> From what I've heard this isn't correct. At least one company were > interested in producing a screen reader but Apple wouldn't provide enough > information about some of the OS X code even though the company involved > were under a Non disclosure agreement
Will, are you talking about Alva? Please provide more detail! I have heard a similar story from credible, but extremely biased sources. Perhaps maybe this was Alva's perspective, but Apple's take on events would be quite different. I think Apple resisted developing a screen reader for as long as they dared, and only after pursing all other avenues. Sabotage doesn't fit into such a chain of events. What is Apple's possible motivation? Apple is a for profit company, a credible explanation will have them behaving rationally. OS X 10.0 public beta was shipped in 2000 and included developer tools and source code from the get go. "ALVA to Cease Development of outSPOKEN for Macintosh" was July 2003. Apple being worried about security or secrets at this point just doesn't fit the timeline. Apple is taking accessibility and VoiceOver quite seriously, but it reminds me of the old United Nations joke about USA politics and world events: You can count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities. >> If you want to hammer on Apple, don't hammer on them about >> VoiceOver not doing dirty tricks, but hammer on their lack of >> accessibility in all the iApps. Yeah! David, I really want to believe the best of Apple. iTunes I can forgive, even with the crazy version numbering, but just barely, because it is such krufty software. But that Pages 2006 is not accessible just blows me away. That one I can not rationalize. Obviously your are a critic on this point as well, but as a developer can you put a positive spin on this for me?
