Joe, you and Jerry are correct and my dig about Itunes was more a
poke at Apple for fun. I do understand the complex issues etc. so I
think Apple is commited, but there's a lot ahead of them as well as
smaller developers. Of course osme of the finest apps come from the
smaller developers.
tnx
Scott
On Feb 26, 2006, at 7:45 PM, Kafka's Daytime wrote:
*grin* Thanks Scot. Yes, the iTunes issue is a real black eye. I
don't know anything about what's going on internally at Apple but
I'll say the following based on my personal experience:
1. I've been personally blown away by the interest I've seen Apple
take in accessibility. In particular, their Developer Relations
Assistive Technology Segment is really good about reaching out to
developers and providing real support and guidance (and not just
paying lip service to accessibility). They're obviously serious
about their internal accessibility work and equally serious about
encouraging and supporting 3rd party developers. Incidentally,
Apple has just hired a new blind engineer - no doubt to work on the
issues Jerry raises.
2. As Jerry points out, it's much easier for a small operation like
mine to make relatively rapid adjustments (especially when
accessibility is our primary focus). It's going to take a bit
longer for this to happen at a big company like Apple where there's
always some pretty complex balancing going on (and we all have a
stake in that balance being properly maintained). That being said,
I think they've made an excellent start, proved their seriousness
in regards to accessibility and really raised the stakes by
integrating no-extra-cost accessibility tools like VO into the
Operating System and making accessibility pretty straightforward
even for developers who are not accessibility specialists (and
providing the excellent development tools for free). Do we know
what a big deal this is?
We want Apple to make the changes Jerry described (iTunes update at
the top of the list) - but we also want this growth to continue to
happen in a healthy way. We have to bear in mind that software
development takes time and rushing this work usually ends with bad
results. Of course, that's very little consolation for a Blind/VI
user who wants to use iTunes today. On the other hand, Apple
*could* have waited until all of their accessibility "ducks" were
in a row before releasing the new accessibility tools (like VO) to
the public - but I think they did the smart/practical thing by
releasing a basic set of tools sooner rather than later. Perhaps we
should think of this as a head start. Now comes the work by Apple
and third party developers like us to get everything else up to
speed. I for one think this is and will continue to happen.
In the meantime, lists like this one - the voices of a
constructively active and engaged Blind/VI Mac community - provide
fuel for continued positive change.
I'm pretty encouraged about where we seem to be headed.
Joe
On Feb 26, 2006, at 6:25 PM, Scott Howell wrote:
Man I like this gent's attitude! Ok Joe you got to tell all those
developers out there the same thing, they have no excuses and
while your at it, let Apple they don't have any excuses
themselves.:) Hey look at Itunes and nevermind this cross-platform
garbage.:) You tell em, Joe said so.:)
Scott
On Feb 26, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Kafka's Daytime wrote:
By the way, you've just seen one of the huge advantages that come
with having VoiceOver built right into the OS and not costing
anything extra. You can report a problem and any developer can
fire up VO, experience the problem first hand and get started on
a fix. No worries about the developer not being able to afford a
(hugely expensive) screen reader or worrying about which software
package is being used.
It also means that there really are no good excuses for
developers not meeting basic accessibility requirements. That
goes for us and our third party payment processing page too. That
really shouldn't have slipped by (relative newness of the effort
withstanding). We need to fix that. Again, though, we were able
to figure that all out within a few minutes - and that's gotta be
a good thing.
If you didn't know already, you know now that you're justified in
expecting a lot more from Mac OS X developers (us included) when
it comes to accessibility.
Joe
On Feb 26, 2006, at 5:05 PM, Kafka's Daytime wrote:
Here is bad stuff I encounter when navigating our payment
processor's credit card payment page with VO:
Everything is cool up to the credit card security code field
text label. After that, navigation with VO stinks - not VO's
fault, it's bad page design.
Main problems:
1. Can't navigate to card security ID field with VO (though you
can TAB to the field and VO will let you know you're in a text
field...except you have to guess at what the field is for.
Obviously unacceptable).
2. "Same as shipping address field" checkbox for Billing Address
section becomes unchecked as soon as you navigate to Street
Address field. Put simply, anyone who checks the "Same as
shipping address field" checkbox then continues to navigate via
keyboard and VO will have the checkbox unchecked but not know
it. It shouldn't work like that.
Again, I'll make sure we talk to the payment processor tomorrow
(2/26) to see how quickly this can be fixed or if we can somehow
apply our own template and ensure from our end that
accessibility requirements for the credit card payment page are
properly met.
Apologies for the inconvenience.
Joe
On Feb 26, 2006, at 4:37 PM, Jerry Halatyn wrote:
Yes, I've had some trouble as well. It was a while ago and I
don't recall the details but I do remember having some unusual
problem. I buy stuff online all the time. This was one of those
few instances where I had a problem.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kafka's Daytime"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "General discussions on all topics relating to the use of
Mac OS X by theblind" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: katieplayer payment site
Hi Christos,
I'll take a look and try to see if I can figure out what the
problem might be on the payment page - most likely reason is
some missing information i.e. an empty required field.
Which operating system and web browser are you using?
There haven't been any reported problems with the
registration payment page - but that doesn't mean you haven't
unearthed something new. I'll second Christos'
question...anybody on the list have any problems with the
katieplayer payment processing page?
Direct payment by check or money order is another option.
I'll get back shortly after taking a fresh look at the payment
page and post any new information to the list.
Kind regards,
Joe
On Feb 26, 2006, at 3:47 PM, christos hux wrote:
I thought I would ask this here since Joe from Kafkasdaytime
is now on the list.
I tried going through the registration process to pay for
Katieplayer. Up until the creditcard info fields there was
no problem. When I put in my credit card info the next field
down from that asked for the sid number of my card. I did
enter in this as far as I could tell,however it keppt
bringing me back to this registration screen when I tried to
go onward with the registration.
Has anyone else had problems with the Kagi payment site? Joe
any other payment options for katieplayer?
