I agree that Apple's model is better because the issue is addressed
where it should be, at the application level. A screen reader developer
making scripts removes the responsibility from the app developer. Of
course, some developers just are unwilling to fix the accessibility
issues with their application, and in those cases, using an alternative
is the answer. For example, microsoft office on the mac is not
accessible, use Iwork instead. Parallels is not accessible, fusion is a
great alternative.
Original message:
One of the double edged swords is that many apps work in the Jaws world
because the developer has written jaws-specific scripts for their app.
These scripts get around shortcomings in either the screen reader or the
app's communication with the accessibility APIs. They are often times
written by a contracted 3rd party and, by definition, are brittle. So
when the next OS, app or Jaws release comes out the scripts break and
have to be fixed and re-released. This cycle is the antithesis of
future-proofing. Apple took a different approach where the screen reader
and accessibility APIs are robust enough that this scripting shouldn't
be needed but it also means that a general app developer needs to care
enough to bake accessibility in. This also means they can't just make
their app and farm out accessibility to some 3rd party contractor as in
the Jaws model. I'm convinced that the Apple model is better long term
but am concerned that it requires a general app developer to now become
aware of accessibility, which doesn't always happen. The good part is
that Apple's development frameworks get a lot of accessibility stuff
baked in 'for free'. The downside is that custom widgets or anything
special probably needs the developer to do extra accessibility work,
which they often do not. So it's not really Apple's fault that Microsoft
has written their entire app using their own custom widgets, but it is
Microsoft's fault for not hooking their widgets into the well defined
accessibility APIs. Likewise for Mozilla and many others.
In the end, I want Apple's futureproof accessibility for free model to
work, I'm just unsure if developers are buying into the value of
providing accessible apps. The success record there has been kinda spotty.
CB
On 6/25/12 8:08 AM, William Windels wrote:
Hello,
After working for more than 3 years with the mac , it's my personal
opinionthat more basic programs are accessible on windows then on the
mac platform.
I find it more stable to work on the mac because of the integration of
the screenreader voiceover with the osx.
The fact that the hardware is also adapted for us by the trackpad and
the function-keys with the spoken values.
And of course the flexible way we can install , manage the system with
voiceover support everywhere.
However, we can't e.g. configure dropbox with voiceover while this is
possible on windows, office programs like microsoft office and also
iWork's aren't fully accessible with lay-out tasks, in my opinion there
are several usability issues with the browsers on the mac, some
ellements of the os , like
Tables, on websites and on numbers and pages, are very difficult to
navigate e.g. you can't search for edit-fields on websites while they
are in a table and in pages, you can't work with tables on a comfortable way.
the icon's on the status bar, can't be reached on a normal way with
voiceover...
My conclusion: a paid screenreader for the mac that makes program's
accessible with scripts (like screen readers on windows do), should be
very welcome I think.
With this kind of optional screenreader, blind users should be able to
use all the equivalents on the mac of their windows favorites. Perhaps
it should push apple to make their screenreader better on a faster speed.
Why such screenreader doesn't exist yet?
I see 2 reasons for this:
1. Apple should not be happy with this and the screenreader of apple
should have more possibilities to integrate with the os then the
external screenreader.
2. Other communities don't see a reason to make a screenreader for the
mac while there is one built in.
If it should be the second reason, any people with accessibility
frustrations on the mac , should communicate this to other companies
like gw micro, freedom scientific, baum...
Any opinions about this meanings should be very welcome.
kind regards,
William Windels
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "MacVisionaries" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"MacVisionaries" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
