesting to 
>> see how that's going to work, given the state of inaccessibilitry of MS Word 
>> and uncertainty about whether Dux will be able to tightly integrate with the 
>> new iWork, as it does in Windows with Word. I have a use case involving the 
>> receipt of pdf documents that are both text and pictures. I have to 
>> integrate these by running ocr on the image only document, then pasting that 
>> in between sections of the text-based pdf that have been pasted in to Word. 
>> Then I produce ahard copy braille document from that for use each week. I 
>> can't do that at all on the Mac. It is easy with Windows. I admit that is a 
>> specialized use case. But it does highlight some of the shortcomings that 
>> may be encoun
 t
> er
>> ed by blind folks who want to produce hard copy braille and need to do so in 
>> an efficient manner. One of the things I think that some folks minimize is 
>> the difference between something that is accessible, at least in name, and 
>> something that is efficiently usable. Some of this is learning curve, to be 
>> sure. But some of it is just simple efficiency and/or ergonomics, e.g. the 
>> business with the cutting and pasting of tables between Pages and Numbers. 
>> 
>> I really hope that Mavericks sees some VO improvements and especially that 
>> the new iWork becomes as efficiently usable with VO as it is with JAWS or 
>> even NVDA. My Windows machine is close to the end of its life, and I don't 
>> want to buy another one, but given some of my use cases, I will need to do 
>> that if some stuff isn't made more efficiently usable or accessible at all 
>> with the Mac in the next several months.
>> Mary
>> Mary Otten
>> motte...@gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> <--- Mac Access At Mac Access Dot Net --->
>> 
>> To reply to this post, please address your message to 
>> mac-access@mac-access.net
>> 
>> You can find an archive of all messages posted

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Josh Gregory]

To be completely honest Mary, I've never had to deal with any of those things 
as of yet. This, if anything, is the reason why I'm looking to get a secondhand 
computer with another operating system.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 22, 2013, at 7:04 PM, Mary Otten  wrote:

> Josh,
> I'm sorry, but how do you read tables in pdf documents and how do you deal 
> with those pdf documents you receive which are image onkly? The problem with 
> expecting pdf docs to be properly tagged is that the huge majority of them 
> are not, because people don't know anything about tagging pdf documents. If 
> you get good results with preview and pdf, more power to you. My results have 
> been so bad that I have, honestly, just given up on it. I've had some luck 
> with iBooks on my phone and pdf. But I need to interact with pdf docs, copy 
> and paste from them and access the tables that show up in them from time to 
> time. Can't do that with the Mac. And that is pretty basic. Given that the 
> cost of Mac hardware far outstrips the cost of Windows hardware, even though 
> there is some merit in the saying that you get what you pay for, I'm not 
> amused at all that a hissing war between Adobe and Apple results in the 
> sub-par accessibility we have for pdf files on the Mac. Hoping for better 
> things in
  t
> he coming os upgrade.
> Mary
> 
> Mary Otten
> motte...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> <--- Mac Access At Mac Access Dot Net --->
> 
> To reply to this post, please address your message to 
> mac-access@mac-access.net
> 
> You can find an archive of all messages postedto the Mac-Access forum at 
> either the list's own dedicated web archive:
> 
> or at the public Mail Archive:
> .
> Subscribe to the list's RSS feed from:
> 
> 
> As the Mac Access Dot Net administrators, we do our very best to ensure that 
> the Mac-Access E-Mal list remains malware, spyware, Trojan, virus and 
> worm-free.  However, this should in no way replace your own security 
> strategy.  We assume neither liability nor responsibility should something 
> unpredictable happen.
> 
> Please remember to update your membership preferences periodically by 
> visiting the list website at:
> 
> 
<--- Mac Access At Mac Access Dot Net --->

To reply to this post, please address your message to mac-access@mac-access.net

You can find an archive of all messages postedto the Mac-Access forum at 
either the list's own dedicated web archive:

or at the public Mail Archive:
.
Subscribe to the list's RSS feed from:


As the Mac Access Dot Net administrators, we do our very best to ensure that 
the Mac-Access E-Mal list remains malware, spyware, Trojan, virus and 
worm-free.  However, this should in no way replace your own security strategy.  
We assume neither liability nor responsibility should something unpredictable 
happen.

Please remember to update your membership preferences periodically by visiting 
the list website at:

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Mary Otten]

Josh,
I'm sorry, but how do you read tables in pdf documents and how do you deal with 
those pdf documents you receive which are image onkly? The problem with 
expecting pdf docs to be properly tagged is that the huge majority of them are 
not, because people don't know anything about tagging pdf documents. If you get 
good results with preview and pdf, more power to you. My results have been so 
bad that I have, honestly, just given up on it. I've had some luck with iBooks 
on my phone and pdf. But I need to interact with pdf docs, copy and paste from 
them and access the tables that show up in them from time to time. Can't do 
that with the Mac. And that is pretty basic. Given that the cost of Mac 
hardware far outstrips the cost of Windows hardware, even though there is some 
merit in the saying that you get what you pay for, I'm not amused at all that a 
hissing war between Adobe and Apple results in the sub-par accessibility we 
have for pdf files on the Mac. Hoping for better things in t
 he coming os upgrade.
Mary

Mary Otten
motte...@gmail.com


<--- Mac Access At Mac Access Dot Net --->

To reply to this post, please address your message to mac-access@mac-access.net

You can find an archive of all messages postedto the Mac-Access forum at 
either the list's own dedicated web archive:

or at the public Mail Archive:
.
Subscribe to the list's RSS feed from:


As the Mac Access Dot Net administrators, we do our very best to ensure that 
the Mac-Access E-Mal list remains malware, spyware, Trojan, virus and 
worm-free.  However, this should in no way replace your own security strategy.  
We assume neither liability nor responsibility should something unpredictable 
happen.

Please remember to update your membership preferences periodically by visiting 
the list website at:

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Josh Gregory]

Alright, I, myself, am a political science major in college. I will admit that 
the Mac may have some accessibility issues, but none that can't be fixed with a 
bit of software updating and hole patching. I understand that some users have 
more high-end demand, and that's fine, but what I use the Mac for, mainly 
PowerPoint reading in preview, which works, maybe takes a bit of fiddling
 with it at first but it does work, and reading PDFs and preview, which, if 
they're tagged properly, does work. Finally, as I've mentioned to somebody off 
list, I was able to Get through an online class with blackboard, which, on a 
separate platform, I know would not have been doable whatsoever.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 22, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Mary Otten  wrote:

> John,
> Seems to me you didn't really address some of Chris's specific issues with 
> Mac as compared to his use of Jaws or NVDA with Windows. pdf on the Mac is a 
> joke compared with Windows; sorry, but cutting and pasting in to text edit 
> isn't my idea of reasonable access. And the fact that I can't read tables in 
> pdf documents is a serious drawback. I know there are work arounds involving 
> the use of Pages with tables and numbers, but again, cutting and pasting back 
> and forth just to do something that ought to be done within a single app is 
> not the same level of usability as you get with a good Windows screen reader. 
> If Apple fixes this issue with the next release of iWork, which ought to be 
> coming soon, then good for them. In the mean time, I don't see how you can 
> say Mac is just as good as Windows for folks who need to do a lot of table 
> reading and editing, or document changes tracking, which is working in MS 
> Word for Windows with screen reader but not with VO and Pages. 
> You made a statement that a lot of folks who criticize Apple accessibility as 
> compared with Windows don't have sufficient knowledge of Mac usage to make 
> such a statement. I would argue that the opposite is also true. I've seen 
> statements from people who admit to not having used Windows ever or to not 
> having used it in years, but they nonetheless feel justified in making 
> statements that are as exaggerated about Windows as the ones you rightly call 
> out re the Mac. 
> There are plenty of things I like about the MacMy other complaint about use 
> of the Mac, which isn't an Apple issue but does affect the usability of the 
> system is the problem producing braille. I understand that there is a Duxbury 
> product in the works for the Mac, although it will be interesting to see how 
> that's going to work, given the state of inaccessibilitry of MS Word and 
> uncertainty about whether Dux will be able to tightly integrate with the new 
> iWork, as it does in Windows with Word. I have a use case involving the 
> receipt of pdf documents that are both text and pictures. I have to integrate 
> these by running ocr on the image only document, then pasting that in between 
> sections of the text-based pdf that have been pasted in to Word. Then I 
> produce ahard copy braille document from that for use each week. I can't do 
> that at all on the Mac. It is easy with Windows. I admit that is a 
> specialized use case. But it does highlight some of the shortcomings that may 
> be encount
 er
> ed by blind folks who want to produce hard copy braille and need to do so in 
> an efficient manner. One of the things I think that some folks minimize is 
> the difference between something that is accessible, at least in name, and 
> something that is efficiently usable. Some of this is learning curve, to be 
> sure. But some of it is just simple efficiency and/or ergonomics, e.g. the 
> business with the cutting and pasting of tables between Pages and Numbers. 
> 
> I really hope that Mavericks sees some VO improvements and especially that 
> the new iWork becomes as efficiently usable with VO as it is with JAWS or 
> even NVDA. My Windows machine is close to the end of its life, and I don't 
> want to buy another one, but given some of my use cases, I will need to do 
> that if some stuff isn't made more efficiently usable or accessible at all 
> with the Mac in the next several months.
> Mary
> Mary Otten
> motte...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> <--- Mac Access At Mac Access Dot Net --->
> 
> To reply to this post, please address your message to 
> mac-access@mac-access.net
> 
> You can find an archive of all messages postedto the Mac-Access forum at 
> either the list's own dedicated web archive:
> 
> or at the public Mail Archive:
> .
> Subscribe to the list's RSS feed from:
> 
> 
> As the Mac Access Dot Net administrators, we do our very best to ensure that 
> the Mac-Access E-Mal list remains malware, spyware, Trojan, virus and 
> worm-free.  However, this should in no way replace yo

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Mary Otten]

John,
Seems to me you didn't really address some of Chris's specific issues with Mac 
as compared to his use of Jaws or NVDA with Windows. pdf on the Mac is a joke 
compared with Windows; sorry, but cutting and pasting in to text edit isn't my 
idea of reasonable access. And the fact that I can't read tables in pdf 
documents is a serious drawback. I know there are work arounds involving the 
use of Pages with tables and numbers, but again, cutting and pasting back and 
forth just to do something that ought to be done within a single app is not the 
same level of usability as you get with a good Windows screen reader. If Apple 
fixes this issue with the next release of iWork, which ought to be coming soon, 
then good for them. In the mean time, I don't see how you can say Mac is just 
as good as Windows for folks who need to do a lot of table reading and editing, 
or document changes tracking, which is working in MS Word for Windows with 
screen reader but not with VO and Pages. 
You made a statement that a lot of folks who criticize Apple accessibility as 
compared with Windows don't have sufficient knowledge of Mac usage to make such 
a statement. I would argue that the opposite is also true. I've seen statements 
from people who admit to not having used Windows ever or to not having used it 
in years, but they nonetheless feel justified in making statements that are as 
exaggerated about Windows as the ones you rightly call out re the Mac. 
There are plenty of things I like about the MacMy other complaint about use of 
the Mac, which isn't an Apple issue but does affect the usability of the system 
is the problem producing braille. I understand that there is a Duxbury product 
in the works for the Mac, although it will be interesting to see how that's 
going to work, given the state of inaccessibilitry of MS Word and uncertainty 
about whether Dux will be able to tightly integrate with the new iWork, as it 
does in Windows with Word. I have a use case involving the receipt of pdf 
documents that are both text and pictures. I have to integrate these by running 
ocr on the image only document, then pasting that in between sections of the 
text-based pdf that have been pasted in to Word. Then I produce ahard copy 
braille document from that for use each week. I can't do that at all on the 
Mac. It is easy with Windows. I admit that is a specialized use case. But it 
does highlight some of the shortcomings that may be encounter
 ed by blind folks who want to produce hard copy braille and need to do so in 
an efficient manner. One of the things I think that some folks minimize is the 
difference between something that is accessible, at least in name, and 
something that is efficiently usable. Some of this is learning curve, to be 
sure. But some of it is just simple efficiency and/or ergonomics, e.g. the 
business with the cutting and pasting of tables between Pages and Numbers. 

I really hope that Mavericks sees some VO improvements and especially that the 
new iWork becomes as efficiently usable with VO as it is with JAWS or even 
NVDA. My Windows machine is close to the end of its life, and I don't want to 
buy another one, but given some of my use cases, I will need to do that if some 
stuff isn't made more efficiently usable or accessible at all with the Mac in 
the next several months.
Mary
Mary Otten
motte...@gmail.com


<--- Mac Access At Mac Access Dot Net --->

To reply to this post, please address your message to mac-access@mac-access.net

You can find an archive of all messages postedto the Mac-Access forum at 
either the list's own dedicated web archive:

or at the public Mail Archive:
.
Subscribe to the list's RSS feed from:


As the Mac Access Dot Net administrators, we do our very best to ensure that 
the Mac-Access E-Mal list remains malware, spyware, Trojan, virus and 
worm-free.  However, this should in no way replace your own security strategy.  
We assume neither liability nor responsibility should something unpredictable 
happen.

Please remember to update your membership preferences periodically by visiting 
the list website at:

HTML coding [was Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)]

[Esther]

Hi,

I know this may not be exactly what Chris and Dónal are asking for, but for 
several types of fast web page design, are people using MultiMarkdown?  This is 
probably what I would use if I wanted to take care of web pages, and especially 
be able to work directly from text files on iOS devices, too.

I suspect Dónal needs and uses some other formatting options, but this is an 
option.

Cheers,

Esther


On 22 Jul 2013, at 11:21, John Panarese wrote:

>   I think that is one.  To be honest, I don't have the time right now to 
> start searching archives and list serves, but I know there were solutions 
> offered to web design Chris is not taking into account.  The only really 
> "strong" point that has been made is in regard to text tables.  Otherwise, as 
> I said, there are solutions out there.  Search the archives here or if you 
> are on other lists.  Those are the kinds of questions that come up all of the 
> time, and there is always someone who offers an app that no one knows about 
> or does not get attention that the other common ones have.  I know someone, 
> for example, found an app pretty comparable to MS Word access with VoiceOver 
> or, at least, found something pretty close to what some high end users 
> needed.  The problem with being subscribed to eight lists dealing with the 
> Mac or iDevices is you can hardly recall who said what on which list.
> 
> 
> Take Care
> 
> John D. Panarese
> Director
> Mac for the Blind
> Tel, (631) 724-4479
> Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
> Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com
> 
> APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION
> 
> AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE
> 
> MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 22, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Orin  wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> What about RapidWeaver? I've heard of several people using it, but I haven't 
>> figured it out. There's also another popular one that I forgot the name of. 
>> These are Wisiwig editors.
>> 
>> Orin
>> orin8...@gmail.com
>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/orinks
>> Skype: orin1112
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 22, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Chris Moore  wrote:
>> 
>>> John,
>>> 
>>> I am not negative, I just live in the real world.
>>> 
>>> If you require very basic small spreadsheets, with voiceover quirks 
>>> compared to complex large  Excel spreadsheets, then fine.  A word processor 
>>> offering full Microsoft document support which is the industry standard? 
>>> None of the word processors you mention can't hold a torch to Microsoft 
>>> Word and can't even produce headings and tables which can be read by 
>>> voiceover.  Keynotes accessibility is also below par, so Powerpoint is out 
>>> of the question.  Open Office is also not even a viable option on the Mac.
>>> 
>>> There are also no accessible WYSWYG HTML editors on the Mac which support 
>>> VO, you are stud with either stuck with applications for marking down for 
>>> use  with a CMS, or basic RTF editors.  
>>> 
>>> The Mac does the basics, some of us users have more demanding requirement.  
>>> Is that a bad thing?
>>> 
>>> All these tasks can be achieved if you have enough vision not to require 
>>> Voiceover, is it too much to ask for Voiceover users to expect the same 
>>> level of productivity as our sighted Mac users?  I do not think I am being 
>>> negative at all.
>>> 
>>> Chris 
>>> 
>>> On 22 Jul 2013, at 18:00, John Panarese  wrote:
>>> 
 I still don't know what you mean that people can't use the Mac in a 
 professional environment.  I think this is strictly your opinion and not 
 anything based on fact.  There are at least a half dozen high end word 
 processing applications, including iText, Pages Multi Markdown Composer.  
 Additionally, there are two spreadsheet alternatives that can be used 
 accessibly.  As I said, I have trained people who use their Macs for 
 business.  To say VoiceOver is not on par with JAWS or a windows screen 
 reader is a very narrow viewpoint.  Yes, Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard, 
 I could not have argued that pint, but not any more.  I guess my 
 experience as a trainer gives me a much wider perspective, but as was 
 initially said, everyone is entitled to their opinions.  I'm just glad 
 there are a lot of people who don't see things in such a negative way.
 
 
 Take Care
 
 John D. Panarese
 Director
 Mac for the Blind
 Tel, (631) 724-4479
 Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
 Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com
 
 APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION
 
 AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE
 
 MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT
 
 
 
 
 On Jul 22, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Chris Moore  wrote:
 
> John,
> 
> Tiger was almost 9 years ago, that is a long time ago, so  for the Mac in 
> 2013 still not being able to provide a fully accessible business level or 

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[John Panarese]

   I think that is one.  To be honest, I don't have the time right now to start 
searching archives and list serves, but I know there were solutions offered to 
web design Chris is not taking into account.  The only really "strong" point 
that has been made is in regard to text tables.  Otherwise, as I said, there 
are solutions out there.  Search the archives here or if you are on other 
lists.  Those are the kinds of questions that come up all of the time, and 
there is always someone who offers an app that no one knows about or does not 
get attention that the other common ones have.  I know someone, for example, 
found an app pretty comparable to MS Word access with VoiceOver or, at least, 
found something pretty close to what some high end users needed.  The problem 
with being subscribed to eight lists dealing with the Mac or iDevices is you 
can hardly recall who said what on which list.


Take Care

John D. Panarese
Director
Mac for the Blind
Tel, (631) 724-4479
Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com

APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION

AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE

MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT




On Jul 22, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Orin  wrote:

> Hi,
> What about RapidWeaver? I've heard of several people using it, but I haven't 
> figured it out. There's also another popular one that I forgot the name of. 
> These are Wisiwig editors.
> 
> Orin
> orin8...@gmail.com
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/orinks
> Skype: orin1112
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 22, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Chris Moore  wrote:
> 
>> John,
>> 
>> I am not negative, I just live in the real world.
>> 
>> If you require very basic small spreadsheets, with voiceover quirks compared 
>> to complex large  Excel spreadsheets, then fine.  A word processor offering 
>> full Microsoft document support which is the industry standard? None of the 
>> word processors you mention can't hold a torch to Microsoft Word and can't 
>> even produce headings and tables which can be read by voiceover.  Keynotes 
>> accessibility is also below par, so Powerpoint is out of the question.  Open 
>> Office is also not even a viable option on the Mac.
>> 
>> There are also no accessible WYSWYG HTML editors on the Mac which support 
>> VO, you are stud with either stuck with applications for marking down for 
>> use  with a CMS, or basic RTF editors.  
>> 
>> The Mac does the basics, some of us users have more demanding requirement.  
>> Is that a bad thing?
>> 
>> All these tasks can be achieved if you have enough vision not to require 
>> Voiceover, is it too much to ask for Voiceover users to expect the same 
>> level of productivity as our sighted Mac users?  I do not think I am being 
>> negative at all.
>> 
>> Chris 
>> 
>> On 22 Jul 2013, at 18:00, John Panarese  wrote:
>> 
>>>  I still don't know what you mean that people can't use the Mac in a 
>>> professional environment.  I think this is strictly your opinion and not 
>>> anything based on fact.  There are at least a half dozen high end word 
>>> processing applications, including iText, Pages Multi Markdown Composer.  
>>> Additionally, there are two spreadsheet alternatives that can be used 
>>> accessibly.  As I said, I have trained people who use their Macs for 
>>> business.  To say VoiceOver is not on par with JAWS or a windows screen 
>>> reader is a very narrow viewpoint.  Yes, Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard, I 
>>> could not have argued that pint, but not any more.  I guess my experience 
>>> as a trainer gives me a much wider perspective, but as was initially said, 
>>> everyone is entitled to their opinions.  I'm just glad there are a lot of 
>>> people who don't see things in such a negative way.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Take Care
>>> 
>>> John D. Panarese
>>> Director
>>> Mac for the Blind
>>> Tel, (631) 724-4479
>>> Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
>>> Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com
>>> 
>>> APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION
>>> 
>>> AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE
>>> 
>>> MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 22, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Chris Moore  wrote:
>>> 
 John,
 
 Tiger was almost 9 years ago, that is a long time ago, so  for the Mac in 
 2013 still not being able to provide a fully accessible business level or 
 decent level education class word processing and spreadsheet solution is 
 not acceptable in my book.  Also, I do not think Voiceover is on par with 
 JAWS or WindowEyes.  Granted these products do cost extra and Voiceover is 
 built right in, but Apple need to get their core products to fully support 
 it.
 
