Because I am not the one bitching about it. its the others, I could give a damn if itunes worked or not, I use real player vlc quick time and others to play and organize music. Gabe Vega The BlindTechs Network Website: http://blindtechs.net Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (602) 476-2307 (562) 261-5277 (866) 714-4244 ----- Original Message ----- From: "will" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "General discussions on all topics relating to the use of Mac OS Xby the blind" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 5:33 AM Subject: Re: iTunes' Inaccessibility and VoiceOver
> hi > > if youa ll so bohered about i tunes not working, especially you, gabe, why > dont you stop moaning and script it yourself > regards, will > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Austin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "General discussions on all topics relating to the use of Mac OS Xby > theblind" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 12:17 PM > Subject: Re: iTunes' Inaccessibility and VoiceOver > > > >I agree with everything you say. I too still use Windows as the > >accessibility is much greater than that of Apple right now.. > > > > > > I do like Apple computers i really do but at the present time JFW is > > greater than VO compatibility. Although, i am looking forwards to the new > > release of Leopard next spring. > > > > > > James > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Abdul Kamara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "'General discussions on all topics relating to the use of Mac OS Xby > > theblind'" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 5:19 AM > > 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 > >> > >> > > > > > > >
