lol, I wonder if those people feel that way now? I find their argument to be flawed because it makes the assumption that Microsoft wouldn't allow any 3rd party screen readers, which isn't really their style. I will give those blind advocates the benefit of the doubt, and say there intentions were good but, we all know what road good intentions paths the way to. :)
Ricardo Walker rica...@appletothecore.info Twitter:@apple2thecore www.appletothecore.info On Jun 24, 2012, at 5:44 PM, "Timothy Harshbarger" <tsha...@gmail.com> wrote: > In Microsoft's defense... > > I believe their original plan was to create a full-fledged screen reader for > Windows in the late 90's--that is what Narrator was supposed to become. > However, many in the blind community as well as the screen reader vendors > were very vocally opposed to this. > The opposition to a built-in screen reader was based on concerns that it > would put all the screen reader vendors out of business and then Microsoft > would fail to keep up a commitment to producing a good screen reader in the > future. Those people opposed didn't want to have to rely on Microsoft for > their screen reader. > I remember being present at one of the public announcements of Narrator. > Microsoft was very careful to ensure people that Narrator wasn't intended to > take the place of the other screen readers--that it was just intended for > emergency use, not every day use. > > My guess is that Apple would have received the same response if there had > been screen readers available for OSX. There wasn't, so things worked out > differently. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Pete Nalda > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 4:05 PM > To: viphone@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: OT: Why Did Apple Create VoiceOver? > > I also think Apple did something else no other company did, by having us, > the blind community,test what was then called "Spoken Interface", before it > became VoiceOver, and released in Tiger (10.4). > > Egun On, Lagunak! Basque for G'day, Mates > Louie P. (Pete) Nalda > Http://www.myspace.com/lpnalda > Http://www.facebook.com/lpnalda > Http://www.linkedin.com/in/lpnalda > Twitter @lpnalda > > > > On Jun 24, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Ricardo Walker <rwalker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I totally agree here. >> >> It would have been easy, and truth be told, probably more profitable, if > they decided to put out a weak screen reader, something like Windows > Narrator for example, you know, just enough to satisfy the letter of the law > and move on to other things. Instead, they decided to do it right, and put > forth the resources and effort to make top notch screen readers. I think > for that they should be commended. >> >> Ricardo Walker >> rica...@appletothecore.info >> Twitter:@apple2thecore >> www.appletothecore.info >> >> On Jun 24, 2012, at 2:01 PM, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >>> I know you didn't want conjecture, but I've seen several times, from >>> people who were involved with the issue at the time, that Apple did this >>> because they had no accessibility story and were losing out to Microsoft >>> and PC's in government and educational contracts. When Berkley Systems >>> went out of business or stopped developing Outspoken, the 3rd party >>> screen reader for Macs, there was no screen reader for Apple products >>> and no other 3rd party company was stepping in to fill the void. In >>> order to continue to have an accessibility story, and compete with PC's >>> for these contracts, Apple chose to enter the screen reader market >>> themselves. >>> >>> Like I said, I don't have any documents to prove this, only hearsay from >>> people who were familiar with the issue at the time. I also wouldn't >>> expect Apple to market the above story. For whatever reason, they >>> embraced accessibility, and they can just market their commitment to >>> full accessibility by everyone. I also don't think this takes away at >>> all from Apple's commitment to accessibility and what they've been able >>> to accomplish with VoiceOver. They are a corporation after-all, and if >>> they saw a profit in making their products accessible, there's nothing >>> wrong with that. >>> >>> I agree VoiceOver is a great product, and I can understand your >>> willingness to support a company that builds accessibility into their >>> product, but I don't think it's leaps and bounds better than every other >>> screen reader out there. I think this is a highly subjective opinion. >>> >>> On 24/06/12 07:58, Daniel Miller wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I completely agree here. Just look at other companies, Microsoft for >>>> example, a company that claims all their products are accessible to > persons >>>> with disabilities. That statement couldn't be any more wrong. I myself > would >>>> much rather pay a premium for an apple product with accessibility built > in >>>> out of the box, as opposed to paying the same price for another screen >>>> access solution, on top of a PC with Windows. >>>> Yes, VO isn't perfect, but it's leaps and bounds over what other > companies >>>> like Freedom scientific and GW Micro could ever dream of creating. >>>> I'm sorry if my post strayed off topic, I just can't help but admit I'm > also >>>> a fanboy and an Apple geek. >>>> >>>> P.S.: I can't wait to see them try to make Windows RT accessible on > tablets. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On > Behalf >>>> Of Scott Howell >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 7:37 AM >>>> To: viphone@googlegroups.com >>>> Subject: Re: OT: Why Did Apple Create VoiceOver? >>>> >>>> Craig, >>>> >>>> I am not sure you will find a specific reason. I have heard stories that >>>> range from Apple facing a lawsuit (not likely at all) to some child of > an >>>> engineer (more likely) who was blind. I suspect the real reason is that >>>> Apple saw an opportunity and opted to take a risk which I should note > has >>>> paid in spades. Apple has done more than any other "mainstream" company > has >>>> ever done. In fact I will go as far as to say that VO on an iOS device > is >>>> revolutionary and really changed how blind people interact with > touch-screen >>>> devices. VO has really leveled the playing field in ways no other screen >>>> reader has been able. I think Apple realized the success of VO on the > Mac >>>> and heard from users they wanted access to iPods, iPhones, etc. There is > no >>>> question that VO on iOS has been wildly successful. Oh and yes for the >>>> record I am a fanboy and thrilled to be such. However, for the record VO >>>> like any screen reading solution is not perfect; although it does one > hell >>>> of a job. :) >>>> >>>> On Jun 24, 2012, at 7:32 AM, Craig Werner <coffeeb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Greetings to the list. >>>>> >>>>> Over on the vi-kindle email list from freelists.org, a user asked a >>>>> penetrating question: "Why did Apple build accessibility into all of >>>>> its products?" Knowing the answer to this query might prove helpful >>>>> as blind and visually impaired people work with other companies to >>>>> make their products more accessible. I have heard that Apple made the >>>>> iPod accessible because it was looking out for motorists who might be >>>>> better served by finding music by touch than by diverting their gaze >>>>> from the road to look at a screen. However, this information is >>>>> anecdotal. Can anyone point to evidence right from the company as to >>>>> why VoiceOver was integrated into the Apple line? I'm looking for the >>>>> facts, not conjecture. <smile> Since this question is off topic, if >>>>> you'll email me off list, I'll summarize to the list. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for all help. >>>>> >>>>> Craig >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" >>>> Google Group. >>>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> viphone+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" > Google >>>> Group. >>>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/. >>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> viphone+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Christopher (CJ) >>> chaltain at Gmail >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" > Google Group. >>> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit > http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/. >>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > viphone+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" > Google Group. >> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit > http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/. >> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > viphone+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google > Group. > To search the VIPhone public archive, visit > http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/. > To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > viphone+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google > Group. > To search the VIPhone public archive, visit > http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/. > To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > viphone+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group. To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/. To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