 Don't get me wrong, I am a complete mac fan boy, but for anyone to think 
 the Mac with a screen reader can compete in the world of productivity is 
 deluded and taking the mac fan boy cool are to the extreme.
 Voiceover needs to be more polished and so doe

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Orin]

Hi,
What about RapidWeaver? I've heard of several people using it, but I haven't 
figured it out. There's also another popular one that I forgot the name of. 
These are Wisiwig editors.

Orin
orin8...@gmail.com
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/orinks
Skype: orin1112



On Jul 22, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Chris Moore  wrote:

> John,
> 
> I am not negative, I just live in the real world.
> 
> If you require very basic small spreadsheets, with voiceover quirks compared 
> to complex large  Excel spreadsheets, then fine.  A word processor offering 
> full Microsoft document support which is the industry standard? None of the 
> word processors you mention can't hold a torch to Microsoft Word and can't 
> even produce headings and tables which can be read by voiceover.  Keynotes 
> accessibility is also below par, so Powerpoint is out of the question.  Open 
> Office is also not even a viable option on the Mac.
> 
> There are also no accessible WYSWYG HTML editors on the Mac which support VO, 
> you are stud with either stuck with applications for marking down for use  
> with a CMS, or basic RTF editors.  
> 
> The Mac does the basics, some of us users have more demanding requirement.  
> Is that a bad thing?
> 
> All these tasks can be achieved if you have enough vision not to require 
> Voiceover, is it too much to ask for Voiceover users to expect the same level 
> of productivity as our sighted Mac users?  I do not think I am being negative 
> at all.
> 
> Chris 
> 
> On 22 Jul 2013, at 18:00, John Panarese  wrote:
> 
>>   I still don't know what you mean that people can't use the Mac in a 
>> professional environment.  I think this is strictly your opinion and not 
>> anything based on fact.  There are at least a half dozen high end word 
>> processing applications, including iText, Pages Multi Markdown Composer.  
>> Additionally, there are two spreadsheet alternatives that can be used 
>> accessibly.  As I said, I have trained people who use their Macs for 
>> business.  To say VoiceOver is not on par with JAWS or a windows screen 
>> reader is a very narrow viewpoint.  Yes, Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard, I 
>> could not have argued that pint, but not any more.  I guess my experience as 
>> a trainer gives me a much wider perspective, but as was initially said, 
>> everyone is entitled to their opinions.  I'm just glad there are a lot of 
>> people who don't see things in such a negative way.
>> 
>> 
>> Take Care
>> 
>> John D. Panarese
>> Director
>> Mac for the Blind
>> Tel, (631) 724-4479
>> Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
>> Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com
>> 
>> APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION
>> 
>> AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE
>> 
>> MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 22, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Chris Moore  wrote:
>> 
>>> John,
>>> 
>>> Tiger was almost 9 years ago, that is a long time ago, so  for the Mac in 
>>> 2013 still not being able to provide a fully accessible business level or 
>>> decent level education class word processing and spreadsheet solution is 
>>> not acceptable in my book.  Also, I do not think Voiceover is on par with 
>>> JAWS or WindowEyes.  Granted these products do cost extra and Voiceover is 
>>> built right in, but Apple need to get their core products to fully support 
>>> it.
>>> 
>>> Don't get me wrong, I am a complete mac fan boy, but for anyone to think 
>>> the Mac with a screen reader can compete in the world of productivity is 
>>> deluded and taking the mac fan boy cool are to the extreme.
>>> Voiceover needs to be more polished and so does Zoom.  The Mac is a more 
>>> mature product than iOS, but at the core ios IS still Mac OS X but compiled 
>>> to run on a ARM processor instead.
>>> 
>>> I think it has gone beyond us all kissing Apple's ass and being ever so 
>>> grateful for them building in a screen reader, they now need to make the 
>>> product more useful if it is going to be taken more serious.  It really is 
>>> a shame that a third party has not developed their own screen reader for 
>>> the Mac which is able to take things to the next level for the professional.
>>> 
>>> I guess you and I live in different worlds John and have different needs.
>>> 
>>> I respect your opinion however and I am happy the Mac meets your needs.
>>> 
>>> Chris 
>>> 
>>> On 21 Jul 2013, at 17:01, John Panarese  wrote:
>>> 
 You are comparing two different animals, Chris.  I also think you are 
 being a bit dismissive.  Remember that iOS accessibility came very early 
 in the game while accessibility with Mac OS X has been going on at the 
 same time Apple has literally been rewriting all of their core 
 applications.  Of course iOS is going to seem like it's taken leaps and 
 bounds forward with accessibility over the last few years.  There have 
 been several additions to VoiceOver on the Mac, but they don't measure up 
 the same comparing them to basic iO

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Chris Moore]

Gordon,

Thanks for your response, and I have no desire to completely jump ship to 
Windows.  I use Windows for work and Mac for pleasure (and some work).  I am a 
mac boy, and will just keep nagging them until they eventually listen.

Tables is ok for basic stuff, but try using JAWS with Excel, it is actually 
very good and has some very intuitive features to enable you to get the job 
done much quicker.  As Donal pointed out there are a number of things which can 
be done with Voiceover, but if you are in a hurry and need to perform tasks as 
quick as your sighted colleagues, then you have to use the tools which are fit 
for purpose.

I have not looked at tables for a while and not sure if it has a jump to 
feature, supports VB script, Excel macros, and is able to read graphs and 
charts.  Part of my job requires me to analyse and work with a lot of data and 
figures.

It would be my dream to be able to ditch Windows all together.

Gordon, have you taken a look at Sony's Sound Forge for the Mac yet?  I believe 
there is a free trial available.  I wonder if that might help you in anyway at 
all.  


Thanks 

Chris 
On 22 Jul 2013, at 19:58, Gordon Smith  wrote:

> Chris
> 
> I agree with your comments regarding Office products and I did try to make 
> that clear in a previous post.  There are issues with VoiceOver, Pages and 
> possibly OS X in general which I do find frustrating.  Yes, I think it would 
> be good if Apple could do something about these issues.  But as you rightly 
> say it isn't all their fault.
> 
> I frequently need to use Word documents and am just beginning to have to use 
> spreadsheets.  So, why can't you use Tables for your spreadsheets?  Is there 
> some issue which Tables cannot handle either?
> 
> Yes, I agree to an extent that the cry of "Accessibility out of the box" has 
> to end somewhere with Apple and VoiceOver.  Yes, it would be great to see PDF 
> documents work as well under OS X as they do under Windows.  As I'm sure you 
> know there is a war going on between Apple and Adobe. From memory this 
> started when Apple refused to permit Flash on the iOS platform.  Actually I 
> have a copy of DreamWeaver CS5.5 for Windows, and have never got it to work 
> yet.  But that's another issue.  Maybe we should continue this off list.  I 
> share most of John's views regarding accessibility but I do also agree with 
> your comments regarding the Office situation.  That said, Apple could just as 
> easily turn around and say it isn't incumbent upon them to support something 
> which a competitor is doing just because it's widely used.  Whether or not 
> you agree with that is really not important.  But Apple could opt to made a 
> stand here and, over time, we may see a shift in the way offices work.  But
  I
>  think that shift is some way off as yet.
> 
> However, all we can really do is encourage Apple to improve.  Like many on 
> list, I love my Macs and will never go back to Windows for most of my leisure 
> activities with one exception, broadcasting.  To my knowledge, there is no 
> really professional product out there for Mac oS.  Zulu DJ and DJay4 are more 
> designed with club DJ's in mind than radio presenters and it really shows. 
> There is one option in DJay4 which the authors suggest "Could" be used for 
> short jingles and trails, for example.  But it still doesn't cut it.  you 
> have to have an iTunes library to use either of those products, which means 
> that you have no option but to maintain your use of iTunes.
> 
> The only really professional-looking product out there for the Mac is 
> "Mebgaset Pro".  But sadly, that application is, with the exception of 
> keyboard shortcuts, totally inaccessible to VoiceOver and even it relies on 
> your iTunes library.  So sadly there is nothing out there which comes close 
> to meeting those needs.
> 
> Anyway, I take your points Chris but I urge you to stay with it, as I am 
> convinced that change is just around the corner.
> 
> As for requiring more than the basicsm, as do I.  But that said, unless you 
> pay an arm and a leg, I'm not so sure that's much more than basic editing out 
> there for Windows either.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> <--- Gordon Smith --->
> 
> 
> 
> Telephone:
> 
> United Kingdom:  Free Phone:
> 0800 8620538
> 
> Mobile:
> +44 7907 823971
> 
> Europe and other non-specified:
> +44 1642 688095
> 
> United States Of America And Canada:
> +1 646 9151493
> Or:
> +1 209 436 9443
> 
> Vic.  Australia:
> +61 38 8205930
> Vic.  Australia
> +61 39 0284505
> 
> Fax:
> +44 1642 365123
> 
> Follow Us On Twitter:
> 
> 
> Skype:
> 
> 
> --
> 
> On 22 Jul 2013, at 19:38, Chris Moore  wrote:
>> 
>> Apple's hardware is not for debate here, it is second to none and there is 
>> nothing on the pC side that even comes close to the Mac line in my opinion.  
>> Yes, Apple did us a huge favour in bringing build in accessibility.  Does it 
>> have to end there t

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Chris Moore]

Gordon,

Brian did not say he was blasted on this list, he said he was blasted on the 
deluded Mac visionaries list where they are all happy happy smiley Mac people.

Chris 

On 22 Jul 2013, at 18:22, Gordon Smith  wrote:

> Hi Brian
> 
> A couple of things here.  Firstly, I dispute your assertion that you were 
> "Blasted" on this list.  In this group we have a policy of no flaming, no 
> blasting.  So if you can highlight any specifics I would like to know about 
> it.  Of course, what you may consider blasting is possibly not what others 
> would.  So let me just use this opportunity to remind everybody that no 
> flaming is accepted.  We have 0 tolerance of that kind of behaviour.
> 
> Regarding Apple and accessibility, would you mind getting back to me off list 
> and highlighting precisely as possible, the steps you are taking to reproduce 
> this behaviour?  I am not disputing it, neither am I saying you're mistaken.  
> However, I would be most interested to know exactly what you're doing and 
> what your expectation was when you did this.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> <--- Gordon Smith --->
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Telephone:
> 
> United Kingdom:  Free Phone:
> 0800 8620538
> 
> Mobile:
> +44 7907 823971
> 
> Europe and other non-specified:
> +44 1642 688095
> 
> United States Of America And Canada:
> +1 646 9151493
> Or:
> +1 209 436 9443
> 
> Vic.  Australia:
> +61 38 8205930
> Vic.  Australia
> +61 39 0284505
> 
> Fax:
> +44 1642 365123
> 
> Follow Us On Twitter:
> 
> 
> Skype:
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 20 Jul 2013, at 18:30, Brian Fischler  wrote:
> 
>> Hey All,
>> 
>> Funny as the message you got from Apple on Logic is the same exact response 
>> I have gotten for years from Apple about the awful accessibility of Numbers 
>> which I now no longer use. I got blasted on this list for listing several 
>> issues with mountain lion and voiceover when it came out. One of the biggest 
>> being how they reversed webspots in safari. How in the world could this not 
>> have been noticed if they are actually testing accessibility? In Lion you 
>> would hit VO command right bracket and you could go down down a page to the 
>> next webspot, not in Mountain Lion they reversed it which makes no sense as 
>> you click VO command right bracket and instead of going down and to the 
>> right, right bracket takes you to the left, and left bracket takes you to 
>> the right. Ok, simple enough to fix I assumed, and assumed in the next 
>> mountain lion update it would be corrected. Nope, they never fixed what 
>> seemed to me to probably be one of the easiest things to fix. There have 
>> been virtually zero improvements to VO in any mountain lion updates. I will 
>> continue using my mac, and do love my mac, but have been very disappointed 
>> with VO improvements in mountain lion, and will be hesitant to upgrade to 
>> maverick as I am worried or concerned about more idiotic VO things that 
>> Apple obviously doesn't test. I'm sorry but you can't tell me this webspot 
>> thing was tested as anyone who used it before mountain lion would have 
>> noticed immediately in mountain lion how broken it was. Just my thoughts. 
>> On Jul 20, 2013, at 6:25 AM, Chris Moore  wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree, Mac OS X accessibility sucks.  iOS is far superior and the Mac is 
>>> half baked and very buggy.  I could never recommend the Mac as a productive 
>>> tool for the blind.
>>> 
>>> I don't think we should give up though, we need to keep up the pressure.  
>>> We also need to shame Apple by bringing it to the attention of mainstream 
>>> press  Let's try and convince someone to publish an article on how crap 
>>> Voiceover is on the Mac.  We only ever seem to get a slight update each 
>>> time a new OS comes out.
>>> 
>>> We need to keep making a noise and more of it.
>>> 
>>> Chris 
>>> On 20 Jul 2013, at 11:08, Dónal Fitzpatrick  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Chris,
 
 Dealing with both your mails in one here.  I wholeheartedly agree.  I've 
 been convinced for almost 2 years that Apple sees their job in terms of 
 accessibility for the blind, specifically on OSX but to a lesser extent on 
 IOS, as done.  They can walk into any courtroom and claim, with 
 justification, that they are in compliance with ADA, section 508, EU 
 disability legislation etc.  Afraid in my view OSX accessibility is dying 
 on the vine so we may as well accept that what we have now is as good as 
 it's going to get.
 
 Cheers,
 
 Dónal
 On 20 Jul 2013, at 06:31, "Chris Gilland"  wrote:
 
> And, though I cannot go into the specifics due to NDA, I'll say this, and 
> under no circumstances anything more.  I've reported through bug reporter 
> many many bugs as I'm an Apple Dev both for IOS and for OSX.  In both 
> cases a lot of the bugs had to do with things in IOS7 and in Mavericks 
> both which are broken accessibility wis

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Chris Moore]

Donal,

I am pleased you can understand where I am coming from, and I agree with 
everything you have said also.

Chris 

On 22 Jul 2013, at 19:48, Dónal Fitzpatrick  wrote:

> And I wholeheartedly agree with Chris's various mails. I am an academic who 
> depends on presentation software.  Is Keynote accessible when in "slideshow" 
> mode? no.  Can one use something like LaTeX in conjunction with the Beamer 
> package to produce slides in PDF?  Yes.  Is preview accessible in full-screen 
> single-page mode?  No.
> 
> Now let's look at software development.  Xcode, it is true, has come on very 
> very slightly but is still lightyears behind IDes on other platforms.  Chris 
> also cites the lack of WYSIWYG editors for HTML (such as Dreamweaver).  These 
> do exist for sighted users but even iWeb was horrific last time I looked.  
> For me this isn't a problem because I develop mainly by writing HTML, CSS, 
> PHP, Javascript and/or JQuery by hand, howver it was an issue for a blind 
> university student of my acquaintance.
> 
> Just to clear up points from your earlier mails, with over 20 years of 
> software development and 7 of mac use I can assure you that I do know both 
> the MAc and the Screenreader to a sufficient standard to make a judgement 
> call which is not in alignment with yours.  this is fine and makes lists like 
> this more interesting places to be.  I also do not have a personal agenda 
> I've no time for that bovine excrement.  I'm simply making the point that 
> unless Voiceover, on mac, makes significant strides forward, it will start to 
> lag behind other Screenreaders in terms of functionality and also in terms of 
> the feature set.  Longstanding bugs in basic applications need to be ironed 
> out.  For example, I use Numbers for extremely large complex spreadsheets for 
> the entry of student grade data.  Voiceover simply does not interact well 
> with it.  It becomes sluggish, and there is no way (without going through 
> lots of hoops) to do something like the following:
> 1. enter a student ID number;
> 2. have the focus jump directly to the cell where this ID resides.
> 
> Can this be done?  Absolutely.  Is it therefore accessible? Yes.  Is it 
> usable in an environment where hard and fast deadlines apply?  in my view, no.
> 
> I'm delighted the apple mac family serves you and your students; good luck to 
> you all.  But to suggest that the envelope should not be pushed, and design 
> decisions should not be questioned wouldn't' have brought us the IOS 
> accessibility we have and I think unless Apple take a long hard look at VO on 
> the mac, then what we have won't improve.  My final point is that I've spent 
> the last few months doing what's known as a heuristic evaluation of this kind 
> of thing so I could go off on a purely academic tangent to support my 
> argument but it would bore everyone rigid.
> 
> Cheers and let's keep this interesting discussion going.
> 
> Dónal
> On 22 Jul 2013, at 19:27, Chris Moore  wrote:
> 
>> John,
>> 
>> I am not negative, I just live in the real world.
>> 
>> If you require very basic small spreadsheets, with voiceover quirks compared 
>> to complex large  Excel spreadsheets, then fine.  A word processor offering 
>> full Microsoft document support which is the industry standard? None of the 
>> word processors you mention can't hold a torch to Microsoft Word and can't 
>> even produce headings and tables which can be read by voiceover.  Keynotes 
>> accessibility is also below par, so Powerpoint is out of the question.  Open 
>> Office is also not even a viable option on the Mac.
>> 
>> There are also no accessible WYSWYG HTML editors on the Mac which support 
>> VO, you are stud with either stuck with applications for marking down for 
>> use  with a CMS, or basic RTF editors.  
>> 
>> The Mac does the basics, some of us users have more demanding requirement.  
>> Is that a bad thing?
>> 
>> All these tasks can be achieved if you have enough vision not to require 
>> Voiceover, is it too much to ask for Voiceover users to expect the same 
>> level of productivity as our sighted Mac users?  I do not think I am being 
>> negative at all.
>> 
>> Chris 
>> 
>> On 22 Jul 2013, at 18:00, John Panarese  wrote:
>> 
>>>  I still don't know what you mean that people can't use the Mac in a 
>>> professional environment.  I think this is strictly your opinion and not 
>>> anything based on fact.  There are at least a half dozen high end word 
>>> processing applications, including iText, Pages Multi Markdown Composer.  
>>> Additionally, there are two spreadsheet alternatives that can be used 
>>> accessibly.  As I said, I have trained people who use their Macs for 
>>> business.  To say VoiceOver is not on par with JAWS or a windows screen 
>>> reader is a very narrow viewpoint.  Yes, Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard, I 
>>> could not have argued that pint, but not any more.  I guess my experience 
>>> as a trainer gives me a much wider perspectiv

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Gordon Smith]

Chris

I agree with your comments regarding Office products and I did try to make that 
clear in a previous post.  There are issues with VoiceOver, Pages and possibly 
OS X in general which I do find frustrating.  Yes, I think it would be good if 
Apple could do something about these issues.  But as you rightly say it isn't 
all their fault.

I frequently need to use Word documents and am just beginning to have to use 
spreadsheets.  So, why can't you use Tables for your spreadsheets?  Is there 
some issue which Tables cannot handle either?

Yes, I agree to an extent that the cry of "Accessibility out of the box" has to 
end somewhere with Apple and VoiceOver.  Yes, it would be great to see PDF 
documents work as well under OS X as they do under Windows.  As I'm sure you 
know there is a war going on between Apple and Adobe. From memory this started 
when Apple refused to permit Flash on the iOS platform.  Actually I have a copy 
of DreamWeaver CS5.5 for Windows, and have never got it to work yet.  But 
that's another issue.  Maybe we should continue this off list.  I share most of 
John's views regarding accessibility but I do also agree with your comments 
regarding the Office situation.  That said, Apple could just as easily turn 
around and say it isn't incumbent upon them to support something which a 
competitor is doing just because it's widely used.  Whether or not you agree 
with that is really not important.  But Apple could opt to made a stand here 
and, over time, we may see a shift in the way offices work.  But I
  think that shift is some way off as yet.

However, all we can really do is encourage Apple to improve.  Like many on 
list, I love my Macs and will never go back to Windows for most of my leisure 
activities with one exception, broadcasting.  To my knowledge, there is no 
really professional product out there for Mac oS.  Zulu DJ and DJay4 are more 
designed with club DJ's in mind than radio presenters and it really shows. 
There is one option in DJay4 which the authors suggest "Could" be used for 
short jingles and trails, for example.  But it still doesn't cut it.  you have 
to have an iTunes library to use either of those products, which means that you 
have no option but to maintain your use of iTunes.

The only really professional-looking product out there for the Mac is "Mebgaset 
Pro".  But sadly, that application is, with the exception of keyboard 
shortcuts, totally inaccessible to VoiceOver and even it relies on your iTunes 
library.  So sadly there is nothing out there which comes close to meeting 
those needs.

Anyway, I take your points Chris but I urge you to stay with it, as I am 
convinced that change is just around the corner.

As for requiring more than the basicsm, as do I.  But that said, unless you pay 
an arm and a leg, I'm not so sure that's much more than basic editing out there 
for Windows either.

