This decision was made in the mid 90's. The person in charge of JAWS
development was hired as head of accessibility for MS. The decision not to
develop a full fledged screen reader was made largely to protect what was
Henter-Joyce, now Freedom Scientific.
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Harshbarger
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 2:44 PM
To: viphone@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: OT: Why Did Apple Create VoiceOver?
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.
