I like the idea. Have you tried submitting it to Apple accessibility? Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 11, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Robert C <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is exactly what I was suggesting not too long ago and was pretty much > shot down. We need this type of rating system. If an app is rated as > accessible, then we might have a hope that the developer just may be > interested in improving his app should there be some shortcomings. We gotta > start somewhere. > > The 2 level rating system makes perfect sense. Its NOT real usability we > want, its knowing that an app may be accessible and we then can decide > whether to buy or not. I do not hesitate to try free apps. I do not buy a > paid app unless I know its at least partly accessible. This might be a good > idea to develop apps in such a way that they are free to try and if we like > it, do an in app purchase to release its full functionaility. > > Usability can be subjective, yes. That holds true everywhere. The above > idea would allow us to test this for ourselves. > > Quote of the nanosecond . . . > Like a cult, but without the animal sacrifice. > --Mary Kay > Robert & Annie Yanni ke7nwn > E-mail- > [email protected] > >> On 7/11/2014 8:55 AM, erik burggraaf wrote: >> Chris, I think you have to cut your 4 star rating down to two for these >> purposes. >> >> An accessibility issue, that where there is a barrier to the use of the >> feature. >> A usibility issue, that where something works, but is unintuitive. >> >> You can then test for certain things. For example, any modern compiler can >> tell you if you are missing a semicolon at the end of a line, if a procedure >> is not closed properly, or if a variable is not declared properly. In the >> same way, it can also tell you if any object does not have labels and or >> help tags. Many compilers do this anyway, but labels are treated as >> warnings when they could and should be upgraded to something a bit more >> alarming. >> >> Compilers could test for some rules making sure that custom controls are >> connected to the accessibility API, and those should be fatal errors. If >> there were a way to iliminate the human element from all software testing >> and still have programs that ran cleanly and looked fantastic, they would >> have found it by now. We just need the same level of caution afforded to >> accessibility. There will always be diverse levels of usibility, but a >> standard for software whereby it could not be released without the minimum >> level of accessibility is a real, essential, and highly achievalble goal. >> >> BEst, >> >> Erik Burggraaf >> The great amazon gift card giveaway begins friday june eleventh at 5 pm! >> The more who donate, the more chances there will be to win! Click here for >> detales. >> http://www.fundme.com/en/projects/6287-Orientation-and-mobility-training-for-the-blind >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 2014-07-11, at 11:18 AM, "'Chris Blouch' via MacVisionaries" >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 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. > > -- > 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. -- 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.
