I'm one of those people who felt that way. I admit now though that what Apple has done has given me a lot to think about though. I'm not sure it was still the wrong thing to have done though. Who knows where we'd be today if MS had gotten into the screen reader business. If MS had a screen reader that worked well with only MS products and Apple had a screen reader that only worked well with Apple products and the 3rd party screen reader companies had gone by the board, who knows where we'd be right now. If MS's screen reader had only been mediocre, how much would Apple have had to do to keep pace? Hind sight is 20/20 I guess.
I'm still a little nervous about OS/application companies getting into the screen reader business, although I admit Apple has done a great job. I still worry about how much Apple works to make sure other companies products (Firefox, MS Office, ...) and so on are supported by VoiceOver. This concern will grow as Apple gets into more applications and services. I know someone can say that it's the applications developer's responsibility to make their applications accessible with VoiceOver, but as someone who needs an accessible computer and set of applications to remain gainfully employed, I just want someone to make the applications accessible, and I don't want the screen reader developers pointing fingers at the application developers or the other way around. Apple's closed and proprietary system also gives me pause. I know MS is also heading in that direction. It's obviously been a wildly successful model for Apple, which is why other companies are following their lead, but I fear getting locked into one companies products, file formats and so on over another's. I know it offers some advantages, in performance, security, ease of use and so on, but I fear that it'll also have some negative side effects, such as cutting down on employment options. These are just my own personal views, and as I said, Apple has done a lot to make me rethink my opinions. BTW, I'm also glad Apple has done as much as they have to prove me wrong. I doubt these opinions are shared by many on this list, and I think it's probably getting a bit off topic for the list, so I hope people will forgive me if I've disagreed with anyone else's opinions or gone too far afield on this list. On 24/06/12 16:50, Ricardo Walker wrote: > 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. > -- 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.
