Dude, are you about to cry because you can't buy a song from the ITunes music store? I did not buy my computer for music, its a tool, not an mp3 player Gabe Vega The BlindTechs Network Website: http://blindtechs.net Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (602) 476-2307 (562) 261-5277 (866) 714-4244 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Abdul Kamara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'General discussions on all topics relating to the use of Mac OS Xby the blind'" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:19 PM Subject: RE: iTunes' Inaccessibility and VoiceOver
> Hello Mr. Morales, > > I thank you very much for the 37 cents, though I hope you won't mind if I > "buck up" with 63 more... > > You did not come out and say it, but I, much as you, am surprised at the > number of blind apologists of Apple on this board. > > Apple had a lot of time to make its signature applications accessible with > voiceover. Yet still, there has been little progress toward this end. > It's been said by some on this board that Apple's priority and focus has > been toward "productivity applications", and that it's ok for programs such > as iTunes to remain in the sidelines. As much as I am to respect the view > points of others, it is asinine for anyone to presume arbitration over > "productivity". Not everyone buys a computer for solely word-processing. > > There are some who are pacified by the words of Apple ."Oh don't worry, > daddy Apple will make everything betta for you blind folk". And they buy it > hook, line and sinker. They believe it so much that they will chastise > anyone for having a healthy skepticism therein. > > Accessibility has NEVER been a sexy issue for any mainstream software > company of note. Despite, Jobs' presentation to the contrary, the track > record suggests that voiceover development is ancillary to everything that > Apple is doing. This needs to change, and it can't happen if some blind > users continue to make excuses for them. > > I have no biases toward either platform. But the current state of Apple's > Initiative on Accessibility is not enough to warrant my total commitment to > the Mac. Bottom line: I have way too much to do, than to sit down like a > whimpering stray dog, begging for Apple to throw me a freakin'' bone. In > the interim, I will use Excel on Windows. > > One final point. I agree with the assertion that blind users are a "special > interest". But where I disagree is with the notion that we are a special > interest of equal consideration. We don't need equality. Rather, we should > have equitability. Voiceover is not an application of choice. In as far as > blind users are concerned, it is fundamental to the usage of the operating > system. Therefore, accessibility should be a central consideration in all > of Apple's software development. Simple deductive reason shows that it is > not. I don't think that Steve Jobs' mention of Voiceover served anything > but to make Apple look good. What I'm more concerned about is if they > follow through with what they say. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Morales > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 3:09 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: iTunes' Inaccessibility and VoiceOver > > I'm sure most on this list are frustrated at Apple's refusal to make iTunes > accessible with VoiceOver, myself included. It has been almost a year and a > half since VoiceOver was released and to this date the most popular > application Apple offers cannot be used with it. > > Yes, this is deplorable. Apple's whole strategy over the past five years > has surrounded iTunes and the iPod. Without them, there would very likely > be no Apple today. > > If one looks up iTunes' history on the Internet, one will read how iTunes > was born from an application called SoundJam. SoundJam, like iTunes of > today, is/was a Carbon-based application. Discussion has gone around and > round on this list about the benefits and the difficulties of making > Carbon-based applications accessible. Yes, making Carbon applications > accessible is hard but its not impossible. > Like all things done well, it takes time to do this. > > The point that is being missed, however, is that Apple has, reluctantly or > not, made a rather large commitment towards accessibility over the past > three years. We can argue about the rationale behind VoiceOver all we like. > The bottom line is that we have VoiceOver. Further more, we've seen what > Apple has in store for us in Leopard. If we take Apple at face value for > the VoiceOver Leopard features, then VoiceOver Leopard should be a rather > nice release. However, no where on Apple's Leopard pages does it say > anything about VoiceOver working with iTunes in Leopard! > > VoiceOver has existed for 18 months. Apple seems to release new versions of > iTunes about once a year, so surely somewhere in that 18 months the iTunes > team had to know about VoiceOver and the importance of accessible > applications. And iTunes 7 is every bit as inaccessible as iTunes 6 was > with VoiceOver. > > Again, taking Apple at face value based on the inclusion of accessibility as > one of the top 10 Leopard features, Apple is really committed to > accessibility. However, the credibility of this commitment is in serious > jeopardy when Apple sees fit to release inaccessible versions of its most > important application. > > So do we now sit and wait a year for iTunes 8, hoping beyond hope that it is > at long last accessible? If not, then iTunes 9? > > Thanks for reading. Just my $.37! > > Tony > > >
