And I thank you for your response Josh. We will just have to agree to disagree on our points of contention. But just so we are clear, I am not in any way overse to the idea of discovering whether something works for me as a blind person. I don't know if you are partially sighted, nor do I know the level of efficiency through which you use the iPod. You made reference to viewing images on your iPod so it's probably safe to say that you have sight-- which, by the way, mitigates the inaccessibility of the click wheel.
I believe it is inaccessible because there is an element of it that responds to fluid movement (the touch component), which gives us no point of reference except hopefully the clicking sound, which is not always audible in different environments. This is not to say that it can't be used, but the design could be much better. Just as well, it could be much worse. And I have a feeling that the iPhone will be. I'm not saying "don't buy it"; but I am nevertheless, skeptical. Regarding your second point, I would just like to say that we are not like sighted people. We don't have the luxery of buying and fully using consumer electronics. Regarding iTunes: I fully agree. Now that Apple has put out this bit of innovation, there is no more credible excuse as to why iTunes should remain inaccessible. Abdul -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Josh de Lioncourt Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:25 PM To: General discussions on all topics relating to the use of Mac OS X by the blind Subject: Re: New iPhone Abdul, Thanks for your succinct and valuable contribution to this topic. My response will not be nearly as in depth as yours, as I haven't a lot of time this morning, but I did want to address just two quick things. First, I disagree on the click wheel. I own and adore my iPod, and have no problems with the click wheel at all. I do not understand, whatsoever, why people think it is so much less accessible than anything else. It would be nice if the menu options were voiced, but aside from that, it is extremely usable. Telephone keypads, TV remote controls, microwave ovens, and any number of gadgets have controls which must be memorized by the blind, and tend to be far more difficult to manage than Apple's click wheel, which I happen to like and have found far easier than most of the above items. Why a blindee would want the new iPhone is a fairly simple answer. For many of the same reasons a sighted person would, plus the potential for running VoiceOver. I'm not turned off by gadgets that might take time to learn to use. SO many visually impaired folks don't want to be bothered to learn to use something, which is the case with iPods. They're missing out in a lot of cases. They hear, "Oh, the click wheel is horribly inaccessible," and they take that as gospel. I'm sure glad i didn't. So many in the VI community are always so ready to assume something isn't accessible. If it doesn't talk, it's not worth their time. If more would go in with an open mind, you'd find there are a lot of things you can get a lot of use or enjoyment out of. If you want to complain about inaccessibility, complain about iTunes on the Mac, which I think very much qualifies. While there are some workarounds, there are many things that simply are impossible with it. Under Windows, iTunes and Window-Eyes are tricky, but totally useable and I can basically do anything a sighted person can, short of managing photos. I haven't looked in great detail at the iTunes store, but with a little patience that probably could be done as well. Abdul Kamara wrote: > Greetings All, > > Just a few clarifications regarding the iPhone. > > It makes sense that Apple chose Cingular. The GSM market share in the U.S > has exceeded 50%, and Cingular is the largest GSM provider in America. In > 2004 Deutche Telecom (parent of T-mobile, another GSM carrier) reported > having a subscriber base of 99 million, making it only the sixth largest > mobile phone carrier in the world, this is to say nothing of Vodaphone and > other formidable GSM providers. Relative to Nokia or even Motarola, Apple > is a small firm, that needs to carefully target it's resources for areas of > greater opportunity. In the mobile phone market, CDMA is not it. Bottom > line, the world has gone GSM and so should the U.S. By the way, T-mobile > users, don't dispare. As Cingular and T-mobile often share the same towers > (ergo the same technology), it's likely that the iPhone can be made to > function with your service. > > The benefits of Apple's choice, are not only economical, but also personal. > I've recently moved to the UK and I'm quite pleased that I did not have to > replace my Quad-band GSM phone from Samsung. All I had to do was pop in a > pay-as-you-go SIM and just like that... Were I to own an iPhone the same > would hold true, and given how expensive mobile phones can be, it's a good > thing that I don't have to own a phone for the U.S and another for when I > travel. > > So, to those complaining that iPhone is not appealing to the majority of the > U.S market, I say that first, it's not the majority. And second, rather > than complaining about Apple, complain about your carrier's unwillingness to > adhere to a defacto world standard. Or, if having an iPhone is simply not > important to you, don't complain at all. > > Better still, if we are going to complain, it should perhaps be over THE > issue. > > Some of you have been asking whether mobile speak can be made to function on > the phone. It's been said while also aknowledging that iPhone will be > running Mac OSX, and not Simbean or other derivatives therein. Wouldn't a > safer bet be that the phone might run VO and/or Zoom? Rather, wouldn't it > be nicer if it actually was a safe bet? > > In any event I'm curious as to why any blind person would want to have this > phone. Notwithstanding any possible accessible software running on it, it is > a touch screen device. The physical interface is by all accounts, not blind > friendly. Yet while the click wheel on the previous generation iPods are > bad enough, they are still manageable. > > > > Abdul > > > > > >
