The hard part is that accessibility is a continuum, not a boolean
checkbox. You can never, or at least seldom, say an app is fully
accessible. At some point it's just like saying an app has a good user
interface. That's highly subjective. Sure the basics are obvious like
missing button labels or undiscoverable controls, but beyond that there
be dragons. When I check apps for accessibility I give them a priority
ranking 1-4. P1 blocks access to a major feature, P2 blocks a minor
feature, P3 makes a major feature difficult to use, P4 makes a minor
feature difficult to use. I usually get a good response from developers
on P1s and even some P2s but that leaves a pile of hard to use stuff
because those bugs never get high priority. The typical developer is
asked to implement 100 things but only given enough time to do 50. So
they've already had to dump a bunch of stuff. Then to ask them to dump
more features to fix some accessibility bugs, well, that's a hard sell.
Some care and will do the 'extra' work or at least fix the worst/easy
things but some are already under a lot of pressure and really can't
spare the cycles.
CB
On 7/10/14, 6:12 PM, DD wrote:
http://www.marco.org/2014/07/10/app-review-should-test-accessibility#tk.rss_all
XB
--
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"MacVisionaries" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
