All of this might be true...
But I have several questions.
If mobile devices and new technologies are created and let's say
touchscreens are so great, why not take it up another level and finally
create a computer system like the fictional LCARS from Star Trek, where you
have instant access to your data and where you have the option of full real
time interactive voice control plus voice output of everything?
Surely voice input and output shouldn't be desired by blind users in the
world alone, it could be adapted for everyone.
And the other thing I am wondering about is the usage of mobile devices in
general.
I was born blind and could never see, nor do I currently have a device like
an IPhone...
But I'd like to ask anyone who could see at some point in their life to tell
me why watching some HD videos on super small mobile displays or playing
complex and graphically intensive games with said small devices instead of
using more stationary devices and large screens capable of handling digital
HD media?
I can understand why people would like to have more functions in small
devices. But things like listening to music with more than two speakers
like 5.1 or 7.1 audio systems or watching high resolution movies and such
surely should remain on the currently needed technology instead of being
ported to small devices unless you can adapt them as well to handle all
this.
I don't know what the processing capabilities of android phones are or what
said capabilities are for other mobile devices, but I doubt that they are
really better than current high tech computing equipment and the big
computer networks and super computers.
Surely, there is still time for such developments, but the question remains
who does set such trents and can companies like Microsoft influence or stop
such trents, because Microsoft is not small and should have considerable
power, so it could be asked if Microsoft must adapt, or could Microsoft
force others to adapt to whatever they create.
Besides, why do we or companies have to follow and copy whatever someone
makes before us?
This discussion of user interfaces (Office 2003 vs 2007 design for example)
is pointless in my opinion.
I personally don't have problems with the idea of changing the design of a
program.
But we do we have to be forced to a design. Let's take the Office 2007
design for an example.
I have read several reports and posts in various forums (sighted users)
where people were not happy with the new design not because they had to
learn new things, but because they did not have a choice in the matter
meaning that everyone who got the new Office for whatever reason had to use
the new design.
But what I never got in this talk was, why Microsoft did not offer two
designs?
Look at Windows Media Player or Winamp. Both programs have skins which you
can download or create yourself to alter and customice the interface of your
program. But why don't more programs have the option for skins (surely it
can't be because they want to make money, because you could theoretically
sell anything you develop).
So, what is the problem with the talks of designs and user feedback
companies are getting and seemingly ignore here and there sometimes?
---
Gamers mailing list __ [email protected]
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [email protected].
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected].
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to [email protected].