Kind regards

<--- Gordon Smith --->



Telephone:

United Kingdom:  Free Phone:
0800 8620538

Mobile:
+44 7907 823971

Europe and other non-specified:
+44 1642 688095

United States Of America And Canada:
+1 646 9151493
Or:
+1 209 436 9443

Vic.  Australia:
+61 38 8205930
Vic.  Australia
+61 39 0284505

Fax:
+44 1642 365123

Follow Us On Twitter:


Skype:


--

On 22 Jul 2013, at 19:38, Chris Moore  wrote:
> 
> Apple's hardware is not for debate here, it is second to none and there is 
> nothing on the pC side that even comes close to the Mac line in my opinion.  
> Yes, Apple did us a huge favour in bringing build in accessibility.  Does it 
> have to end there though?  
> 
> The majority of falling PC sales are due to the increased interest in tablets 
> and large screen phones.  Macs still fortunately have their loyal customers, 
> and you have to add that the Macbook Air is a wonderful laptop to own to run 
> both Windows and OS X.  We actually have those laptops to run Windows on.  As 
> an organisation we would not consider the mac for much else, as Microsoft 
> office accessibility is just not there (and this is not solely down to Apple).
> 
> Is it so wrong to expect more from Apple? we pay for the hardware and 
> software and come on, it is 2013!  Windows is fortunate to have various 
> screen readers, the Mac only has one, so why can't it support high end 
> products and enable more productivity?
> 
> I guess I require more from my Mac, than just using Skype, Text Edit and 
> basic audio editing.

<--- Mac Access At Mac Access Dot Net --->

To reply to this post, please address your message to mac-access@mac-access.net

You can find an archive of all messages postedto the Mac-Access forum at 
either the list's own dedicated web archive:

or at the public Mail Archive:
.
Subscribe to the list's RSS feed from:

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Dónal Fitzpatrick]

And I wholeheartedly agree with Chris's various mails. I am an academic who 
depends on presentation software.  Is Keynote accessible when in "slideshow" 
mode? no.  Can one use something like LaTeX in conjunction with the Beamer 
package to produce slides in PDF?  Yes.  Is preview accessible in full-screen 
single-page mode?  No.

Now let's look at software development.  Xcode, it is true, has come on very 
very slightly but is still lightyears behind IDes on other platforms.  Chris 
also cites the lack of WYSIWYG editors for HTML (such as Dreamweaver).  These 
do exist for sighted users but even iWeb was horrific last time I looked.  For 
me this isn't a problem because I develop mainly by writing HTML, CSS, PHP, 
Javascript and/or JQuery by hand, howver it was an issue for a blind university 
student of my acquaintance.

Just to clear up points from your earlier mails, with over 20 years of software 
development and 7 of mac use I can assure you that I do know both the MAc and 
the Screenreader to a sufficient standard to make a judgement call which is not 
in alignment with yours.  this is fine and makes lists like this more 
interesting places to be.  I also do not have a personal agenda I've no time 
for that bovine excrement.  I'm simply making the point that unless Voiceover, 
on mac, makes significant strides forward, it will start to lag behind other 
Screenreaders in terms of functionality and also in terms of the feature set.  
Longstanding bugs in basic applications need to be ironed out.  For example, I 
use Numbers for extremely large complex spreadsheets for the entry of student 
grade data.  Voiceover simply does not interact well with it.  It becomes 
sluggish, and there is no way (without going through lots of hoops) to do 
something like the following:
1. enter a student ID number;
2. have the focus jump directly to the cell where this ID resides.

Can this be done?  Absolutely.  Is it therefore accessible? Yes.  Is it usable 
in an environment where hard and fast deadlines apply?  in my view, no.

I'm delighted the apple mac family serves you and your students; good luck to 
you all.  But to suggest that the envelope should not be pushed, and design 
decisions should not be questioned wouldn't' have brought us the IOS 
accessibility we have and I think unless Apple take a long hard look at VO on 
the mac, then what we have won't improve.  My final point is that I've spent 
the last few months doing what's known as a heuristic evaluation of this kind 
of thing so I could go off on a purely academic tangent to support my argument 
but it would bore everyone rigid.

Cheers and let's keep this interesting discussion going.

Dónal
On 22 Jul 2013, at 19:27, Chris Moore  wrote:

> John,
> 
> I am not negative, I just live in the real world.
> 
> If you require very basic small spreadsheets, with voiceover quirks compared 
> to complex large  Excel spreadsheets, then fine.  A word processor offering 
> full Microsoft document support which is the industry standard? None of the 
> word processors you mention can't hold a torch to Microsoft Word and can't 
> even produce headings and tables which can be read by voiceover.  Keynotes 
> accessibility is also below par, so Powerpoint is out of the question.  Open 
> Office is also not even a viable option on the Mac.
> 
> There are also no accessible WYSWYG HTML editors on the Mac which support VO, 
> you are stud with either stuck with applications for marking down for use  
> with a CMS, or basic RTF editors.  
> 
> The Mac does the basics, some of us users have more demanding requirement.  
> Is that a bad thing?
> 
> All these tasks can be achieved if you have enough vision not to require 
> Voiceover, is it too much to ask for Voiceover users to expect the same level 
> of productivity as our sighted Mac users?  I do not think I am being negative 
> at all.
> 
> Chris 
> 
> On 22 Jul 2013, at 18:00, John Panarese  wrote:
> 
>>   I still don't know what you mean that people can't use the Mac in a 
>> professional environment.  I think this is strictly your opinion and not 
>> anything based on fact.  There are at least a half dozen high end word 
>> processing applications, including iText, Pages Multi Markdown Composer.  
>> Additionally, there are two spreadsheet alternatives that can be used 
>> accessibly.  As I said, I have trained people who use their Macs for 
>> business.  To say VoiceOver is not on par with JAWS or a windows screen 
>> reader is a very narrow viewpoint.  Yes, Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard, I 
>> could not have argued that pint, but not any more.  I guess my experience as 
>> a trainer gives me a much wider perspective, but as was initially said, 
>> everyone is entitled to their opinions.  I'm just glad there are a lot of 
>> people who don't see things in such a negative way.
>> 
>> 
>> Take Care
>> 
>> John D. Panarese
>> Director
>> Mac for the Blind
>> Tel, (631) 724-4479
>> Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
>> Webs

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Chris Moore]

Let's hope John you know something I don't (and I genuinely mean that) and I 
know you probably can't say anymore at the risk of breaching NDA.

I would love improved accessibility on Pages and Numbers etc or even tables and 
headings support for other Word processors.

I guess I will have to stick my dummy back in my mouth and sit and wait.

Chris 

On 22 Jul 2013, at 19:44, John Panarese  wrote:

>It's funny though.  People are still doing tasks with spreadsheets and 
> word processing with what is available.  Again, you can be overly critical or 
> you can be realistic about things.  Where there is a will, there is a way.  
> In a couple of months, this debate will probably have no merit anyway.  
> 
> 
> Take Care
> 
> John D. Panarese
> Director
> Mac for the Blind
> Tel, (631) 724-4479
> Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
> Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com
> 
> APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION
> 
> AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE
> 
> MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 22, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Chris Moore  wrote:
> 
>> John,
>> 
>> I am not negative, I just live in the real world.
>> 
>> If you require very basic small spreadsheets, with voiceover quirks compared 
>> to complex large  Excel spreadsheets, then fine.  A word processor offering 
>> full Microsoft document support which is the industry standard? None of the 
>> word processors you mention can't hold a torch to Microsoft Word and can't 
>> even produce headings and tables which can be read by voiceover.  Keynotes 
>> accessibility is also below par, so Powerpoint is out of the question.  Open 
>> Office is also not even a viable option on the Mac.
>> 
>> There are also no accessible WYSWYG HTML editors on the Mac which support 
>> VO, you are stud with either stuck with applications for marking down for 
>> use  with a CMS, or basic RTF editors.  
>> 
>> The Mac does the basics, some of us users have more demanding requirement.  
>> Is that a bad thing?
>> 
>> All these tasks can be achieved if you have enough vision not to require 
>> Voiceover, is it too much to ask for Voiceover users to expect the same 
>> level of productivity as our sighted Mac users?  I do not think I am being 
>> negative at all.
>> 
>> Chris 
>> 
>> On 22 Jul 2013, at 18:00, John Panarese  wrote:
>> 
>>>  I still don't know what you mean that people can't use the Mac in a 
>>> professional environment.  I think this is strictly your opinion and not 
>>> anything based on fact.  There are at least a half dozen high end word 
>>> processing applications, including iText, Pages Multi Markdown Composer.  
>>> Additionally, there are two spreadsheet alternatives that can be used 
>>> accessibly.  As I said, I have trained people who use their Macs for 
>>> business.  To say VoiceOver is not on par with JAWS or a windows screen 
>>> reader is a very narrow viewpoint.  Yes, Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard, I 
>>> could not have argued that pint, but not any more.  I guess my experience 
>>> as a trainer gives me a much wider perspective, but as was initially said, 
>>> everyone is entitled to their opinions.  I'm just glad there are a lot of 
>>> people who don't see things in such a negative way.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Take Care
>>> 
>>> John D. Panarese
>>> Director
>>> Mac for the Blind
>>> Tel, (631) 724-4479
>>> Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
>>> Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com
>>> 
>>> APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION
>>> 
>>> AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE
>>> 
>>> MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 22, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Chris Moore  wrote:
>>> 
 John,
 
 Tiger was almost 9 years ago, that is a long time ago, so  for the Mac in 
 2013 still not being able to provide a fully accessible business level or 
 decent level education class word processing and spreadsheet solution is 
 not acceptable in my book.  Also, I do not think Voiceover is on par with 
 JAWS or WindowEyes.  Granted these products do cost extra and Voiceover is 
 built right in, but Apple need to get their core products to fully support 
 it.
 
 Don't get me wrong, I am a complete mac fan boy, but for anyone to think 
 the Mac with a screen reader can compete in the world of productivity is 
 deluded and taking the mac fan boy cool are to the extreme.
 Voiceover needs to be more polished and so does Zoom.  The Mac is a more 
 mature product than iOS, but at the core ios IS still Mac OS X but 
 compiled to run on a ARM processor instead.
 
 I think it has gone beyond us all kissing Apple's ass and being ever so 
 grateful for them building in a screen reader, they now need to make the 
 product more useful if it is going to be taken more serious.  It really is 
 a shame that a third party has not developed their own screen reader for 
 the Mac whic

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Chris Moore]

Gordon,

I rest my case.  I have reported numerous bugs to Apple over the years, and 
even beta tested previous OS builds.  Very few of the bugs were addressed.

I suppose Apple could argue that not many blind users may require 
administration services, probably a small audience (despite it opening the 
possibilities for employment).  I would expect Apple to consider offering good 
accessibility support for iWork and Garageband / Logic etc as these are areas 
where you would imagine more blind users would require access to.

It would not take much effort on Apple's part to improve Voiceover support.  
Your example with the server is a fine example.  It just seems Apple do not 
seem to be prepared to put enough resources into accessibility, they are just 
happy to cover the absolute basics.

How often do we write to accessibility at Apple and get fobbed off with a 
generic response.

It is starting to become boring.

Chris 

On 22 Jul 2013, at 18:39, Gordon Smith  wrote:

> I think it's just a matter of who you're fortunate enough to happen to deal 
> with in either case.  But let me highlight another of these unfortunate 
> issues with Apple.  About 3 years ago now, I highlighted an accessibility 
> issue with Apple's technical people regarding an issue in their Server OS.  
> Specifically, the inability for a VoiceOver user to import SSL certificates 
> into the OS.  I spent several hours on the phone, at my expense, discussing 
> it with their engineers in the states.  At that time, peak time phone calls 
> to the US were quite expensive.  But I considered it sufficiently important 
> an issue to justify the expense and effort.
> 
> I was promised that, when the next edition of Server was released, (that 
> being Lion), this issue would be addressed.
> 
> The release of Lion came, and I, like many other people using OS X for 
> server-based solutions at the time, was astonished to find out that Apple had 
> merged Server into their regular operating system, doing away with the 
> purchase of a dedicated OS.  In some ways this makes sense, as many of the 
> functions available in the server version of OS X are actually present, but 
> disabled, in the client OS.  Many again were actually squashed out, to be 
> fair, and I had no problem at all with the concept of a separate purchase.
> 
> Anyway, Lion Server came along and with it came the self same bug that I had 
> discussed with Apple at the time when Snow Leopard Server was current.  No 
> effort whatsoever had been made it seems to have the file boxes which were 
> missing exposed to VoiceOver.
> 
> In Mountain Lion, the server was placed in the App Store as a purchase.  In 
> fact, it is no longer part of the OS, but it is an add-on which you buy, no 
> need for a separate OS.  However, in Server version 2.0 which is the current 
> incarnation, that very same bug which I reported directly to engineering at 
> the time of Snow Leopard still exists today.  In fact, the GUI has been 
> stripped quite a lot.  There are several functions which I cannot find a way 
> to enable.  I won't go into all of this on list because it is bound nopt to 
> be of interest to most.  But all the same, I'm disappointed that Apple seems 
> to have totally disregarded the report of such a serious bug, and for server 
> administrators it is a serious bug.
> 
> I have an AppleCare plan on one of our Server machines.  So I wrote a 
> detailed description of the problem to Apple in the hope that somebody might 
> listen.  Sadly, I never even got a response, save the usual automated thank 
> you response.  They don't seem to see this as a serious enough issue to waste 
> their time fixing.  This really is a serious problem and I won't waste more 
> of my time and money trying to explain it to them.  I have yet to find a 
> work-around for it and, if there is one in the OS from Terminal or somewhere, 
> I'd very much like to know about it.
> 
> I even looked at third-party server solutions which run on top of OS X.  But 
> the price of the most comprehensive of them is simply too high to justify.  
> It's costing Lynne and I a grey deal of money to keep Mac Access going as it 
> is.  We don't mind that fact, (although a little help now and then wouldn't 
> go unappreciated). :)
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> <--- Gordon Smith --->
> 
> 
> 
> Telephone:
> 
> United Kingdom:  Free Phone:
> 0800 8620538
> 
> Mobile:
> +44 7907 823971
> 
> Europe and other non-specified:
> +44 1642 688095
> 
> United States Of America And Canada:
> +1 646 9151493
> Or:
> +1 209 436 9443
> 
> Vic.  Australia:
> +61 38 8205930
> Vic.  Australia
> +61 39 0284505
> 
> Fax:
> +44 1642 365123
> 
> Follow Us On Twitter:
> 
> 
> Skype:
> 
> 
> --
> 
> On 20 Jul 2013, at 19:17, Josh Gregory  wrote:
> 
>> Definitely agree, and I would hate to see them go the way of humanware, not 
>> saying that they or Apple are bad companies, but both companies responses 

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Chris Moore]

I totally share your pain with Numbers.  I do a great deal of spreadsheet work 
and would love to use Numbers.  The applications is a nightmare, and such a let 
down with Voiceover.  Real shame, as it actually has the potential to be very 
good.  I prefer to use a spreadsheet that can cope with more than a few cells 
before constantly announcing how busy it is. 
On 22 Jul 2013, at 19:20, Brian Fischler  wrote:

> Hey Gordon,
> 
> First, my bad, as I get all these emails in one mail folder, and just assumed 
> this was the Google group, macvisionaries where several months ago I got 
> blasted on that one for expressing my opinion about numbers having so many 
> issues. I have not been blasted on this list which I enjoy very much, and 
> love people having a difference of opinions and being able to express them in 
> a polite way. I will reach out to you later and explain my issue with 
> numbers, but I stopped using it a few months ago because of these issues, and 
> I pretty much summed it up in a post here, but will send you something later 
> today. Thanks
> On Jul 22, 2013, at 1:22 PM, Gordon Smith  wrote:
> 
>> Hi Brian
>> 
>> A couple of things here.  Firstly, I dispute your assertion that you were 
>> "Blasted" on this list.  In this group we have a policy of no flaming, no 
>> blasting.  So if you can highlight any specifics I would like to know about 
>> it.  Of course, what you may consider blasting is possibly not what others 
>> would.  So let me just use this opportunity to remind everybody that no 
>> flaming is accepted.  We have 0 tolerance of that kind of behaviour.
>> 
>> Regarding Apple and accessibility, would you mind getting back to me off 
>> list and highlighting precisely as possible, the steps you are taking to 
>> reproduce this behaviour?  I am not disputing it, neither am I saying you're 
>> mistaken.  However, I would be most interested to know exactly what you're 
>> doing and what your expectation was when you did this.
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> Kind regards
>> 
>> <--- Gordon Smith --->
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Telephone:
>> 
>> United Kingdom:  Free Phone:
>> 0800 8620538
>> 
>> Mobile:
>> +44 7907 823971
>> 
>> Europe and other non-specified:
>> +44 1642 688095
>> 
>> United States Of America And Canada:
>> +1 646 9151493
>> Or:
>> +1 209 436 9443
>> 
>> Vic.  Australia:
>> +61 38 8205930
>> Vic.  Australia
>> +61 39 0284505
>> 
>> Fax:
>> +44 1642 365123
>> 
>> Follow Us On Twitter:
>> 
>> 
>> Skype:
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 20 Jul 2013, at 18:30, Brian Fischler  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hey All,
>>> 
>>> Funny as the message you got from Apple on Logic is the same exact response 
>>> I have gotten for years from Apple about the awful accessibility of Numbers 
>>> which I now no longer use. I got blasted on this list for listing several 
>>> issues with mountain lion and voiceover when it came out. One of the 
>>> biggest being how they reversed webspots in safari. How in the world could 
>>> this not have been noticed if they are actually testing accessibility? In 
>>> Lion you would hit VO command right bracket and you could go down down a 
>>> page to the next webspot, not in Mountain Lion they reversed it which makes 
>>> no sense as you click VO command right bracket and instead of going down 
>>> and to the right, right bracket takes you to the left, and left bracket 
>>> takes you to the right. Ok, simple enough to fix I assumed, and assumed in 
>>> the next mountain lion update it would be corrected. Nope, they never fixed 
>>> what seemed to me to probably be one of the easiest things to fix. There 
>>> have been virtually zero improvements to VO in any mountain lion updates. I 
>>> will continue using my mac, and do love my mac, but have been very 
>>> disappointed with VO improvements in mountain lion, and will be hesitant to 
>>> upgrade to maverick as I am worried or concerned about more idiotic VO 
>>> things that Apple obviously doesn't test. I'm sorry but you can't tell me 
>>> this webspot thing was tested as anyone who used it before mountain lion 
>>> would have noticed immediately in mountain lion how broken it was. Just my 
>>> thoughts. 
>>> On Jul 20, 2013, at 6:25 AM, Chris Moore  wrote:
>>> 
 I agree, Mac OS X accessibility sucks.  iOS is far superior and the Mac is 
 half baked and very buggy.  I could never recommend the Mac as a 
 productive tool for the blind.
 
 I don't think we should give up though, we need to keep up the pressure.  
 We also need to shame Apple by bringing it to the attention of mainstream 
 press  Let's try and convince someone to publish an article on how crap 
 Voiceover is on the Mac.  We only ever seem to get a slight update each 
 time a new OS comes out.
 
 We need to keep making a noise and more of it.
 
 Chris 
 On 20 Jul 2013, at 11:08, Dónal Fitzpatrick  
 wrote:
 
> Chris,
> 
> Deal

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[John Panarese]

It's funny though.  People are still doing tasks with spreadsheets and word 
processing with what is available.  Again, you can be overly critical or you 
can be realistic about things.  Where there is a will, there is a way.  In a 
couple of months, this debate will probably have no merit anyway.  


