Turn this around just a bit. The shuffle lacks certain accessibility
features which would benefit blind and sighted alike. Now, while it
is true that accessible is the same or nearly so for sighted and
blind alike, we see that acccessibility can be improved for both. I
hope this begins to make sense. We don't compair the accessibility
of a product for different groups and if found equally accessible say
the product is accessible. We look at what makes something truly
acceessible. This product needs a lot of work, but it is not alone.
On May 29, 2006, at 8:49 AM, Travis Siegel wrote:
I'm really puzzled here.
What exactly is your definition of accessible?
If I can access all the functions of a unit, and I can do it in
exactly the same way the sighted folks do, regardless of the device,
or the medium, isn't that accessible?
I don't care that the shuffle doesn't have certain functions in it.
I.E. voice feedback for song titles, or play counters or the like.
The important thing is that it works for us exactly the same way it
works for the sighted people using it. What about this scenario is
not accessible?
And what about a cd player isn't accessible?
I can put a cd in my player, move forward, backward, skip songs, and
even randomly play songs if I desire (assuming the player has a
button for this function) here, I don't see a difference between
sighted/nonsighted access either. Most cd players (except for the
portable ones) don't have a display for sighted folks either, so
where's the non accessible features?
I believe you're confusing accessibility with feature rich. Just
because something doesn't have a feature I'd like, doesn't make it
inaccessible, it merely makes it not robust enough for my liking.
That's a completely different issue than being able to use it's
functions without sighted assistance.
Please try explaining what exactly it is you're trying to say here,
because I for one don't understand your point.
