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
