Theresa, I'm not sure what you mean by the "capitalist economy" since all economies are capitalist in nature. In fact I'd argue that without capitalism Apple would not have any incentive to consider accessibility. I'm not sure where charities fit into this conversation either. The fact is APple chose to make accessibility a core component of their business model because APple decided at some point that everyone should have equal access. Regardless of how small a market segment the disable population is, Apple has made the commitment and will continue to do so. Just as app developers have responded in most cases very favorably to making their apps accessible. I suspect it is not just because it is the "right thing" to do, but because there is a segment of the market that could be tapped for sales. Capitalism really is a good thing because it gives people the incentive to strive for your money. :)
On Sep 17, 2012, at 11:02 PM, Teresa Cochran <vegaspipistre...@gmail.com> wrote: > The issue of blind folk and touch screens is quite fascinating. I've always > had trouble with spatial orientation, and if it weren't for the constant > audible feedback, I'd get losT on a Magic Trackpad for the Mac or the screen > on my IPOD. That said, I am really beginning to appreciate the spatial > plcement, and I'm getting much more comfortable with it. > > As for Apple's accessibility commitment, I think it's fantastic, but in a > capitalist economy, it can only go so far, unless charities step in and help, > or unless Apfle had various foundations for the purpose. I reY wouldn't have > guessed this level of accessibility would exist a few years back, and > frankly, this is why I buy Apple products. I support this commitment with my > wallet. :) > > Teresa > > On Sep 17, 2012, at 6:17 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> You are correct for the Mac. For iOS devices, however, this is not the case. >> Most of the professional proofs and studies clearly demonstrated that blind >> peepul, as a whole, did not have the necessary spatial awareness, and >> attempting to memorise, without good tactile clues, would be almost >> impossible for most blind people. Therefore, an accessible pure touch-screen >> device was not expected or required. After all aside from some basic >> functionality, it couldn't be done anyway. Those poor blind people. >> >> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA >> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com >> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288 >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 18/09/2012, at 9:34, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I agree with David here, but I also wonder how much of Apple's sales are >>> effected by their commitment to accessibility. For example, how many >>> government sales or small business sales or educational sales wouldn't >>> have even been possible if they weren't able to demonstrate that they >>> had an accessible solution and meet the various regulations and laws, at >>> least here in the US? I think this would explode the 100K figure by >>> quite a bit, although I'm not sure it's possible to capture such a >>> number. I also don't mean to take away from Apple's commitment to >>> accessibility. I think their commitment goes beyond just bottom line >>> dollars and cents, although they are a business, and I don't think >>> they're doing it entirely out of the kindness of their corporate hearts. >>> >>> On 17/09/12 16:05, Scott Howell wrote: >>>> David, >>>> >>>> True, but my point is that although a small portion of the overall sales, >>>> APple still considers this segment worth the investment. I would love to >>>> know what the real numbers are across all Apple products including the >>>> Macs. >>>> >>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 4:19 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Do not consider 100,000 iPhones to blind folk to be much of a market in >>>>> this case. This number represents 0.3% of 1 quarter year of Apple's >>>>> iPhone sales, but includes all models of iPhones for the past 3 years. In >>>>> other words, if Apple were to stop supporting VO, they wouldn't even >>>>> notice the tiny bump to their profits. Apple is not supporting concepts >>>>> of universal access for their bottom line. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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.
