dp: shouldn't that be inaccessible? MS Windows software, including Office, largely conforms with objective standards for accessibility. I hate Microsoft for retarding what should have been the natural growth of the IT industry, but they have done a fair job with keyboard accessibility.
Sean Tikkun wrote:
Does it seem ominous to anyone that Vista does not have a screen reader, just Beta's, and yet Windows is not in any violation of accessibility? How Does that work?
1) My understanding is that Vista has the same relatively lame Narrator feature found in XP and 2000. It is limited, but I do not think I would call it Beta. 2) Why should Microsoft bundle a real screen reader when there is a competative market in that space? 3) Why should *any* company be compelled to produce a screen reader? 4) What do you mean by "violation of accessibiliy"? Section 255 of the telecommunications act has legal requirements for telephones and broadcaster that address accessibility, but that does not apply to computers and software. The Federal government is legally committeed to procuring accessible E&IT via Section 508, but it does not require, per se, manufacturers to offer accessible products. 5) For the most part, the 508 provisions are about compatibility with assistive technology, not providing direct access. Prior to VoiceOver, Apple could use semantics to dodge the issue, and still sell to the Federal government. I am sure they are well pleased not to be playing that game anymore!