Take Care

John D. Panarese
Director
Mac for the Blind
Tel, (631) 724-4479
Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com

APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION

AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE

MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT




On Jul 22, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Chris Moore  wrote:

> John,
> 
> I am not negative, I just live in the real world.
> 
> If you require very basic small spreadsheets, with voiceover quirks compared 
> to complex large  Excel spreadsheets, then fine.  A word processor offering 
> full Microsoft document support which is the industry standard? None of the 
> word processors you mention can't hold a torch to Microsoft Word and can't 
> even produce headings and tables which can be read by voiceover.  Keynotes 
> accessibility is also below par, so Powerpoint is out of the question.  Open 
> Office is also not even a viable option on the Mac.
> 
> There are also no accessible WYSWYG HTML editors on the Mac which support VO, 
> you are stud with either stuck with applications for marking down for use  
> with a CMS, or basic RTF editors.  
> 
> The Mac does the basics, some of us users have more demanding requirement.  
> Is that a bad thing?
> 
> All these tasks can be achieved if you have enough vision not to require 
> Voiceover, is it too much to ask for Voiceover users to expect the same level 
> of productivity as our sighted Mac users?  I do not think I am being negative 
> at all.
> 
> Chris 
> 
> On 22 Jul 2013, at 18:00, John Panarese  wrote:
> 
>>   I still don't know what you mean that people can't use the Mac in a 
>> professional environment.  I think this is strictly your opinion and not 
>> anything based on fact.  There are at least a half dozen high end word 
>> processing applications, including iText, Pages Multi Markdown Composer.  
>> Additionally, there are two spreadsheet alternatives that can be used 
>> accessibly.  As I said, I have trained people who use their Macs for 
>> business.  To say VoiceOver is not on par with JAWS or a windows screen 
>> reader is a very narrow viewpoint.  Yes, Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard, I 
>> could not have argued that pint, but not any more.  I guess my experience as 
>> a trainer gives me a much wider perspective, but as was initially said, 
>> everyone is entitled to their opinions.  I'm just glad there are a lot of 
>> people who don't see things in such a negative way.
>> 
>> 
>> Take Care
>> 
>> John D. Panarese
>> Director
>> Mac for the Blind
>> Tel, (631) 724-4479
>> Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
>> Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com
>> 
>> APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION
>> 
>> AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE
>> 
>> MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 22, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Chris Moore  wrote:
>> 
>>> John,
>>> 
>>> Tiger was almost 9 years ago, that is a long time ago, so  for the Mac in 
>>> 2013 still not being able to provide a fully accessible business level or 
>>> decent level education class word processing and spreadsheet solution is 
>>> not acceptable in my book.  Also, I do not think Voiceover is on par with 
>>> JAWS or WindowEyes.  Granted these products do cost extra and Voiceover is 
>>> built right in, but Apple need to get their core products to fully support 
>>> it.
>>> 
>>> Don't get me wrong, I am a complete mac fan boy, but for anyone to think 
>>> the Mac with a screen reader can compete in the world of productivity is 
>>> deluded and taking the mac fan boy cool are to the extreme.
>>> Voiceover needs to be more polished and so does Zoom.  The Mac is a more 
>>> mature product than iOS, but at the core ios IS still Mac OS X but compiled 
>>> to run on a ARM processor instead.
>>> 
>>> I think it has gone beyond us all kissing Apple's ass and being ever so 
>>> grateful for them building in a screen reader, they now need to make the 
>>> product more useful if it is going to be taken more serious.  It really is 
>>> a shame that a third party has not developed their own screen reader for 
>>> the Mac which is able to take things to the next level for the professional.
>>> 
>>> I guess you and I live in different worlds John and have different needs.
>>> 
>>> I respect your opinion however and I am happy the Mac meets your needs.
>>> 
>>> Chris 
>>> 
>>> On 21 Jul 2013, at 17:01, John Panarese  wrote:
>>> 
 You are comparing two different animals, Chris.  I also think you are 
 being a bit dismissive.  Remember that iOS accessibility came very early 
 in the game while accessibility with Mac OS X has been going on at th

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Chris Moore]

Gordon,

Apple's hardware is not for debate here, it is second to none and there is 
nothing on the pC side that even comes close to the Mac line in my opinion.  
Yes, Apple did us a huge favour in bringing build in accessibility.  Does it 
have to end there though?  

The majority of falling PC sales are due to the increased interest in tablets 
and large screen phones.  Macs still fortunately have their loyal customers, 
and you have to add that the Macbook Air is a wonderful laptop to own to run 
both Windows and OS X.  We actually have those laptops to run Windows on.  As 
an organisation we would not consider the mac for much else, as Microsoft 
office accessibility is just not there (and this is not solely down to Apple).

Is it so wrong to expect more from Apple? we pay for the hardware and software 
and come on, it is 2013!  Windows is fortunate to have various screen readers, 
the Mac only has one, so why can't it support high end products and enable more 
productivity?

I guess I require more from my Mac, than just using Skype, Text Edit and basic 
audio editing.

Chris 

On 22 Jul 2013, at 19:04, Gordon Smith  wrote:

> Hi John
> 
> Very well taken.  You an I know only too well that some of the presumptuous 
> statements in this thread are way off the mark.  I won't say more because I'd 
> head for trouble if I did.  But although I do have some issues with Apple, 
> come on, just look at the big picture.  Just look at what Microsoft is now 
> doing with Skype!  Some of the features which used to be free now have to be 
> paid for.  You may say that isn't on topic with accessibility and you'd be 
> right.  But I'm trying to make the point that it's the tip of the ice burg.  
> Furthermore, have you noticed any real accessibility improvements lately on 
> any platform within the Skype domain?
> 
> I'm not going to et into a my toy's better than yours dispute and I urge 
> others not too since it would take them off topic for this group.  But let's 
> be realistic about this.  Remember that Apple did the accessibility industry 
> a huge huge favour from the consumer's perspective by adding accessibility 
> right out of the box to their desktop, notebook and mobile products.  Just 
> look at the price drops within some of the Windows vendors' products 
> recently, for instance.  It is no coincidence folks, those price drops were 
> driven by market forces.  Visually impaired people are joining the Apple 
> fraternity in their droves.  The accessibility developers and dealers whose 
> products rely on other platforms are doing their very best to compete with 
> Apple, and they are frequently starting false rumours.  Why?  It's obvious 
> really, some of them are running scared.  Apple represents a significant 
> number of consumers who have deserted the more traditional accessibility 
> platforms.  Why?  Well let's just sum it up by a statement made by Oscar 
> Wilde, suitably modified to fit within current context:
> To lose one customer is understandable.  To lose a thousand seems like 
> carelessness. :)
> 
> Yes, I have my issues with Apple.  I made that clear in my post of about half 
> an hour ago.  But I will never again clutter up my bench space with hardware 
> which cannot be serviced without paying several dealers and developers 
> grossly inflated fees for what is, after all, an inferior product.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> <--- Gordon Smith --->
> 
> 
> 
> Telephone:
> 
> United Kingdom:  Free Phone:
> 0800 8620538
> 
> Mobile:
> +44 7907 823971
> 
> Europe and other non-specified:
> +44 1642 688095
> 
> United States Of America And Canada:
> +1 646 9151493
> Or:
> +1 209 436 9443
> 
> Vic.  Australia:
> +61 38 8205930
> Vic.  Australia
> +61 39 0284505
> 
> Fax:
> +44 1642 365123
> 
> Follow Us On Twitter:
> 
> 
> Skype:
> 
> 
> --
> 
> On 20 Jul 2013, at 19:28, John Panarese  wrote:
> 
>> OK, maybe I am missing something here, but I am reading some of the most 
>> ridiculous and assumption ridden posts in this thread.  How in the world can 
>> you say the Mac is half-baked?  The Mac is just as accessible as Windows at 
>> this point, and for whatever weaknesses you can point out in OS X, I can 
>> equally find in Windows.  I know blind people productively using the Mac 
>> every day for their work, and I can give you several testimonials from 
>> former Windows users who will flat out tell you that Mac accessibility is 
>> superior to that in Windows hands down.  I just had this conversation with a 
>> client who is a former JAWS user who was using Windows since 1994 and still 
>> uses Windows because he paid for a SMA.
>> 
>> In any event, to assume Apple is done with accessibility or has done so to 
>> legally get by is a generally opinionated statement that has no factual or 
>> concrete evidence beyond personal belief.  How far the Mac has come since 
>> Tiger, including Lion to Mountain Lion, is proof enough, and if it’s not 

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Chris Moore]

John,

I am not negative, I just live in the real world.

If you require very basic small spreadsheets, with voiceover quirks compared to 
complex large  Excel spreadsheets, then fine.  A word processor offering full 
Microsoft document support which is the industry standard? None of the word 
processors you mention can't hold a torch to Microsoft Word and can't even 
produce headings and tables which can be read by voiceover.  Keynotes 
accessibility is also below par, so Powerpoint is out of the question.  Open 
Office is also not even a viable option on the Mac.

There are also no accessible WYSWYG HTML editors on the Mac which support VO, 
you are stud with either stuck with applications for marking down for use  with 
a CMS, or basic RTF editors.  

The Mac does the basics, some of us users have more demanding requirement.  Is 
that a bad thing?

All these tasks can be achieved if you have enough vision not to require 
Voiceover, is it too much to ask for Voiceover users to expect the same level 
of productivity as our sighted Mac users?  I do not think I am being negative 
at all.

Chris 

On 22 Jul 2013, at 18:00, John Panarese  wrote:

>I still don't know what you mean that people can't use the Mac in a 
> professional environment.  I think this is strictly your opinion and not 
> anything based on fact.  There are at least a half dozen high end word 
> processing applications, including iText, Pages Multi Markdown Composer.  
> Additionally, there are two spreadsheet alternatives that can be used 
> accessibly.  As I said, I have trained people who use their Macs for 
> business.  To say VoiceOver is not on par with JAWS or a windows screen 
> reader is a very narrow viewpoint.  Yes, Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard, I 
> could not have argued that pint, but not any more.  I guess my experience as 
> a trainer gives me a much wider perspective, but as was initially said, 
> everyone is entitled to their opinions.  I'm just glad there are a lot of 
> people who don't see things in such a negative way.
> 
> 
> Take Care
> 
> John D. Panarese
> Director
> Mac for the Blind
> Tel, (631) 724-4479
> Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
> Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com
> 
> APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION
> 
> AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE
> 
> MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 22, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Chris Moore  wrote:
> 
>> John,
>> 
>> Tiger was almost 9 years ago, that is a long time ago, so  for the Mac in 
>> 2013 still not being able to provide a fully accessible business level or 
>> decent level education class word processing and spreadsheet solution is not 
>> acceptable in my book.  Also, I do not think Voiceover is on par with JAWS 
>> or WindowEyes.  Granted these products do cost extra and Voiceover is built 
>> right in, but Apple need to get their core products to fully support it.
>> 
>> Don't get me wrong, I am a complete mac fan boy, but for anyone to think the 
>> Mac with a screen reader can compete in the world of productivity is deluded 
>> and taking the mac fan boy cool are to the extreme.
>> Voiceover needs to be more polished and so does Zoom.  The Mac is a more 
>> mature product than iOS, but at the core ios IS still Mac OS X but compiled 
>> to run on a ARM processor instead.
>> 
>> I think it has gone beyond us all kissing Apple's ass and being ever so 
>> grateful for them building in a screen reader, they now need to make the 
>> product more useful if it is going to be taken more serious.  It really is a 
>> shame that a third party has not developed their own screen reader for the 
>> Mac which is able to take things to the next level for the professional.
>> 
>> I guess you and I live in different worlds John and have different needs.
>> 
>> I respect your opinion however and I am happy the Mac meets your needs.
>> 
>> Chris 
>> 
>> On 21 Jul 2013, at 17:01, John Panarese  wrote:
>> 
>>> You are comparing two different animals, Chris.  I also think you are being 
>>> a bit dismissive.  Remember that iOS accessibility came very early in the 
>>> game while accessibility with Mac OS X has been going on at the same time 
>>> Apple has literally been rewriting all of their core applications.  Of 
>>> course iOS is going to seem like it's taken leaps and bounds forward with 
>>> accessibility over the last few years.  There have been several additions 
>>> to VoiceOver on the Mac, but they don't measure up the same comparing them 
>>> to basic iOS accessibility advances.  At the same time, though, progress 
>>> with Mac OS has continued and for those of use who remember Tiger, I think 
>>> it's safe to say that Apple has definitely made the Mac just as viable as a 
>>> Windows solution.  I have no doubts that Mavericks will only improve 
>>> accessibility and things will only go forward.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Take Care
>>> 
>>> John D. Panarese
>>> Director
>>> Mac for the Blind
>>> Tel, (631) 72

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Brian Fischler]

Hey Gordon,

First, my bad, as I get all these emails in one mail folder, and just assumed 
this was the Google group, macvisionaries where several months ago I got 
blasted on that one for expressing my opinion about numbers having so many 
issues. I have not been blasted on this list which I enjoy very much, and love 
people having a difference of opinions and being able to express them in a 
polite way. I will reach out to you later and explain my issue with numbers, 
but I stopped using it a few months ago because of these issues, and I pretty 
much summed it up in a post here, but will send you something later today. 
Thanks
On Jul 22, 2013, at 1:22 PM, Gordon Smith  wrote:

> Hi Brian
> 
> A couple of things here.  Firstly, I dispute your assertion that you were 
> "Blasted" on this list.  In this group we have a policy of no flaming, no 
> blasting.  So if you can highlight any specifics I would like to know about 
> it.  Of course, what you may consider blasting is possibly not what others 
> would.  So let me just use this opportunity to remind everybody that no 
> flaming is accepted.  We have 0 tolerance of that kind of behaviour.
> 
> Regarding Apple and accessibility, would you mind getting back to me off list 
> and highlighting precisely as possible, the steps you are taking to reproduce 
> this behaviour?  I am not disputing it, neither am I saying you're mistaken.  
> However, I would be most interested to know exactly what you're doing and 
> what your expectation was when you did this.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> <--- Gordon Smith --->
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Telephone:
> 
> United Kingdom:  Free Phone:
> 0800 8620538
> 
> Mobile:
> +44 7907 823971
> 
> Europe and other non-specified:
> +44 1642 688095
> 
> United States Of America And Canada:
> +1 646 9151493
> Or:
> +1 209 436 9443
> 
> Vic.  Australia:
> +61 38 8205930
> Vic.  Australia
> +61 39 0284505
> 
> Fax:
> +44 1642 365123
> 
> Follow Us On Twitter:
> 
> 
> Skype:
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 20 Jul 2013, at 18:30, Brian Fischler  wrote:
> 
>> Hey All,
>> 
>> Funny as the message you got from Apple on Logic is the same exact response 
>> I have gotten for years from Apple about the awful accessibility of Numbers 
>> which I now no longer use. I got blasted on this list for listing several 
>> issues with mountain lion and voiceover when it came out. One of the biggest 
>> being how they reversed webspots in safari. How in the world could this not 
>> have been noticed if they are actually testing accessibility? In Lion you 
>> would hit VO command right bracket and you could go down down a page to the 
>> next webspot, not in Mountain Lion they reversed it which makes no sense as 
>> you click VO command right bracket and instead of going down and to the 
>> right, right bracket takes you to the left, and left bracket takes you to 
>> the right. Ok, simple enough to fix I assumed, and assumed in the next 
>> mountain lion update it would be corrected. Nope, they never fixed what 
>> seemed to me to probably be one of the easiest things to fix. There have 
>> been virtually zero improvements to VO in any mountain lion updates. I will 
>> continue using my mac, and do love my mac, but have been very disappointed 
>> with VO improvements in mountain lion, and will be hesitant to upgrade to 
>> maverick as I am worried or concerned about more idiotic VO things that 
>> Apple obviously doesn't test. I'm sorry but you can't tell me this webspot 
>> thing was tested as anyone who used it before mountain lion would have 
>> noticed immediately in mountain lion how broken it was. Just my thoughts. 
>> On Jul 20, 2013, at 6:25 AM, Chris Moore  wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree, Mac OS X accessibility sucks.  iOS is far superior and the Mac is 
>>> half baked and very buggy.  I could never recommend the Mac as a productive 
>>> tool for the blind.
>>> 
>>> I don't think we should give up though, we need to keep up the pressure.  
>>> We also need to shame Apple by bringing it to the attention of mainstream 
>>> press  Let's try and convince someone to publish an article on how crap 
>>> Voiceover is on the Mac.  We only ever seem to get a slight update each 
>>> time a new OS comes out.
>>> 
>>> We need to keep making a noise and more of it.
>>> 
>>> Chris 
>>> On 20 Jul 2013, at 11:08, Dónal Fitzpatrick  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Chris,
 
 Dealing with both your mails in one here.  I wholeheartedly agree.  I've 
 been convinced for almost 2 years that Apple sees their job in terms of 
 accessibility for the blind, specifically on OSX but to a lesser extent on 
 IOS, as done.  They can walk into any courtroom and claim, with 
 justification, that they are in compliance with ADA, section 508, EU 
 disability legislation etc.  Afraid in my view OSX accessibility is dying 
 on the vine so we may as well accept that what we have now is as good as 
 it's going t

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Gordon Smith]

Hi John

Very well taken.  You an I know only too well that some of the presumptuous 
statements in this thread are way off the mark.  I won't say more because I'd 
head for trouble if I did.  But although I do have some issues with Apple, come 
on, just look at the big picture.  Just look at what Microsoft is now doing 
with Skype!  Some of the features which used to be free now have to be paid 
for.  You may say that isn't on topic with accessibility and you'd be right.  
But I'm trying to make the point that it's the tip of the ice burg.  
Furthermore, have you noticed any real accessibility improvements lately on any 
platform within the Skype domain?

I'm not going to et into a my toy's better than yours dispute and I urge others 
not too since it would take them off topic for this group.  But let's be 
realistic about this.  Remember that Apple did the accessibility industry a 
huge huge favour from the consumer's perspective by adding accessibility right 
out of the box to their desktop, notebook and mobile products.  Just look at 
the price drops within some of the Windows vendors' products recently, for 
instance.  It is no coincidence folks, those price drops were driven by market 
forces.  Visually impaired people are joining the Apple fraternity in their 
droves.  The accessibility developers and dealers whose products rely on other 
platforms are doing their very best to compete with Apple, and they are 
frequently starting false rumours.  Why?  It's obvious really, some of them are 
running scared.  Apple represents a significant number of consumers who have 
deserted the more traditional accessibility platforms.  Why?  Well let's just 
sum it up by a statement made by Oscar Wilde, suitably modified to fit within 
current context:
To lose one customer is understandable.  To lose a thousand seems like 
carelessness. :)

Yes, I have my issues with Apple.  I made that clear in my post of about half 
an hour ago.  But I will never again clutter up my bench space with hardware 
which cannot be serviced without paying several dealers and developers grossly 
inflated fees for what is, after all, an inferior product.

Kind regards

<--- Gordon Smith --->



Telephone:

United Kingdom:  Free Phone:
0800 8620538

Mobile:
+44 7907 823971

Europe and other non-specified:
+44 1642 688095

United States Of America And Canada:
+1 646 9151493
Or:
+1 209 436 9443

Vic.  Australia:
+61 38 8205930
Vic.  Australia
+61 39 0284505

Fax:
+44 1642 365123

Follow Us On Twitter:


Skype:


--

On 20 Jul 2013, at 19:28, John Panarese  wrote:

>  OK, maybe I am missing something here, but I am reading some of the most 
> ridiculous and assumption ridden posts in this thread.  How in the world can 
> you say the Mac is half-baked?  The Mac is just as accessible as Windows at 
> this point, and for whatever weaknesses you can point out in OS X, I can 
> equally find in Windows.  I know blind people productively using the Mac 
> every day for their work, and I can give you several testimonials from former 
> Windows users who will flat out tell you that Mac accessibility is superior 
> to that in Windows hands down.  I just had this conversation with a client 
> who is a former JAWS user who was using Windows since 1994 and still uses 
> Windows because he paid for a SMA.
> 
>  In any event, to assume Apple is done with accessibility or has done so to 
> legally get by is a generally opinionated statement that has no factual or 
> concrete evidence beyond personal belief.  How far the Mac has come since 
> Tiger, including Lion to Mountain Lion, is proof enough, and if it’s not 
> satisfactory enough to you, that is your problem and not a general reflection 
> of the state of accessibility among most blind Mac users.  Is it perfect?  Of 
> course not.  I can list the flaws as readily as anyone else, especially since 
> I train folks to use the Mac every day.  However, as I said, I can list just 
> as many in Windows, if not more in some regard.  Also, well, show me an 
> operating system the blind can use with perfection.   We can go on and on 
> about our accessibility gripes about every operating system, but in many 
> cases, the reality does not truly reflect our narrow world views of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Take Care
> 
> John D. Panarese
> Director
> Mac for the Blind
> Tel, (631) 724-4479
> Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
> Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com
> 
> APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION
> 
> AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE
> 
> MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 20, 2013, at 6:31 AM, Dónal Fitzpatrick  
> wrote:
> 
>> Chris,
>> 
>> Just to be clear I think they've done a stellar job on IOS.  Sure there are 
>> things I'd like to see, things I'd have done differently; but that applies 
>> to my own development work (in retrospect) as well.
>> 
>> The reality is that four and

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Gordon Smith]

I think it's just a matter of who you're fortunate enough to happen to deal 
with in either case.  But let me highlight another of these unfortunate issues 
with Apple.  About 3 years ago now, I highlighted an accessibility issue with 
Apple's technical people regarding an issue in their Server OS.  Specifically, 
the inability for a VoiceOver user to import SSL certificates into the OS.  I 
spent several hours on the phone, at my expense, discussing it with their 
engineers in the states.  At that time, peak time phone calls to the US were 
quite expensive.  But I considered it sufficiently important an issue to 
justify the expense and effort.

I was promised that, when the next edition of Server was released, (that being 
Lion), this issue would be addressed.

The release of Lion came, and I, like many other people using OS X for 
server-based solutions at the time, was astonished to find out that Apple had 
merged Server into their regular operating system, doing away with the purchase 
of a dedicated OS.  In some ways this makes sense, as many of the functions 
available in the server version of OS X are actually present, but disabled, in 
the client OS.  Many again were actually squashed out, to be fair, and I had no 
problem at all with the concept of a separate purchase.

