The explanation has to be, 
"We are apple.  Our devices are accessible.  our commitment to access is the 
same as our commitment to secrity, stability or any other aspect of the user 
experience.  Apps will be accessible."


Best,

Erik
 u

Sent from my android device.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sabahattin Gucukoglu <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: Apple's App Review Should Test Accessibility

On 11 Jul 2014, at 19:28, erik burggraaf <[email protected]> wrote:
> Second, The Freedom Scientifics, GW Micros, and Humanwares, of the world are 
> a thing of the past and becoming less and less relevant every day as they 
> refuse to adapt and find ways to grow in a world where accessibility is in 
> the mainstream.  That means we no longer will have these people who we used 
> to pay thousands of dollars per person in order to bolt on accessibility for 
> us.  That's right.  If you buy an IPhone for work, and an update to pages 
> renders the program inaccessible, no one is going to come along and script it 
> back into functionality for you to the tune of $200 per hour.  That 
> necessarily places more onus on developers to get things done right.  You may 
> say that isn't fare to developers and you may be right, especially with the 
> lack of education and oversite being leveraged towards accessibility, but 
> life isn't fare.

Much as I agree with you, we do need to be careful and objective.  Right now, 
for instance, many developers can and do easily claim that life isn't fair, for 
us, and that there is no remedy for that.  If we're going to get accessibility 
more widely accepted, and as you speculate, on the onus of developers, first we 
have to explain why we should have access at their cost, as opposed to our 
lacking access, at their convenience.  That's an easy one for us, of 
course--the benefits to us (and, arguably, society as a whole) far outweigh the 
costs to them--but the fact is that some developers will find it difficult to 
reconcile the two.

I think the idea of mandatory accessibility identification is basically sound, 
because as others have said, it gives us a place to start.  It's also important 
to have a carrot, to go with the stick--it's not really adequate just to have 
one or the other.

Cheers,
Sabahattin

-- 
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.

Reply via email to