Anyway, Lion Server came along and with it came the self same bug that I had 
discussed with Apple at the time when Snow Leopard Server was current.  No 
effort whatsoever had been made it seems to have the file boxes which were 
missing exposed to VoiceOver.

In Mountain Lion, the server was placed in the App Store as a purchase.  In 
fact, it is no longer part of the OS, but it is an add-on which you buy, no 
need for a separate OS.  However, in Server version 2.0 which is the current 
incarnation, that very same bug which I reported directly to engineering at the 
time of Snow Leopard still exists today.  In fact, the GUI has been stripped 
quite a lot.  There are several functions which I cannot find a way to enable.  
I won't go into all of this on list because it is bound nopt to be of interest 
to most.  But all the same, I'm disappointed that Apple seems to have totally 
disregarded the report of such a serious bug, and for server administrators it 
is a serious bug.

I have an AppleCare plan on one of our Server machines.  So I wrote a detailed 
description of the problem to Apple in the hope that somebody might listen.  
Sadly, I never even got a response, save the usual automated thank you 
response.  They don't seem to see this as a serious enough issue to waste their 
time fixing.  This really is a serious problem and I won't waste more of my 
time and money trying to explain it to them.  I have yet to find a work-around 
for it and, if there is one in the OS from Terminal or somewhere, I'd very much 
like to know about it.

I even looked at third-party server solutions which run on top of OS X.  But 
the price of the most comprehensive of them is simply too high to justify.  
It's costing Lynne and I a grey deal of money to keep Mac Access going as it 
is.  We don't mind that fact, (although a little help now and then wouldn't go 
unappreciated). :)

Kind regards

<--- Gordon Smith --->



Telephone:

United Kingdom:  Free Phone:
0800 8620538

Mobile:
+44 7907 823971

Europe and other non-specified:
+44 1642 688095

United States Of America And Canada:
+1 646 9151493
Or:
+1 209 436 9443

Vic.  Australia:
+61 38 8205930
Vic.  Australia
+61 39 0284505

Fax:
+44 1642 365123

Follow Us On Twitter:


Skype:


--

On 20 Jul 2013, at 19:17, Josh Gregory  wrote:

> Definitely agree, and I would hate to see them go the way of humanware, not 
> saying that they or Apple are bad companies, but both companies responses 
> could definitely be improved a bit.

<--- Mac Access At Mac Access Dot Net --->

To reply to this post, please address your message to mac-access@mac-access.net

You can find an archive of all messages postedto the Mac-Access forum at 
either the list's own dedicated web archive:

or at the public Mail Archive:
.
Subscribe to the list's RSS feed from:


As the Mac Access Dot Net administrators, we do our very best to ensure that 
the Mac-Access E-Mal list remains malware, spyware, Trojan, virus and 
worm-free.  However, this should in no way replace your own security strategy.  
We assume neither liability nor responsibility should something unpredictable 
happen.

Please remember to update your membership preferences periodically by visiting 
the list website at:

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Gordon Smith]

Hi Brian

A couple of things here.  Firstly, I dispute your assertion that you were 
"Blasted" on this list.  In this group we have a policy of no flaming, no 
blasting.  So if you can highlight any specifics I would like to know about it. 
 Of course, what you may consider blasting is possibly not what others would.  
So let me just use this opportunity to remind everybody that no flaming is 
accepted.  We have 0 tolerance of that kind of behaviour.

Regarding Apple and accessibility, would you mind getting back to me off list 
and highlighting precisely as possible, the steps you are taking to reproduce 
this behaviour?  I am not disputing it, neither am I saying you're mistaken.  
However, I would be most interested to know exactly what you're doing and what 
your expectation was when you did this.

Thank you.

Kind regards

<--- Gordon Smith --->




Telephone:

United Kingdom:  Free Phone:
0800 8620538

Mobile:
+44 7907 823971

Europe and other non-specified:
+44 1642 688095

United States Of America And Canada:
+1 646 9151493
Or:
+1 209 436 9443

Vic.  Australia:
+61 38 8205930
Vic.  Australia
+61 39 0284505

Fax:
+44 1642 365123

Follow Us On Twitter:


Skype:


--




On 20 Jul 2013, at 18:30, Brian Fischler  wrote:

> Hey All,
> 
> Funny as the message you got from Apple on Logic is the same exact response I 
> have gotten for years from Apple about the awful accessibility of Numbers 
> which I now no longer use. I got blasted on this list for listing several 
> issues with mountain lion and voiceover when it came out. One of the biggest 
> being how they reversed webspots in safari. How in the world could this not 
> have been noticed if they are actually testing accessibility? In Lion you 
> would hit VO command right bracket and you could go down down a page to the 
> next webspot, not in Mountain Lion they reversed it which makes no sense as 
> you click VO command right bracket and instead of going down and to the 
> right, right bracket takes you to the left, and left bracket takes you to the 
> right. Ok, simple enough to fix I assumed, and assumed in the next mountain 
> lion update it would be corrected. Nope, they never fixed what seemed to me 
> to probably be one of the easiest things to fix. There have been virtually 
> zero improvements to VO in any mountain lion updates. I will continue using 
> my mac, and do love my mac, but have been very disappointed with VO 
> improvements in mountain lion, and will be hesitant to upgrade to maverick as 
> I am worried or concerned about more idiotic VO things that Apple obviously 
> doesn't test. I'm sorry but you can't tell me this webspot thing was tested 
> as anyone who used it before mountain lion would have noticed immediately in 
> mountain lion how broken it was. Just my thoughts. 
> On Jul 20, 2013, at 6:25 AM, Chris Moore  wrote:
> 
>> I agree, Mac OS X accessibility sucks.  iOS is far superior and the Mac is 
>> half baked and very buggy.  I could never recommend the Mac as a productive 
>> tool for the blind.
>> 
>> I don't think we should give up though, we need to keep up the pressure.  We 
>> also need to shame Apple by bringing it to the attention of mainstream press 
>>  Let's try and convince someone to publish an article on how crap Voiceover 
>> is on the Mac.  We only ever seem to get a slight update each time a new OS 
>> comes out.
>> 
>> We need to keep making a noise and more of it.
>> 
>> Chris 
>> On 20 Jul 2013, at 11:08, Dónal Fitzpatrick  
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Chris,
>>> 
>>> Dealing with both your mails in one here.  I wholeheartedly agree.  I've 
>>> been convinced for almost 2 years that Apple sees their job in terms of 
>>> accessibility for the blind, specifically on OSX but to a lesser extent on 
>>> IOS, as done.  They can walk into any courtroom and claim, with 
>>> justification, that they are in compliance with ADA, section 508, EU 
>>> disability legislation etc.  Afraid in my view OSX accessibility is dying 
>>> on the vine so we may as well accept that what we have now is as good as 
>>> it's going to get.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Dónal
>>> On 20 Jul 2013, at 06:31, "Chris Gilland"  wrote:
>>> 
 And, though I cannot go into the specifics due to NDA, I'll say this, and 
 under no circumstances anything more.  I've reported through bug reporter 
 many many bugs as I'm an Apple Dev both for IOS and for OSX.  In both 
 cases a lot of the bugs had to do with things in IOS7 and in Mavericks 
 both which are broken accessibility wise.  Again, I can't legally reveal 
 what these things are, but the response I finally got back directly from 
 engineering, was something to the effect of we know about this bug, 
 however, what you are experiencing is exactly the way it's supposed to 
 behave, so learn how to deal with it.  Excuse me, but I paid 100 dollars 
 to become a dev, not a person whom won't be listen to!  F

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[John Panarese]

I still don't know what you mean that people can't use the Mac in a 
professional environment.  I think this is strictly your opinion and not 
anything based on fact.  There are at least a half dozen high end word 
processing applications, including iText, Pages Multi Markdown Composer.  
Additionally, there are two spreadsheet alternatives that can be used 
accessibly.  As I said, I have trained people who use their Macs for business.  
To say VoiceOver is not on par with JAWS or a windows screen reader is a very 
narrow viewpoint.  Yes, Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard, I could not have 
argued that pint, but not any more.  I guess my experience as a trainer gives 
me a much wider perspective, but as was initially said, everyone is entitled to 
their opinions.  I'm just glad there are a lot of people who don't see things 
in such a negative way.
  

Take Care

John D. Panarese
Director
Mac for the Blind
Tel, (631) 724-4479
Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com

APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION

AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE

MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT




On Jul 22, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Chris Moore  wrote:

> John,
> 
> Tiger was almost 9 years ago, that is a long time ago, so  for the Mac in 
> 2013 still not being able to provide a fully accessible business level or 
> decent level education class word processing and spreadsheet solution is not 
> acceptable in my book.  Also, I do not think Voiceover is on par with JAWS or 
> WindowEyes.  Granted these products do cost extra and Voiceover is built 
> right in, but Apple need to get their core products to fully support it.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I am a complete mac fan boy, but for anyone to think the 
> Mac with a screen reader can compete in the world of productivity is deluded 
> and taking the mac fan boy cool are to the extreme.
> Voiceover needs to be more polished and so does Zoom.  The Mac is a more 
> mature product than iOS, but at the core ios IS still Mac OS X but compiled 
> to run on a ARM processor instead.
> 
> I think it has gone beyond us all kissing Apple's ass and being ever so 
> grateful for them building in a screen reader, they now need to make the 
> product more useful if it is going to be taken more serious.  It really is a 
> shame that a third party has not developed their own screen reader for the 
> Mac which is able to take things to the next level for the professional.
> 
> I guess you and I live in different worlds John and have different needs.
> 
> I respect your opinion however and I am happy the Mac meets your needs.
> 
> Chris 
> 
> On 21 Jul 2013, at 17:01, John Panarese  wrote:
> 
>>  You are comparing two different animals, Chris.  I also think you are being 
>> a bit dismissive.  Remember that iOS accessibility came very early in the 
>> game while accessibility with Mac OS X has been going on at the same time 
>> Apple has literally been rewriting all of their core applications.  Of 
>> course iOS is going to seem like it's taken leaps and bounds forward with 
>> accessibility over the last few years.  There have been several additions to 
>> VoiceOver on the Mac, but they don't measure up the same comparing them to 
>> basic iOS accessibility advances.  At the same time, though, progress with 
>> Mac OS has continued and for those of use who remember Tiger, I think it's 
>> safe to say that Apple has definitely made the Mac just as viable as a 
>> Windows solution.  I have no doubts that Mavericks will only improve 
>> accessibility and things will only go forward.
>> 
>> 
>> Take Care
>> 
>> John D. Panarese
>> Director
>> Mac for the Blind
>> Tel, (631) 724-4479
>> Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
>> Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com
>> 
>> APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION
>> 
>> AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE
>> 
>> MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 21, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Chris Moore  wrote:
>> 
>>> John,
>>> 
>>> My reference to Mac OS X being half baked, was in comparison to iOS.  
>>> Voiceover has come on leaps and bounds on iOS since 2009.  Has Voiceover 
>>> come on leaps and bounds on Mac OS X since 2009?  There have been some 
>>> improvements yes, still numerous bugs and major missing features.  Probably 
>>> the only major VO features since 2009 has been support for drag and drop 
>>> and additional voices.
>>> 
>>> IS Mac better than Windows? out of the box, yes.  narrator has a long way 
>>> to go still, but has also come on leaps and bounds since Windows 7.  Is 
>>> Voiceover better or more advanced than JAWS? hell no.
>>> 
>>> Ok Voiceover is integrated into the OS, but not much use if many 
>>> applications don't adhere to standards for VO to support, and these 
>>> applications include many from Apple too.
>>> 
>>> In the real world, the Mac is fine for reading email, surfing the web, 
>>> using Skype, an

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Chris Moore]

John,

Tiger was almost 9 years ago, that is a long time ago, so  for the Mac in 2013 
still not being able to provide a fully accessible business level or decent 
level education class word processing and spreadsheet solution is not 
acceptable in my book.  Also, I do not think Voiceover is on par with JAWS or 
WindowEyes.  Granted these products do cost extra and Voiceover is built right 
in, but Apple need to get their core products to fully support it.

Don't get me wrong, I am a complete mac fan boy, but for anyone to think the 
Mac with a screen reader can compete in the world of productivity is deluded 
and taking the mac fan boy cool are to the extreme.
Voiceover needs to be more polished and so does Zoom.  The Mac is a more mature 
product than iOS, but at the core ios IS still Mac OS X but compiled to run on 
a ARM processor instead.

I think it has gone beyond us all kissing Apple's ass and being ever so 
grateful for them building in a screen reader, they now need to make the 
product more useful if it is going to be taken more serious.  It really is a 
shame that a third party has not developed their own screen reader for the Mac 
which is able to take things to the next level for the professional.

I guess you and I live in different worlds John and have different needs.

I respect your opinion however and I am happy the Mac meets your needs.

Chris 

On 21 Jul 2013, at 17:01, John Panarese  wrote:

>   You are comparing two different animals, Chris.  I also think you are being 
> a bit dismissive.  Remember that iOS accessibility came very early in the 
> game while accessibility with Mac OS X has been going on at the same time 
> Apple has literally been rewriting all of their core applications.  Of course 
> iOS is going to seem like it's taken leaps and bounds forward with 
> accessibility over the last few years.  There have been several additions to 
> VoiceOver on the Mac, but they don't measure up the same comparing them to 
> basic iOS accessibility advances.  At the same time, though, progress with 
> Mac OS has continued and for those of use who remember Tiger, I think it's 
> safe to say that Apple has definitely made the Mac just as viable as a 
> Windows solution.  I have no doubts that Mavericks will only improve 
> accessibility and things will only go forward.
> 
> 
> Take Care
> 
> John D. Panarese
> Director
> Mac for the Blind
> Tel, (631) 724-4479
> Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
> Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com
> 
> APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION
> 
> AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE
> 
> MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 21, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Chris Moore  wrote:
> 
>> John,
>> 
>> My reference to Mac OS X being half baked, was in comparison to iOS.  
>> Voiceover has come on leaps and bounds on iOS since 2009.  Has Voiceover 
>> come on leaps and bounds on Mac OS X since 2009?  There have been some 
>> improvements yes, still numerous bugs and major missing features.  Probably 
>> the only major VO features since 2009 has been support for drag and drop and 
>> additional voices.
>> 
>> IS Mac better than Windows? out of the box, yes.  narrator has a long way to 
>> go still, but has also come on leaps and bounds since Windows 7.  Is 
>> Voiceover better or more advanced than JAWS? hell no.
>> 
>> Ok Voiceover is integrated into the OS, but not much use if many 
>> applications don't adhere to standards for VO to support, and these 
>> applications include many from Apple too.
>> 
>> In the real world, the Mac is fine for reading email, surfing the web, using 
>> Skype, and chatting with friends or writing the odd blog.
>> 
>> iWork is a joke with voiceover and yes I know some users have a relevant 
>> level of success if you are prepared to jump through hoops.  You can't 
>> compare using iWork with voiceover and using JAWS or NVDA on Windows with 
>> Microsoft Office.  Nothing even comes close to it on the Mac in terms of 
>> accessibility.  VO can't even read what is exactly on the screen half the 
>> time, it makes too many assumptions.
>> 
>> To be productive I want to be able to use Dreamweaver, a decent word 
>> processor including tables, and use complex spreadsheets, access share 
>> point, use web development tools, edit MIDI data, read PDF documents that 
>> also include their elements such as headings, tables and enter data within 
>> form fields of a PDF.  The Mac with voiceover struggles with all of these 
>> tasks.  So in my opinions it is not very productive in the world of 
>> business.  Voiceover can't even read tables or headings in documents.
>> 
>> However, I still use my Mac on a daily basis as I do like the email client, 
>> and using the rotor in Safari, despite some web pages causing VO to crash 
>> and not being able to handle some pages correctly.
>> 
>> I guess we'll see how committed Apple are to accessibility on the Mac when 
>> the next release of iWork 

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[John Panarese]

   You are comparing two different animals, Chris.  I also think you are being 
a bit dismissive.  Remember that iOS accessibility came very early in the game 
while accessibility with Mac OS X has been going on at the same time Apple has 
literally been rewriting all of their core applications.  Of course iOS is 
going to seem like it's taken leaps and bounds forward with accessibility over 
the last few years.  There have been several additions to VoiceOver on the Mac, 
but they don't measure up the same comparing them to basic iOS accessibility 
advances.  At the same time, though, progress with Mac OS has continued and for 
those of use who remember Tiger, I think it's safe to say that Apple has 
definitely made the Mac just as viable as a Windows solution.  I have no doubts 
that Mavericks will only improve accessibility and things will only go forward.


Take Care

John D. Panarese
Director
Mac for the Blind
Tel, (631) 724-4479
Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com

APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION

AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE

MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT




On Jul 21, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Chris Moore  wrote:

> John,
> 
> My reference to Mac OS X being half baked, was in comparison to iOS.  
> Voiceover has come on leaps and bounds on iOS since 2009.  Has Voiceover come 
> on leaps and bounds on Mac OS X since 2009?  There have been some 
> improvements yes, still numerous bugs and major missing features.  Probably 
> the only major VO features since 2009 has been support for drag and drop and 
> additional voices.
> 
> IS Mac better than Windows? out of the box, yes.  narrator has a long way to 
> go still, but has also come on leaps and bounds since Windows 7.  Is 
> Voiceover better or more advanced than JAWS? hell no.
> 
> Ok Voiceover is integrated into the OS, but not much use if many applications 
> don't adhere to standards for VO to support, and these applications include 
> many from Apple too.
> 
> In the real world, the Mac is fine for reading email, surfing the web, using 
> Skype, and chatting with friends or writing the odd blog.
> 
> iWork is a joke with voiceover and yes I know some users have a relevant 
> level of success if you are prepared to jump through hoops.  You can't 
> compare using iWork with voiceover and using JAWS or NVDA on Windows with 
> Microsoft Office.  Nothing even comes close to it on the Mac in terms of 
> accessibility.  VO can't even read what is exactly on the screen half the 
> time, it makes too many assumptions.
> 
> To be productive I want to be able to use Dreamweaver, a decent word 
> processor including tables, and use complex spreadsheets, access share point, 
> use web development tools, edit MIDI data, read PDF documents that also 
> include their elements such as headings, tables and enter data within form 
> fields of a PDF.  The Mac with voiceover struggles with all of these tasks.  
> So in my opinions it is not very productive in the world of business.  
> Voiceover can't even read tables or headings in documents.
> 
> However, I still use my Mac on a daily basis as I do like the email client, 
> and using the rotor in Safari, despite some web pages causing VO to crash and 
> not being able to handle some pages correctly.
> 
> I guess we'll see how committed Apple are to accessibility on the Mac when 
> the next release of iWork comes out eh?  Very disappointed accessibility had 
> not been improved within Logic X, and I really hope VO support is enhanced in 
> both Pages and Numbers.  I would like to see the various bugs I have 
> submitted be plugged also.  Apple are quick to fix bugs which do not relate 
> to accessibility, and it seems the only time VO gets an update or has a bug 
> fixed is with each major OS update, which is very frustrating.
> 
> Apple have done very little to improve accessibility for low vision users 
> too.  This is why AI Squared have had to release ZoomText for Mac, as Apple's 
> built in offerings are so poor. An accessible Office suite from Microsoft and 
> accessible products from Adobe such as Reader and Flash would be welcome 
> (Flash not as important these days though). In the meantime, we can hardly 
> point the finger at Microsoft and Adobe if Apple can't even make all their 
> software accessible.
> 
> Those are the facts, and I have been a Mac user since 2000, but I admit only 
> as a blind user since 2010.
> 
> I have not tested Maverick, so I might b very surprised and learn that it is 
> truly wonderful.  Here's hoping eh?
> 
> Chris 
> 
> On 20 Jul 2013, at 19:28, John Panarese  wrote:
> 
>> OK, maybe I am missing something here, but I am reading some of the most 
>> ridiculous and assumption ridden posts in this thread.  How in the world can 
>> you say the Mac is half-baked?  The Mac is just as accessible as Windows at 
>> this point, and for whatever weaknesses you can point out in OS X, I can 
>> e

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Chris Moore]

John,

My reference to Mac OS X being half baked, was in comparison to iOS.  Voiceover 
has come on leaps and bounds on iOS since 2009.  Has Voiceover come on leaps 
and bounds on Mac OS X since 2009?  There have been some improvements yes, 
still numerous bugs and major missing features.  Probably the only major VO 
features since 2009 has been support for drag and drop and additional voices.

IS Mac better than Windows? out of the box, yes.  narrator has a long way to go 
still, but has also come on leaps and bounds since Windows 7.  Is Voiceover 
better or more advanced than JAWS? hell no.

Ok Voiceover is integrated into the OS, but not much use if many applications 
don't adhere to standards for VO to support, and these applications include 
many from Apple too.

In the real world, the Mac is fine for reading email, surfing the web, using 
Skype, and chatting with friends or writing the odd blog.

iWork is a joke with voiceover and yes I know some users have a relevant level 
of success if you are prepared to jump through hoops.  You can't compare using 
iWork with voiceover and using JAWS or NVDA on Windows with Microsoft Office.  
Nothing even comes close to it on the Mac in terms of accessibility.  VO can't 
even read what is exactly on the screen half the time, it makes too many 
assumptions.

To be productive I want to be able to use Dreamweaver, a decent word processor 
including tables, and use complex spreadsheets, access share point, use web 
development tools, edit MIDI data, read PDF documents that also include their 
elements such as headings, tables and enter data within form fields of a PDF.  
The Mac with voiceover struggles with all of these tasks.  So in my opinions it 
is not very productive in the world of business.  Voiceover can't even read 
tables or headings in documents.

However, I still use my Mac on a daily basis as I do like the email client, and 
using the rotor in Safari, despite some web pages causing VO to crash and not 
being able to handle some pages correctly.

I guess we'll see how committed Apple are to accessibility on the Mac when the 
next release of iWork comes out eh?  Very disappointed accessibility had not 
been improved within Logic X, and I really hope VO support is enhanced in both 
Pages and Numbers.  I would like to see the various bugs I have submitted be 
plugged also.  Apple are quick to fix bugs which do not relate to 
accessibility, and it seems the only time VO gets an update or has a bug fixed 
is with each major OS update, which is very frustrating.

Apple have done very little to improve accessibility for low vision users too.  
This is why AI Squared have had to release ZoomText for Mac, as Apple's built 
in offerings are so poor. An accessible Office suite from Microsoft and 
accessible products from Adobe such as Reader and Flash would be welcome (Flash 
not as important these days though). In the meantime, we can hardly point the 
finger at Microsoft and Adobe if Apple can't even make all their software 
accessible.

Those are the facts, and I have been a Mac user since 2000, but I admit only as 
a blind user since 2010.

I have not tested Maverick, so I might b very surprised and learn that it is 
truly wonderful.  Here's hoping eh?

Chris 

On 20 Jul 2013, at 19:28, John Panarese  wrote:

>  OK, maybe I am missing something here, but I am reading some of the most 
> ridiculous and assumption ridden posts in this thread.  How in the world can 
> you say the Mac is half-baked?  The Mac is just as accessible as Windows at 
> this point, and for whatever weaknesses you can point out in OS X, I can 
> equally find in Windows.  I know blind people productively using the Mac 
> every day for their work, and I can give you several testimonials from former 
> Windows users who will flat out tell you that Mac accessibility is superior 
> to that in Windows hands down.  I just had this conversation with a client 
> who is a former JAWS user who was using Windows since 1994 and still uses 
> Windows because he paid for a SMA.
> 
>  In any event, to assume Apple is done with accessibility or has done so to 
> legally get by is a generally opinionated statement that has no factual or 
> concrete evidence beyond personal belief.  How far the Mac has come since 
> Tiger, including Lion to Mountain Lion, is proof enough, and if it’s not 
> satisfactory enough to you, that is your problem and not a general reflection 
> of the state of accessibility among most blind Mac users.  Is it perfect?  Of 
> course not.  I can list the flaws as readily as anyone else, especially since 
> I train folks to use the Mac every day.  However, as I said, I can list just 
> as many in Windows, if not more in some regard.  Also, well, show me an 
> operating system the blind can use with perfection.   We can go on and on 
> about our accessibility gripes about every operating system, but in many 
> cases, the reality does not truly reflect our narrow world views of things.

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Brian Fischler]

Hey John, sounds like a plan. I'll give you a shout and we can discuss it off 
list.
On Jul 20, 2013, at 5:54 PM, John Panarese  wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>   One of these days, I'd like to sit down with you and hear this happen.  
> It's easier to actually hear things happening to get an idea of what is going 
> on.
> 
> 
> Take Care
> 
> John D. Panarese
> Director
> Mac for the Blind
> Tel, (631) 724-4479
> Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
> Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com
> 
> APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION
> 
> AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE
> 
> MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:48 PM, Brian Fischler  wrote:
> 
>> Hey John,
>> 
>> Yes, I agree who ever made the half baked comment seems to be going a little 
>> far.
>> 
>> As for me and numbers, I am not sure what my issue is as the final straw 
>> with using it was the constant VO crashing when using it. I am not sure if 
>> crashing is the appropriate term, what would happen is I would be working 
>> with a numbers document and VO would just completely stop working. I 
>> couldn't enter any text in to a cell. VO would stop reading and I would try 
>> and type anyway, thinking that maybe it was just a VO issue and text was 
>> being entered into a cell, but after quitting numbers and restarting I would 
>> go back to the cell and none of the text I had just entered was there. This 
>> started to occur more and more frequently, and when you are working with a 
>> cell that is at the midway point of a document it would take forever to get 
>> back there only to enter text in the cell move to the next cell and have the 
>> same thing occur all over again. I tried the various work arounds suggested 
>> to me, but had no luck with the find commands, and did find it a little 
>> ridiculous that I would have to go through about seven steps to do a certain 
>> find/search criteria including a VO F3 to toggle stuff off. I decided I was 
>> losing so much time spending on these issues that I just switched over to a 
>> database program. Now does that mean I don't know how to use a mac? No. Was 
>> it unbelievably frustrating and did I view it as way to time consuming? Yes. 
>> Did I think that Apple should come up with a better way and should have done 
>> so by now, yes. Does it mean if numbers is improved that I will go back to 
>> it? Yes. I don't see anything wrong with questioning apple at all. I'm not 
>> one of these people that thinks I need to bow down to Apple for everything 
>> they do, not everything they do is everyone going to agree with. They are a 
>> company in business to make money. Is their record with accessibility 
>> fantastic? Yes, is it perfect, no. Would I consider going back to windows? 
>> Not unless they came a long long way with improvements in accessibility.
>> On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:28 PM, John Panarese  wrote:
>> 
>>>  There is nothing wrong with opinions and I think I had tried to make that 
>>> clear in my post.  However, there is a difference between personal opinion 
>>> and making blanket statements that you feel reflect what everyone should 
>>> think.  If you think Mac accessibility is "half baked", well, as I said, 
>>> that is your opinion and you have a right to that.  Fortunately, the vast 
>>> number of blind Mac users surely don't see it that way, and I have yet to 
>>> encounter a client who has come to that conclusion in 3 years of doing Mac 
>>> training.
>>> 
>>>  As I told someone off list, and at the risk of being accused of flaming 
>>> anyone, from several years on lists and particularly being subscribed to 
>>> about five blind Mac or iOS user lists, when someone makes a statement 
>>> generalized to detract from the use of the Mac as a tool equal in value to 
>>> Windows, there are one of three reasons or positions at work:
>>> 
>>> 1. The user really has not learned the Mac well enough to be qualified to 
>>> make any blanket statements.  I can't tell you how many people I have met 
>>> who have had limited use or understanding of the Mac, but find it necessary 
>>> to tell people that the Mac isn't on the same accessibility grounds as 
>>> Windows.   It's like taking a car for a fifteen minute test drive and then 
>>> bashing the car on every category as if you have owned it for five years.  
>>> Does anyone remember the first AFB review on VoiceOver in 2005?
>>> 
>>> 2. The user has used the Mac, but still is at the point in which they don't 
>>> know enough about the Mac to truly speak with any expertise.  In other 
>>> words, as the expression goes, they know enough to be dangerous.  I often 
>>> see this in the world of Windows with JAWS or Window-Eyes users who want to 
>>> criticize the other camp.  You may know how to do a lot of things, but your 
>>> experience and knowledge is still lacking and you don't know enough about 
>>> what else can be done because you haven't taken the time to thoroughly find

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[John Panarese]

Hi Brian,
   One of these days, I'd like to sit down with you and hear this happen.  It's 
easier to actually hear things happening to get an idea of what is going on.


Take Care

John D. Panarese
Director
Mac for the Blind
Tel, (631) 724-4479
Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com

APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION

AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE

MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT




On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:48 PM, Brian Fischler  wrote:

> Hey John,
> 
> Yes, I agree who ever made the half baked comment seems to be going a little 
> far.
> 
> As for me and numbers, I am not sure what my issue is as the final straw with 
> using it was the constant VO crashing when using it. I am not sure if 
> crashing is the appropriate term, what would happen is I would be working 
> with a numbers document and VO would just completely stop working. I couldn't 
> enter any text in to a cell. VO would stop reading and I would try and type 
> anyway, thinking that maybe it was just a VO issue and text was being entered 
> into a cell, but after quitting numbers and restarting I would go back to the 
> cell and none of the text I had just entered was there. This started to occur 
> more and more frequently, and when you are working with a cell that is at the 
> midway point of a document it would take forever to get back there only to 
> enter text in the cell move to the next cell and have the same thing occur 
> all over again. I tried the various work arounds suggested to me, but had no 
> luck with the find commands, and did find it a little ridiculous that I would 
> have to go through about seven steps to do a certain find/search criteria 
> including a VO F3 to toggle stuff off. I decided I was losing so much time 
> spending on these issues that I just switched over to a database program. Now 
> does that mean I don't know how to use a mac? No. Was it unbelievably 
> frustrating and did I view it as way to time consuming? Yes. Did I think that 
> Apple should come up with a better way and should have done so by now, yes. 
> Does it mean if numbers is improved that I will go back to it? Yes. I don't 
> see anything wrong with questioning apple at all. I'm not one of these people 
> that thinks I need to bow down to Apple for everything they do, not 
> everything they do is everyone going to agree with. They are a company in 
> business to make money. Is their record with accessibility fantastic? Yes, is 
> it perfect, no. Would I consider going back to windows? Not unless they came 
> a long long way with improvements in accessibility.
> On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:28 PM, John Panarese  wrote:
> 
>>   There is nothing wrong with opinions and I think I had tried to make that 
>> clear in my post.  However, there is a difference between personal opinion 
>> and making blanket statements that you feel reflect what everyone should 
>> think.  If you think Mac accessibility is "half baked", well, as I said, 
>> that is your opinion and you have a right to that.  Fortunately, the vast 
>> number of blind Mac users surely don't see it that way, and I have yet to 
>> encounter a client who has come to that conclusion in 3 years of doing Mac 
>> training.
>> 
>>   As I told someone off list, and at the risk of being accused of flaming 
>> anyone, from several years on lists and particularly being subscribed to 
>> about five blind Mac or iOS user lists, when someone makes a statement 
>> generalized to detract from the use of the Mac as a tool equal in value to 
>> Windows, there are one of three reasons or positions at work:
>> 
>> 1. The user really has not learned the Mac well enough to be qualified to 
>> make any blanket statements.  I can't tell you how many people I have met 
>> who have had limited use or understanding of the Mac, but find it necessary 
>> to tell people that the Mac isn't on the same accessibility grounds as 
>> Windows.   It's like taking a car for a fifteen minute test drive and then 
>> bashing the car on every category as if you have owned it for five years.  
>> Does anyone remember the first AFB review on VoiceOver in 2005?
>> 
>> 2. The user has used the Mac, but still is at the point in which they don't 
>> know enough about the Mac to truly speak with any expertise.  In other 
>> words, as the expression goes, they know enough to be dangerous.  I often 
>> see this in the world of Windows with JAWS or Window-Eyes users who want to 
>> criticize the other camp.  You may know how to do a lot of things, but your 
>> experience and knowledge is still lacking and you don't know enough about 
>> what else can be done because you haven't taken the time to thoroughly find 
>> out.
>> 
>> 3. There is another political or personal a gender at work.  In other words, 
>> the Mac could demonstrate utter perfection when it comes to accessibility, 
>> and the user will still find fault with it or seek to disparage it becaus

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Mike Arrigo]

I don't even have a pc at home anymore. I only use windows for one thing and 
that's because there is no mac version of it. Other than, it's the mac all the 
way for me, this is for web browsing, email, music, documents, and other things 
I can't think of. Anyone who says that accessibility only half works on the mac 
has never really given it a chance.
On Jul 20, 2013, at 1:28 PM, John Panarese  wrote:

>  OK, maybe I am missing something here, but I am reading some of the most 
> ridiculous and assumption ridden posts in this thread.  How in the world can 
> you say the Mac is half-baked?  The Mac is just as accessible as Windows at 
> this point, and for whatever weaknesses you can point out in OS X, I can 
> equally find in Windows.  I know blind people productively using the Mac 
> every day for their work, and I can give you several testimonials from former 
> Windows users who will flat out tell you that Mac accessibility is superior 
> to that in Windows hands down.  I just had this conversation with a client 
> who is a former JAWS user who was using Windows since 1994 and still uses 
> Windows because he paid for a SMA.
> 
>  In any event, to assume Apple is done with accessibility or has done so to 
> legally get by is a generally opinionated statement that has no factual or 
> concrete evidence beyond personal belief.  How far the Mac has come since 
> Tiger, including Lion to Mountain Lion, is proof enough, and if it’s not 
> satisfactory enough to you, that is your problem and not a general reflection 
> of the state of accessibility among most blind Mac users.  Is it perfect?  Of 
> course not.  I can list the flaws as readily as anyone else, especially since 
> I train folks to use the Mac every day.  However, as I said, I can list just 
> as many in Windows, if not more in some regard.  Also, well, show me an 
> operating system the blind can use with perfection.   We can go on and on 
> about our accessibility gripes about every operating system, but in many 
> cases, the reality does not truly reflect our narrow world views of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Take Care
> 
> John D. Panarese
> Director
> Mac for the Blind
> Tel, (631) 724-4479
> Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
> Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com
> 
> APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION
> 
> AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE
> 
> MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 20, 2013, at 6:31 AM, Dónal Fitzpatrick  
> wrote:
> 
>> Chris,
>> 
>> Just to be clear I think they've done a stellar job on IOS.  Sure there are 
>> things I'd like to see, things I'd have done differently; but that applies 
>> to my own development work (in retrospect) as well.
>> 
>> The reality is that four and a half years after iWork 09 was released, it is 
>> still lacking in what I would consider to be basic accessibility and, more 
>> importantly, usability.  People like Anne Robertson (on this list) have come 
>> up with workarounds to get past issues that t we really shouldn't have to be 
>> working around.  With every new update I hope that some new features will be 
>> introduced, but more importantly I want longstanding bugs to have gone away. 
>>  Neither happens.
>> 
>> Like you, I've stopped recommending the mac for anyone other than those who 
>> want a glorified mediaplayer.  It is not a productivity machine at this 
>> stage.
>> 
>> Dónal
>> On 20 Jul 2013, at 11:25, Chris Moore  wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree, Mac OS X accessibility sucks.  iOS is far superior and the Mac is 
>>> half baked and very buggy.  I could never recommend the Mac as a productive 
>>> tool for the blind.
>>> 
>>> I don't think we should give up though, we need to keep up the pressure.  
>>> We also need to shame Apple by bringing it to the attention of mainstream 
>>> press  Let's try and convince someone to publish an article on how crap 
>>> Voiceover is on the Mac.  We only ever seem to get a slight update each 
>>> time a new OS comes out.
>>> 
>>> We need to keep making a noise and more of it.
>>> 
>>> Chris 
>>> On 20 Jul 2013, at 11:08, Dónal Fitzpatrick  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Chris,
 
 Dealing with both your mails in one here.  I wholeheartedly agree.  I've 
 been convinced for almost 2 years that Apple sees their job in terms of 
 accessibility for the blind, specifically on OSX but to a lesser extent on 
 IOS, as done.  They can walk into any courtroom and claim, with 
 justification, that they are in compliance with ADA, section 508, EU 
 disability legislation etc.  Afraid in my view OSX accessibility is dying 
 on the vine so we may as well accept that what we have now is as good as 
 it's going to get.
 
 Cheers,
 
 Dónal
 On 20 Jul 2013, at 06:31, "Chris Gilland"  wrote:
 
> And, though I cannot go into the specifics due to NDA, I'll say this, and 
> under no circumstances anything more.  I've reported through bug reporter 
> m

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Brian Fischler]

Hey John,

Yes, I agree who ever made the half baked comment seems to be going a little 
far.

As for me and numbers, I am not sure what my issue is as the final straw with 
using it was the constant VO crashing when using it. I am not sure if crashing 
is the appropriate term, what would happen is I would be working with a numbers 
document and VO would just completely stop working. I couldn't enter any text 
in to a cell. VO would stop reading and I would try and type anyway, thinking 
that maybe it was just a VO issue and text was being entered into a cell, but 
after quitting numbers and restarting I would go back to the cell and none of 
the text I had just entered was there. This started to occur more and more 
frequently, and when you are working with a cell that is at the midway point of 
a document it would take forever to get back there only to enter text in the 
cell move to the next cell and have the same thing occur all over again. I 
tried the various work arounds suggested to me, but had no luck with the find 
commands, and did find it a little ridiculous that I would have to go through 
about seven steps to do a certain find/search criteria including a VO F3 to 
toggle stuff off. I decided I was losing so much time spending on these issues 
that I just switched over to a database program. Now does that mean I don't 
know how to use a mac? No. Was it unbelievably frustrating and did I view it as 
way to time consuming? Yes. Did I think that Apple should come up with a better 
way and should have done so by now, yes. Does it mean if numbers is improved 
that I will go back to it? Yes. I don't see anything wrong with questioning 
apple at all. I'm not one of these people that thinks I need to bow down to 
Apple for everything they do, not everything they do is everyone going to agree 
with. They are a company in business to make money. Is their record with 
accessibility fantastic? Yes, is it perfect, no. Would I consider going back to 
windows? Not unless they came a long long way with improvements in 
accessibility.
On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:28 PM, John Panarese  wrote:

>There is nothing wrong with opinions and I think I had tried to make that 
> clear in my post.  However, there is a difference between personal opinion 
> and making blanket statements that you feel reflect what everyone should 
> think.  If you think Mac accessibility is "half baked", well, as I said, that 
> is your opinion and you have a right to that.  Fortunately, the vast number 
> of blind Mac users surely don't see it that way, and I have yet to encounter 
> a client who has come to that conclusion in 3 years of doing Mac training.
> 
>As I told someone off list, and at the risk of being accused of flaming 
> anyone, from several years on lists and particularly being subscribed to 
> about five blind Mac or iOS user lists, when someone makes a statement 
> generalized to detract from the use of the Mac as a tool equal in value to 
> Windows, there are one of three reasons or positions at work:
> 
> 1. The user really has not learned the Mac well enough to be qualified to 
> make any blanket statements.  I can't tell you how many people I have met who 
> have had limited use or understanding of the Mac, but find it necessary to 
> tell people that the Mac isn't on the same accessibility grounds as Windows.  
>  It's like taking a car for a fifteen minute test drive and then bashing the 
> car on every category as if you have owned it for five years.  Does anyone 
> remember the first AFB review on VoiceOver in 2005?
> 
> 2. The user has used the Mac, but still is at the point in which they don't 
> know enough about the Mac to truly speak with any expertise.  In other words, 
> as the expression goes, they know enough to be dangerous.  I often see this 
> in the world of Windows with JAWS or Window-Eyes users who want to criticize 
> the other camp.  You may know how to do a lot of things, but your experience 
> and knowledge is still lacking and you don't know enough about what else can 
> be done because you haven't taken the time to thoroughly find out.
> 
> 3. There is another political or personal a gender at work.  In other words, 
> the Mac could demonstrate utter perfection when it comes to accessibility, 
> and the user will still find fault with it or seek to disparage it because 
> they have a vested interest in such criticisms.
> 
>This, of course, excludes the general contrarians or the basic Apple hater 
> or the person who just doesn't like the Mac on the grounds that, well, they 
> just don't like it.  
> 
>As for Numbers, keep this in mind, Brian.  There has not been a major 
> upgrade to the iWorks suite in 4 years.  It is still called, iWork09.  In 
> other words, it is highly likely Apple has a major update coming with 
> Mavericks, which will be more than just a few minor tweaks.  I do use large 
> spreadsheets, but I don't often have the kinds of behaviors you have 
> reported.  Whet

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[John Panarese]

There is nothing wrong with opinions and I think I had tried to make that 
clear in my post.  However, there is a difference between personal opinion and 
making blanket statements that you feel reflect what everyone should think.  If 
you think Mac accessibility is "half baked", well, as I said, that is your 
opinion and you have a right to that.  Fortunately, the vast number of blind 
Mac users surely don't see it that way, and I have yet to encounter a client 
who has come to that conclusion in 3 years of doing Mac training.

As I told someone off list, and at the risk of being accused of flaming 
anyone, from several years on lists and particularly being subscribed to about 
five blind Mac or iOS user lists, when someone makes a statement generalized to 
detract from the use of the Mac as a tool equal in value to Windows, there are 
one of three reasons or positions at work:

1. The user really has not learned the Mac well enough to be qualified to make 
any blanket statements.  I can't tell you how many people I have met who have 
had limited use or understanding of the Mac, but find it necessary to tell 
people that the Mac isn't on the same accessibility grounds as Windows.   It's 
like taking a car for a fifteen minute test drive and then bashing the car on 
every category as if you have owned it for five years.  Does anyone remember 
the first AFB review on VoiceOver in 2005?

2. The user has used the Mac, but still is at the point in which they don't 
know enough about the Mac to truly speak with any expertise.  In other words, 
as the expression goes, they know enough to be dangerous.  I often see this in 
the world of Windows with JAWS or Window-Eyes users who want to criticize the 
other camp.  You may know how to do a lot of things, but your experience and 
knowledge is still lacking and you don't know enough about what else can be 
done because you haven't taken the time to thoroughly find out.

3. There is another political or personal a gender at work.  In other words, 
the Mac could demonstrate utter perfection when it comes to accessibility, and 
the user will still find fault with it or seek to disparage it because they 
have a vested interest in such criticisms.

This, of course, excludes the general contrarians or the basic Apple hater 
or the person who just doesn't like the Mac on the grounds that, well, they 
just don't like it.  

As for Numbers, keep this in mind, Brian.  There has not been a major 
upgrade to the iWorks suite in 4 years.  It is still called, iWork09.  In other 
words, it is highly likely Apple has a major update coming with Mavericks, 
which will be more than just a few minor tweaks.  I do use large spreadsheets, 
but I don't often have the kinds of behaviors you have reported.  Whether that 
is because of my system configuration, how I maintain my Mac or just a system 
specific matter is something I don't know for sure.  All I can tell you is that 
many blind Mac users are using Numbers and Pages every day and, like in 
Windows, they find work arounds to accomplish tasks.  We have a very good, 
knowledgeable person on this list who teaches iWork accessibility who often 
provides suggestions for work arounds and approaches for using Pages and 
Numbers.



Take Care

John D. Panarese
Director
Mac for the Blind
Tel, (631) 724-4479
Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com

APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION

AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE

MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT




On Jul 20, 2013, at 3:47 PM, Brian Fischler  wrote:

> Hey John, Relax. It is great to read everyone's opinions on the topic. Do 
> some people go to far saying that Apple isn't committed to accessibility. 
> Sure, but hey that is their opinion. In my posting, I am just saying, I don't 
> know how something so simple as web spots can be reversed as it is completely 
> illogical to now have to click left to go right and right to go left. Also is 
> it annoying that accessibility of numbers keeps getting worse and worse, yes. 
> Try using a large spread sheet or doing a search for a certain word in 
> numbers. I would have hoped for more improvements by now, but I do understand 
> that Voiceover is a very very small segment of Apple users, and I do 
> appreciate Apple's commitment to it. Yes, I have heard the horror stories 
> about the accessibility of windows, and overall I am a pretty happy mac user. 
> Am I threatening to go back to windows, no, I am simply stating my opinion 
> and disappointments with certain areas of accessibility, and getting Apple's 
> standard response for years every time I do contact them.
> 
> Does the blind community complain to much? No more than any other community. 
> I guarantee boards for other accessibility areas are filled with the same 
> kind of complaints as everyone wants everything to be about them, it's the 
> human condition. I could only imagine how

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Brian Fischler]

Hey John, Relax. It is great to read everyone's opinions on the topic. Do some 
people go to far saying that Apple isn't committed to accessibility. Sure, but 
hey that is their opinion. In my posting, I am just saying, I don't know how 
something so simple as web spots can be reversed as it is completely illogical 
to now have to click left to go right and right to go left. Also is it annoying 
that accessibility of numbers keeps getting worse and worse, yes. Try using a 
large spread sheet or doing a search for a certain word in numbers. I would 
have hoped for more improvements by now, but I do understand that Voiceover is 
a very very small segment of Apple users, and I do appreciate Apple's 
commitment to it. Yes, I have heard the horror stories about the accessibility 
of windows, and overall I am a pretty happy mac user. Am I threatening to go 
back to windows, no, I am simply stating my opinion and disappointments with 
certain areas of accessibility, and getting Apple's standard response for years 
every time I do contact them.

Does the blind community complain to much? No more than any other community. I 
guarantee boards for other accessibility areas are filled with the same kind of 
complaints as everyone wants everything to be about them, it's the human 
condition. I could only imagine how much moaning and complaining is going on 
about the Yankees on a Yankees board, just to use them as an example.  
On Jul 20, 2013, at 2:28 PM, John Panarese  wrote:

>  OK, maybe I am missing something here, but I am reading some of the most 
> ridiculous and assumption ridden posts in this thread.  How in the world can 
> you say the Mac is half-baked?  The Mac is just as accessible as Windows at 
> this point, and for whatever weaknesses you can point out in OS X, I can 
> equally find in Windows.  I know blind people productively using the Mac 
> every day for their work, and I can give you several testimonials from former 
> Windows users who will flat out tell you that Mac accessibility is superior 
> to that in Windows hands down.  I just had this conversation with a client 
> who is a former JAWS user who was using Windows since 1994 and still uses 
> Windows because he paid for a SMA.
> 
>  In any event, to assume Apple is done with accessibility or has done so to 
> legally get by is a generally opinionated statement that has no factual or 
> concrete evidence beyond personal belief.  How far the Mac has come since 
> Tiger, including Lion to Mountain Lion, is proof enough, and if it’s not 
> satisfactory enough to you, that is your problem and not a general reflection 
> of the state of accessibility among most blind Mac users.  Is it perfect?  Of 
> course not.  I can list the flaws as readily as anyone else, especially since 
> I train folks to use the Mac every day.  However, as I said, I can list just 
> as many in Windows, if not more in some regard.  Also, well, show me an 
> operating system the blind can use with perfection.   We can go on and on 
> about our accessibility gripes about every operating system, but in many 
> cases, the reality does not truly reflect our narrow world views of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Take Care
> 
> John D. Panarese
> Director
> Mac for the Blind
> Tel, (631) 724-4479
> Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
> Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com
> 
> APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION
> 
> AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE
> 
> MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 20, 2013, at 6:31 AM, Dónal Fitzpatrick  
> wrote:
> 
>> Chris,
>> 
>> Just to be clear I think they've done a stellar job on IOS.  Sure there are 
>> things I'd like to see, things I'd have done differently; but that applies 
>> to my own development work (in retrospect) as well.
>> 
>> The reality is that four and a half years after iWork 09 was released, it is 
>> still lacking in what I would consider to be basic accessibility and, more 
>> importantly, usability.  People like Anne Robertson (on this list) have come 
>> up with workarounds to get past issues that t we really shouldn't have to be 
>> working around.  With every new update I hope that some new features will be 
>> introduced, but more importantly I want longstanding bugs to have gone away. 
>>  Neither happens.
>> 
>> Like you, I've stopped recommending the mac for anyone other than those who 
>> want a glorified mediaplayer.  It is not a productivity machine at this 
>> stage.
>> 
>> Dónal
>> On 20 Jul 2013, at 11:25, Chris Moore  wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree, Mac OS X accessibility sucks.  iOS is far superior and the Mac is 
>>> half baked and very buggy.  I could never recommend the Mac as a productive 
>>> tool for the blind.
>>> 
>>> I don't think we should give up though, we need to keep up the pressure.  
>>> We also need to shame Apple by bringing it to the attention of mainstream 
>>> press  Let's try and convince someone to publish an article on how crap 
>>> Voiceov

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Daniela Rubio]

Hello:
Totally agree with you. Accessibility is one thing, and trying to compare ways 
of doing tasks in one or other OS is different.
I am one of those who use my mac productively every day for my job, and I hand 
in professional documents of all kinds, edit videos, Handdle audios, and all at 
the same level of sighted people.
I also train users with their mac and iOS devices, and I have never seen a 
system that best adapts to the needs of an individual person …
And about being accessible just to accomplish legal issues … I don't think an 
other company has really committed to improve step by step
as Apple does.
And because nothing is perfect, we as users are committed to give true 
feedback, so they can fix and improve.
Best
Daniela Rubio T
 Distinguished Educator
iPhone: +34662328507



El 20/07/2013, a las 20:28, John Panarese  escribió:

>  OK, maybe I am missing something here, but I am reading some of the most 
> ridiculous and assumption ridden posts in this thread.  How in the world can 
> you say the Mac is half-baked?  The Mac is just as accessible as Windows at 
> this point, and for whatever weaknesses you can point out in OS X, I can 
> equally find in Windows.  I know blind people productively using the Mac 
> every day for their work, and I can give you several testimonials from former 
> Windows users who will flat out tell you that Mac accessibility is superior 
> to that in Windows hands down.  I just had this conversation with a client 
> who is a former JAWS user who was using Windows since 1994 and still uses 
> Windows because he paid for a SMA.
> 
>  In any event, to assume Apple is done with accessibility or has done so to 
> legally get by is a generally opinionated statement that has no factual or 
> concrete evidence beyond personal belief.  How far the Mac has come since 
> Tiger, including Lion to Mountain Lion, is proof enough, and if it’s not 
> satisfactory enough to you, that is your problem and not a general reflection 
> of the state of accessibility among most blind Mac users.  Is it perfect?  Of 
> course not.  I can list the flaws as readily as anyone else, especially since 
> I train folks to use the Mac every day.  However, as I said, I can list just 
> as many in Windows, if not more in some regard.  Also, well, show me an 
> operating system the blind can use with perfection.   We can go on and on 
> about our accessibility gripes about every operating system, but in many 
> cases, the reality does not truly reflect our narrow world views of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Take Care
> 
> John D. Panarese
> Director
> Mac for the Blind
> Tel, (631) 724-4479
> Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
> Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com
> 
> APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION
> 
> AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE
> 
> MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 20, 2013, at 6:31 AM, Dónal Fitzpatrick  
> wrote:
> 
>> Chris,
>> 
>> Just to be clear I think they've done a stellar job on IOS.  Sure there are 
>> things I'd like to see, things I'd have done differently; but that applies 
>> to my own development work (in retrospect) as well.
>> 
>> The reality is that four and a half years after iWork 09 was released, it is 
>> still lacking in what I would consider to be basic accessibility and, more 
>> importantly, usability.  People like Anne Robertson (on this list) have come 
>> up with workarounds to get past issues that t we really shouldn't have to be 
>> working around.  With every new update I hope that some new features will be 
>> introduced, but more importantly I want longstanding bugs to have gone away. 
>>  Neither happens.
>> 
>> Like you, I've stopped recommending the mac for anyone other than those who 
>> want a glorified mediaplayer.  It is not a productivity machine at this 
>> stage.
>> 
>> Dónal
>> On 20 Jul 2013, at 11:25, Chris Moore  wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree, Mac OS X accessibility sucks.  iOS is far superior and the Mac is 
>>> half baked and very buggy.  I could never recommend the Mac as a productive 
>>> tool for the blind.
>>> 
>>> I don't think we should give up though, we need to keep up the pressure.  
>>> We also need to shame Apple by bringing it to the attention of mainstream 
>>> press  Let's try and convince someone to publish an article on how crap 
>>> Voiceover is on the Mac.  We only ever seem to get a slight update each 
>>> time a new OS comes out.
>>> 
>>> We need to keep making a noise and more of it.
>>> 
>>> Chris 
>>> On 20 Jul 2013, at 11:08, Dónal Fitzpatrick  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Chris,
 
 Dealing with both your mails in one here.  I wholeheartedly agree.  I've 
 been convinced for almost 2 years that Apple sees their job in terms of 
 accessibility for the blind, specifically on OSX but to a lesser extent on 
 IOS, as done.  They can walk into any courtroom and claim, with 
 justification, that they are in compliance with ADA, section 508, EU 

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Sarah k Alawami]

I agree with John there.  I think he mac is far superior to windows. In fact I 
can attest to that in my sales of the tutorials I have made starting out for a 
friend who recommended to me I sell them and get a job as a mac trainer, later 
maybe though. I can say that mac is very mud h accessible and although apple's 
accessibility replies are dry, I think they do fix stuff, only in a major os 
release though as I've found out. For example in Mavericks I'm hoping that some 
of the bugs in mountain lion are ironed out that I've seen thus far. 

When I first started using snow leopard there were a lot of vo bugs. Now I can 
safely say vbo is the stablest screenreader I have ever used. No crashes and it 
is far more usable when it was in snl 3 years ago. For those of you that have 
been following my mac podcasts I think you can agree as well.


Tc all.
On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:28 AM, John Panarese  wrote:

>  OK, maybe I am missing something here, but I am reading some of the most 
> ridiculous and assumption ridden posts in this thread.  How in the world can 
> you say the Mac is half-baked?  The Mac is just as accessible as Windows at 
> this point, and for whatever weaknesses you can point out in OS X, I can 
> equally find in Windows.  I know blind people productively using the Mac 
> every day for their work, and I can give you several testimonials from former 
> Windows users who will flat out tell you that Mac accessibility is superior 
> to that in Windows hands down.  I just had this conversation with a client 
> who is a former JAWS user who was using Windows since 1994 and still uses 
> Windows because he paid for a SMA.
> 
>  In any event, to assume Apple is done with accessibility or has done so to 
> legally get by is a generally opinionated statement that has no factual or 
> concrete evidence beyond personal belief.  How far the Mac has come since 
> Tiger, including Lion to Mountain Lion, is proof enough, and if it’s not 
> satisfactory enough to you, that is your problem and not a general reflection 
> of the state of accessibility among most blind Mac users.  Is it perfect?  Of 
> course not.  I can list the flaws as readily as anyone else, especially since 
> I train folks to use the Mac every day.  However, as I said, I can list just 
> as many in Windows, if not more in some regard.  Also, well, show me an 
> operating system the blind can use with perfection.   We can go on and on 
> about our accessibility gripes about every operating system, but in many 
> cases, the reality does not truly reflect our narrow world views of things.
> 
> 
> 
> Take Care
> 
> John D. Panarese
> Director
> Mac for the Blind
> Tel, (631) 724-4479
> Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
> Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com
> 
> APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION
> 
> AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE
> 
> MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 20, 2013, at 6:31 AM, Dónal Fitzpatrick  
> wrote:
> 
>> Chris,
>> 
>> Just to be clear I think they've done a stellar job on IOS.  Sure there are 
>> things I'd like to see, things I'd have done differently; but that applies 
>> to my own development work (in retrospect) as well.
>> 
>> The reality is that four and a half years after iWork 09 was released, it is 
>> still lacking in what I would consider to be basic accessibility and, more 
>> importantly, usability.  People like Anne Robertson (on this list) have come 
>> up with workarounds to get past issues that t we really shouldn't have to be 
>> working around.  With every new update I hope that some new features will be 
>> introduced, but more importantly I want longstanding bugs to have gone away. 
>>  Neither happens.
>> 
>> Like you, I've stopped recommending the mac for anyone other than those who 
>> want a glorified mediaplayer.  It is not a productivity machine at this 
>> stage.
>> 
>> Dónal
>> On 20 Jul 2013, at 11:25, Chris Moore  wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree, Mac OS X accessibility sucks.  iOS is far superior and the Mac is 
>>> half baked and very buggy.  I could never recommend the Mac as a productive 
>>> tool for the blind.
>>> 
>>> I don't think we should give up though, we need to keep up the pressure.  
>>> We also need to shame Apple by bringing it to the attention of mainstream 
>>> press  Let's try and convince someone to publish an article on how crap 
>>> Voiceover is on the Mac.  We only ever seem to get a slight update each 
>>> time a new OS comes out.
>>> 
>>> We need to keep making a noise and more of it.
>>> 
>>> Chris 
>>> On 20 Jul 2013, at 11:08, Dónal Fitzpatrick  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Chris,
 
 Dealing with both your mails in one here.  I wholeheartedly agree.  I've 
 been convinced for almost 2 years that Apple sees their job in terms of 
 accessibility for the blind, specifically on OSX but to a lesser extent on 
 IOS, as done.  They can walk into any courtroom and claim, with 
 justificatio

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[John Panarese]

  OK, maybe I am missing something here, but I am reading some of the most 
ridiculous and assumption ridden posts in this thread.  How in the world can 
you say the Mac is half-baked?  The Mac is just as accessible as Windows at 
this point, and for whatever weaknesses you can point out in OS X, I can 
equally find in Windows.  I know blind people productively using the Mac every 
day for their work, and I can give you several testimonials from former Windows 
users who will flat out tell you that Mac accessibility is superior to that in 
Windows hands down.  I just had this conversation with a client who is a former 
JAWS user who was using Windows since 1994 and still uses Windows because he 
paid for a SMA.

  In any event, to assume Apple is done with accessibility or has done so to 
legally get by is a generally opinionated statement that has no factual or 
concrete evidence beyond personal belief.  How far the Mac has come since 
Tiger, including Lion to Mountain Lion, is proof enough, and if it’s not 
satisfactory enough to you, that is your problem and not a general reflection 
of the state of accessibility among most blind Mac users.  Is it perfect?  Of 
course not.  I can list the flaws as readily as anyone else, especially since I 
train folks to use the Mac every day.  However, as I said, I can list just as 
many in Windows, if not more in some regard.  Also, well, show me an operating 
system the blind can use with perfection.   We can go on and on about our 
accessibility gripes about every operating system, but in many cases, the 
reality does not truly reflect our narrow world views of things.



Take Care

John D. Panarese
Director
Mac for the Blind
Tel, (631) 724-4479
Email, j...@macfortheblind.com
Website, http://www.macfortheblind.com

APPLE CERTIFIED SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL FOR MAC OSX Mountain Lion and LION

AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE

MAC and iOS VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT




On Jul 20, 2013, at 6:31 AM, Dónal Fitzpatrick  
wrote:

> Chris,
> 
> Just to be clear I think they've done a stellar job on IOS.  Sure there are 
> things I'd like to see, things I'd have done differently; but that applies to 
> my own development work (in retrospect) as well.
> 
> The reality is that four and a half years after iWork 09 was released, it is 
> still lacking in what I would consider to be basic accessibility and, more 
> importantly, usability.  People like Anne Robertson (on this list) have come 
> up with workarounds to get past issues that t we really shouldn't have to be 
> working around.  With every new update I hope that some new features will be 
> introduced, but more importantly I want longstanding bugs to have gone away.  
> Neither happens.
> 
> Like you, I've stopped recommending the mac for anyone other than those who 
> want a glorified mediaplayer.  It is not a productivity machine at this stage.
> 
> Dónal
> On 20 Jul 2013, at 11:25, Chris Moore  wrote:
> 
>> I agree, Mac OS X accessibility sucks.  iOS is far superior and the Mac is 
>> half baked and very buggy.  I could never recommend the Mac as a productive 
>> tool for the blind.
>> 
>> I don't think we should give up though, we need to keep up the pressure.  We 
>> also need to shame Apple by bringing it to the attention of mainstream press 
>>  Let's try and convince someone to publish an article on how crap Voiceover 
>> is on the Mac.  We only ever seem to get a slight update each time a new OS 
>> comes out.
>> 
>> We need to keep making a noise and more of it.
>> 
>> Chris 
>> On 20 Jul 2013, at 11:08, Dónal Fitzpatrick  
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Chris,
>>> 
>>> Dealing with both your mails in one here.  I wholeheartedly agree.  I've 
>>> been convinced for almost 2 years that Apple sees their job in terms of 
>>> accessibility for the blind, specifically on OSX but to a lesser extent on 
>>> IOS, as done.  They can walk into any courtroom and claim, with 
>>> justification, that they are in compliance with ADA, section 508, EU 
>>> disability legislation etc.  Afraid in my view OSX accessibility is dying 
>>> on the vine so we may as well accept that what we have now is as good as 
>>> it's going to get.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Dónal
>>> On 20 Jul 2013, at 06:31, "Chris Gilland"  wrote:
>>> 
 And, though I cannot go into the specifics due to NDA, I'll say this, and 
 under no circumstances anything more.  I've reported through bug reporter 
 many many bugs as I'm an Apple Dev both for IOS and for OSX.  In both 
 cases a lot of the bugs had to do with things in IOS7 and in Mavericks 
 both which are broken accessibility wise.  Again, I can't legally reveal 
 what these things are, but the response I finally got back directly from 
 engineering, was something to the effect of we know about this bug, 
 however, what you are experiencing is exactly the way it's supposed to 
 behave, so learn how to deal with it. Excuse me, but I paid 100 dollars to 
 become a dev, not

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Josh Gregory]

Definitely agree, and I would hate to see them go the way of humanware, not 
saying that they or Apple are bad companies, but both companies responses could 
definitely be improved a bit.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 20, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Brian Fischler  wrote:

> Hey All,
> 
> Funny as the message you got from Apple on Logic is the same exact response I 
> have gotten for years from Apple about the awful accessibility of Numbers 
> which I now no longer use. I got blasted on this list for listing several 
> issues with mountain lion and voiceover when it came out. One of the biggest 
> being how they reversed webspots in safari. How in the world could this not 
> have been noticed if they are actually testing accessibility? In Lion you 
> would hit VO command right bracket and you could go down down a page to the 
> next webspot, not in Mountain Lion they reversed it which makes no sense as 
> you click VO command right bracket and instead of going down and to the 
> right, right bracket takes you to the left, and left bracket takes you to the 
> right. Ok, simple enough to fix I assumed, and assumed in the next mountain 
> lion update it would be corrected. Nope, they never fixed what seemed to me 
> to probably be one of the easiest things to fix. There have been virtually 
> zero improvements to VO in any mountain lion updates. I will continue using 
> my mac, and do love my mac, but have been very disappointed with VO 
> improvements in mountain lion, and will be hesitant to upgrade to maverick as 
> I am worried or concerned about more idiotic VO things that Apple obviously 
> doesn't test. I'm sorry but you can't tell me this webspot thing was tested 
> as anyone who used it before mountain lion would have noticed immediately in 
> mountain lion how broken it was. Just my thoughts. 
> On Jul 20, 2013, at 6:25 AM, Chris Moore  wrote:
> 
>> I agree, Mac OS X accessibility sucks.  iOS is far superior and the Mac is 
>> half baked and very buggy.  I could never recommend the Mac as a productive 
>> tool for the blind.
>> 
>> I don't think we should give up though, we need to keep up the pressure.  We 
>> also need to shame Apple by bringing it to the attention of mainstream press 
>>  Let's try and convince someone to publish an article on how crap Voiceover 
>> is on the Mac.  We only ever seem to get a slight update each time a new OS 
>> comes out.
>> 
>> We need to keep making a noise and more of it.
>> 
>> Chris 
>> On 20 Jul 2013, at 11:08, Dónal Fitzpatrick  
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Chris,
>>> 
>>> Dealing with both your mails in one here.  I wholeheartedly agree.  I've 
>>> been convinced for almost 2 years that Apple sees their job in terms of 
>>> accessibility for the blind, specifically on OSX but to a lesser extent on 
>>> IOS, as done.  They can walk into any courtroom and claim, with 
>>> justification, that they are in compliance with ADA, section 508, EU 
>>> disability legislation etc.  Afraid in my view OSX accessibility is dying 
>>> on the vine so we may as well accept that what we have now is as good as 
>>> it's going to get.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Dónal
>>> On 20 Jul 2013, at 06:31, "Chris Gilland"  wrote:
>>> 
 And, though I cannot go into the specifics due to NDA, I'll say this, and 
 under no circumstances anything more.  I've reported through bug reporter 
 many many bugs as I'm an Apple Dev both for IOS and for OSX.  In both 
 cases a lot of the bugs had to do with things in IOS7 and in Mavericks 
 both which are broken accessibility wise.  Again, I can't legally reveal 
 what these things are, but the response I finally got back directly from 
 engineering, was something to the effect of we know about this bug, 
 however, what you are experiencing is exactly the way it's supposed to 
 behave, so learn how to deal with it.  Excuse me, but I paid 100 dollars 
 to become a dev, not a person whom won't be listen to!  Frankly, I'm 
 almost ready to give engineering a piece of my mind!
 
 Chris.
 
 - Original Message - From: "Sarah k Alawami" 
 To: "Mac OSX & iOS Accessibility" 
 Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 1:41 PM
 Subject: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino
 
 
 It's the same canned response  I received with GB as well. In fact I doubt 
 they will continue to improve accessibility in GB as I have not ten no 
 more responses even through the bug tracker I use.
 On Jul 19, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Josh Gregory  wrote:
 
> This reminds me of humanware, LOL.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jul 19, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Dónal Fitzpatrick 
>  wrote:
> 
>> Well this is truly helpful!  Really Apple accessibility customer care 
>> (or whatever the PR gurus call them these days) have excelled 
>> themselves. See the reply in its entirety below:
>> 
>> Does my sarcasm come across?
>> 
>> Dónal
>> 
>> (message st

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Brian Fischler]

Hey All,

Funny as the message you got from Apple on Logic is the same exact response I 
have gotten for years from Apple about the awful accessibility of Numbers which 
I now no longer use. I got blasted on this list for listing several issues with 
mountain lion and voiceover when it came out. One of the biggest being how they 
reversed webspots in safari. How in the world could this not have been noticed 
if they are actually testing accessibility? In Lion you would hit VO command 
right bracket and you could go down down a page to the next webspot, not in 
Mountain Lion they reversed it which makes no sense as you click VO command 
right bracket and instead of going down and to the right, right bracket takes 
you to the left, and left bracket takes you to the right. Ok, simple enough to 
fix I assumed, and assumed in the next mountain lion update it would be 
corrected. Nope, they never fixed what seemed to me to probably be one of the 
easiest things to fix. There have been virtually zero improvements to VO in any 
mountain lion updates. I will continue using my mac, and do love my mac, but 
have been very disappointed with VO improvements in mountain lion, and will be 
hesitant to upgrade to maverick as I am worried or concerned about more idiotic 
VO things that Apple obviously doesn't test. I'm sorry but you can't tell me 
this webspot thing was tested as anyone who used it before mountain lion would 
have noticed immediately in mountain lion how broken it was. Just my thoughts. 
On Jul 20, 2013, at 6:25 AM, Chris Moore  wrote:

> I agree, Mac OS X accessibility sucks.  iOS is far superior and the Mac is 
> half baked and very buggy.  I could never recommend the Mac as a productive 
> tool for the blind.
> 
> I don't think we should give up though, we need to keep up the pressure.  We 
> also need to shame Apple by bringing it to the attention of mainstream press  
> Let's try and convince someone to publish an article on how crap Voiceover is 
> on the Mac.  We only ever seem to get a slight update each time a new OS 
> comes out.
> 
> We need to keep making a noise and more of it.
> 
> Chris 
> On 20 Jul 2013, at 11:08, Dónal Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
>> Chris,
>> 
>> Dealing with both your mails in one here.  I wholeheartedly agree.  I've 
>> been convinced for almost 2 years that Apple sees their job in terms of 
>> accessibility for the blind, specifically on OSX but to a lesser extent on 
>> IOS, as done.  They can walk into any courtroom and claim, with 
>> justification, that they are in compliance with ADA, section 508, EU 
>> disability legislation etc.  Afraid in my view OSX accessibility is dying on 
>> the vine so we may as well accept that what we have now is as good as it's 
>> going to get.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Dónal
>> On 20 Jul 2013, at 06:31, "Chris Gilland"  wrote:
>> 
>>> And, though I cannot go into the specifics due to NDA, I'll say this, and 
>>> under no circumstances anything more.  I've reported through bug reporter 
>>> many many bugs as I'm an Apple Dev both for IOS and for OSX.  In both cases 
>>> a lot of the bugs had to do with things in IOS7 and in Mavericks both which 
>>> are broken accessibility wise.  Again, I can't legally reveal what these 
>>> things are, but the response I finally got back directly from engineering, 
>>> was something to the effect of we know about this bug, however, what you 
>>> are experiencing is exactly the way it's supposed to behave, so learn how 
>>> to deal with it.  Excuse me, but I paid 100 dollars to become a dev, not a 
>>> person whom won't be listen to!  Frankly, I'm almost ready to give 
>>> engineering a piece of my mind!
>>> 
>>> Chris.
>>> 
>>> - Original Message - From: "Sarah k Alawami" 
>>> To: "Mac OSX & iOS Accessibility" 
>>> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 1:41 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It's the same canned response  I received with GB as well. In fact I doubt 
>>> they will continue to improve accessibility in GB as I have not ten no more 
>>> responses even through the bug tracker I use.
>>> On Jul 19, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Josh Gregory  wrote:
>>> 
 This reminds me of humanware, LOL.
 
 Sent from my iPhone
 
 On Jul 19, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Dónal Fitzpatrick 
  wrote:
 
> Well this is truly helpful!  Really Apple accessibility customer care (or 
> whatever the PR gurus call them these days) have excelled themselves. See 
> the reply in its entirety below:
> 
> Does my sarcasm come across?
> 
> Dónal
> 
> (message starts)
> 
> Hello,
> Thank you for your email. At this time, support for accessibility in 
> Logic Pro X is limited.  We are continuing to work on improving 
> accessibility. We appreciate your feedback while we work towards this 
> goal.
> Apple Accessibility
> 
> (message ends)
> Dr. Dónal Fitzpatrick,
> School of Computing,
> Dublin Cit

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Dónal Fitzpatrick]

Chris,

Just to be clear I think they've done a stellar job on IOS.  Sure there are 
things I'd like to see, things I'd have done differently; but that applies to 
my own development work (in retrospect) as well.

The reality is that four and a half years after iWork 09 was released, it is 
still lacking in what I would consider to be basic accessibility and, more 
importantly, usability.  People like Anne Robertson (on this list) have come up 
with workarounds to get past issues that t we really shouldn't have to be 
working around.  With every new update I hope that some new features will be 
introduced, but more importantly I want longstanding bugs to have gone away.  
Neither happens.

Like you, I've stopped recommending the mac for anyone other than those who 
want a glorified mediaplayer.  It is not a productivity machine at this stage.

Dónal
On 20 Jul 2013, at 11:25, Chris Moore  wrote:

> I agree, Mac OS X accessibility sucks.  iOS is far superior and the Mac is 
> half baked and very buggy.  I could never recommend the Mac as a productive 
> tool for the blind.
> 
> I don't think we should give up though, we need to keep up the pressure.  We 
> also need to shame Apple by bringing it to the attention of mainstream press  
> Let's try and convince someone to publish an article on how crap Voiceover is 
> on the Mac.  We only ever seem to get a slight update each time a new OS 
> comes out.
> 
> We need to keep making a noise and more of it.
> 
> Chris 
> On 20 Jul 2013, at 11:08, Dónal Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
>> Chris,
>> 
>> Dealing with both your mails in one here.  I wholeheartedly agree.  I've 
>> been convinced for almost 2 years that Apple sees their job in terms of 
>> accessibility for the blind, specifically on OSX but to a lesser extent on 
>> IOS, as done.  They can walk into any courtroom and claim, with 
>> justification, that they are in compliance with ADA, section 508, EU 
>> disability legislation etc.  Afraid in my view OSX accessibility is dying on 
>> the vine so we may as well accept that what we have now is as good as it's 
>> going to get.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Dónal
>> On 20 Jul 2013, at 06:31, "Chris Gilland"  wrote:
>> 
>>> And, though I cannot go into the specifics due to NDA, I'll say this, and 
>>> under no circumstances anything more.  I've reported through bug reporter 
>>> many many bugs as I'm an Apple Dev both for IOS and for OSX.  In both cases 
>>> a lot of the bugs had to do with things in IOS7 and in Mavericks both which 
>>> are broken accessibility wise.  Again, I can't legally reveal what these 
>>> things are, but the response I finally got back directly from engineering, 
>>> was something to the effect of we know about this bug, however, what you 
>>> are experiencing is exactly the way it's supposed to behave, so learn how 
>>> to deal with it.  Excuse me, but I paid 100 dollars to become a dev, not a 
>>> person whom won't be listen to!  Frankly, I'm almost ready to give 
>>> engineering a piece of my mind!
>>> 
>>> Chris.
>>> 
>>> - Original Message - From: "Sarah k Alawami" 
>>> To: "Mac OSX & iOS Accessibility" 
>>> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 1:41 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It's the same canned response  I received with GB as well. In fact I doubt 
>>> they will continue to improve accessibility in GB as I have not ten no more 
>>> responses even through the bug tracker I use.
>>> On Jul 19, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Josh Gregory  wrote:
>>> 
 This reminds me of humanware, LOL.
 
 Sent from my iPhone
 
 On Jul 19, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Dónal Fitzpatrick 
  wrote:
 
> Well this is truly helpful!  Really Apple accessibility customer care (or 
> whatever the PR gurus call them these days) have excelled themselves. See 
> the reply in its entirety below:
> 
> Does my sarcasm come across?
> 
> Dónal
> 
> (message starts)
> 
> Hello,
> Thank you for your email. At this time, support for accessibility in 
> Logic Pro X is limited.  We are continuing to work on improving 
> accessibility. We appreciate your feedback while we work towards this 
> goal.
> Apple Accessibility
> 
> (message ends)
> Dr. Dónal Fitzpatrick,
> School of Computing,
> Dublin City University,
> Glasnevin,
> Dublin 9, Ireland
> Tel. +353-(0)1-700-8929
> fax: +353-(0)1-700-5442
> email: dfitzpat (at) computing.dcu.ie
> 
> Email Disclaimer
> "This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are 
> intended solely for use by the addressee. Any unauthorised dissemination, 
> distribution or copying of this message and any attachments is strictly 
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the 
> sender and delete the message. Any views or opinions presented in this 
> e-mail may solely be the views of the author and cannot be rel

Re: State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Chris Moore]

I agree, Mac OS X accessibility sucks.  iOS is far superior and the Mac is half 
baked and very buggy.  I could never recommend the Mac as a productive tool for 
the blind.

I don't think we should give up though, we need to keep up the pressure.  We 
also need to shame Apple by bringing it to the attention of mainstream press  
Let's try and convince someone to publish an article on how crap Voiceover is 
on the Mac.  We only ever seem to get a slight update each time a new OS comes 
out.

We need to keep making a noise and more of it.

Chris 
On 20 Jul 2013, at 11:08, Dónal Fitzpatrick  wrote:

> Chris,
> 
> Dealing with both your mails in one here.  I wholeheartedly agree.  I've been 
> convinced for almost 2 years that Apple sees their job in terms of 
> accessibility for the blind, specifically on OSX but to a lesser extent on 
> IOS, as done.  They can walk into any courtroom and claim, with 
> justification, that they are in compliance with ADA, section 508, EU 
> disability legislation etc.  Afraid in my view OSX accessibility is dying on 
> the vine so we may as well accept that what we have now is as good as it's 
> going to get.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dónal
> On 20 Jul 2013, at 06:31, "Chris Gilland"  wrote:
> 
>> And, though I cannot go into the specifics due to NDA, I'll say this, and 
>> under no circumstances anything more.  I've reported through bug reporter 
>> many many bugs as I'm an Apple Dev both for IOS and for OSX.  In both cases 
>> a lot of the bugs had to do with things in IOS7 and in Mavericks both which 
>> are broken accessibility wise.  Again, I can't legally reveal what these 
>> things are, but the response I finally got back directly from engineering, 
>> was something to the effect of we know about this bug, however, what you are 
>> experiencing is exactly the way it's supposed to behave, so learn how to 
>> deal with it.  Excuse me, but I paid 100 dollars to become a dev, not a 
>> person whom won't be listen to!  Frankly, I'm almost ready to give 
>> engineering a piece of my mind!
>> 
>> Chris.
>> 
>> - Original Message - From: "Sarah k Alawami" 
>> To: "Mac OSX & iOS Accessibility" 
>> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 1:41 PM
>> Subject: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino
>> 
>> 
>> It's the same canned response  I received with GB as well. In fact I doubt 
>> they will continue to improve accessibility in GB as I have not ten no more 
>> responses even through the bug tracker I use.
>> On Jul 19, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Josh Gregory  wrote:
>> 
>>> This reminds me of humanware, LOL.
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Jul 19, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Dónal Fitzpatrick  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Well this is truly helpful!  Really Apple accessibility customer care (or 
 whatever the PR gurus call them these days) have excelled themselves. See 
 the reply in its entirety below:
 
 Does my sarcasm come across?
 
 Dónal
 
 (message starts)
 
 Hello,
 Thank you for your email. At this time, support for accessibility in Logic 
 Pro X is limited.  We are continuing to work on improving accessibility. 
 We appreciate your feedback while we work towards this goal.
 Apple Accessibility
 
 (message ends)
 Dr. Dónal Fitzpatrick,
 School of Computing,
 Dublin City University,
 Glasnevin,
 Dublin 9, Ireland
 Tel. +353-(0)1-700-8929
 fax: +353-(0)1-700-5442
 email: dfitzpat (at) computing.dcu.ie
 
 Email Disclaimer
 "This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are 
 intended solely for use by the addressee. Any unauthorised dissemination, 
 distribution or copying of this message and any attachments is strictly 
 prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the 
 sender and delete the message. Any views or opinions presented in this 
 e-mail may solely be the views of the author and cannot be relied upon as 
 being those of Dublin City University. E-mail communications such as this 
 cannot be guaranteed to be virus-free, timely, secure or error-free and 
 Dublin City University does not accept liability for any such matters or 
 their consequences. Please consider the environment before printing this 
 e-mail."
 
 
 
 
 <--- Mac Access At Mac Access Dot Net --->
 
 To reply to this post, please address your message to 
 mac-access@mac-access.net
 
 You can find an archive of all messages postedto the Mac-Access forum 
 at either the list's own dedicated web archive:
 
 or at the public Mail Archive:
 .
 Subscribe to the list's RSS feed from:
 
 
 As the Mac Access Dot Net administrators, we do our very best to ensure 
 that 

State of Apple Accessibility (was: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino)

[Dónal Fitzpatrick]

Chris,

Dealing with both your mails in one here.  I wholeheartedly agree.  I've been 
convinced for almost 2 years that Apple sees their job in terms of 
accessibility for the blind, specifically on OSX but to a lesser extent on IOS, 
as done.  They can walk into any courtroom and claim, with justification, that 
they are in compliance with ADA, section 508, EU disability legislation etc.  
Afraid in my view OSX accessibility is dying on the vine so we may as well 
accept that what we have now is as good as it's going to get.

Cheers,

Dónal
On 20 Jul 2013, at 06:31, "Chris Gilland"  wrote:

> And, though I cannot go into the specifics due to NDA, I'll say this, and 
> under no circumstances anything more.  I've reported through bug reporter 
> many many bugs as I'm an Apple Dev both for IOS and for OSX.  In both cases a 
> lot of the bugs had to do with things in IOS7 and in Mavericks both which are 
> broken accessibility wise.  Again, I can't legally reveal what these things 
> are, but the response I finally got back directly from engineering, was 
> something to the effect of we know about this bug, however, what you are 
> experiencing is exactly the way it's supposed to behave, so learn how to deal 
> with it.  Excuse me, but I paid 100 dollars to become a dev, not a person 
> whom won't be listen to!  Frankly, I'm almost ready to give engineering a 
> piece of my mind!
> 
> Chris.
> 
> - Original Message - From: "Sarah k Alawami" 
> To: "Mac OSX & iOS Accessibility" 
> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 1:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Logic Pro X accessibility: the view from Cupertino
> 
> 
> It's the same canned response  I received with GB as well. In fact I doubt 
> they will continue to improve accessibility in GB as I have not ten no more 
> responses even through the bug tracker I use.
> On Jul 19, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Josh Gregory  wrote:
> 
>> This reminds me of humanware, LOL.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Jul 19, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Dónal Fitzpatrick  
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Well this is truly helpful!  Really Apple accessibility customer care (or 
>>> whatever the PR gurus call them these days) have excelled themselves. See 
>>> the reply in its entirety below:
>>> 
>>> Does my sarcasm come across?
>>> 
>>> Dónal
>>> 
>>> (message starts)
>>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> Thank you for your email. At this time, support for accessibility in Logic 
>>> Pro X is limited.  We are continuing to work on improving accessibility. We 
>>> appreciate your feedback while we work towards this goal.
>>> Apple Accessibility
>>> 
>>> (message ends)
>>> Dr. Dónal Fitzpatrick,
>>> School of Computing,
>>> Dublin City University,
>>> Glasnevin,
>>> Dublin 9, Ireland
>>> Tel. +353-(0)1-700-8929
>>> fax: +353-(0)1-700-5442
>>> email: dfitzpat (at) computing.dcu.ie
>>> 
>>> Email Disclaimer
>>> "This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are 
>>> intended solely for use by the addressee. Any unauthorised dissemination, 
>>> distribution or copying of this message and any attachments is strictly 
>>> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the 
>>> sender and delete the message. Any views or opinions presented in this 
>>> e-mail may solely be the views of the author and cannot be relied upon as 
>>> being those of Dublin City University. E-mail communications such as this 
>>> cannot be guaranteed to be virus-free, timely, secure or error-free and 
>>> Dublin City University does not accept liability for any such matters or 
>>> their consequences. Please consider the environment before printing this 
>>> e-mail."
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <--- Mac Access At Mac Access Dot Net --->
>>> 
>>> To reply to this post, please address your message to 
>>> mac-access@mac-access.net
>>> 
>>> You can find an archive of all messages postedto the Mac-Access forum 
>>> at either the list's own dedicated web archive:
>>> 
>>> or at the public Mail Archive:
>>> .
>>> Subscribe to the list's RSS feed from:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> As the Mac Access Dot Net administrators, we do our very best to ensure 
>>> that the Mac-Access E-Mal list remains malware, spyware, Trojan, virus and 
>>> worm-free.  However, this should in no way replace your own security 
>>> strategy.  We assume neither liability nor responsibility should something 
>>> unpredictable happen.
>>> 
>>> Please remember to update your membership preferences periodically by 
>>> visiting the list website at:
>>> 
>>> 
>> <--- Mac Access At Mac Access Dot Net --->
>> 
>> To reply to this post, please address your message to 
>> mac-access@mac-access.net
>> 
>> You can find an archive of all messages postedto the Mac-Access forum at 
>> either the list's own dedicated web archive:
>>