If visual games does not need to be accessible, i wonder how manuy people will crying over Solara not being accessible then? Solara is a visual game, with accessibility build in on it. Perhaps, some foolish thinking that developer develop Solara for only the vips and the blind community, however, it is not true. In fact, if you look at the visual elimants of the game, there are activities around your building each and every moment when you connected, e.g. people walking around etc. If blind people have the concept that just because things are visual, and that does not need to be accessible and if Apple do follow the concept, i think, iPhone won't be as accessible and successful as it is. With Apple AppsStore, you can search voiceover as your keyword search. The result is quite amazing as to what you can get there. Of course, like anything, any apps that have voiceover mention on it will appear. By then, is about each and every individual as to what they look for, and what they search for.
On 13/09/2013, Alex Hall <mehg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nick does make some good points, but in my email to Apple > Accessibility and in my phone call, I was sure to mention this. I > explained that the accessibility would be required where possible, so > visual games and other apps would not have to be made vo-friendly. > Apps that use Apple's UI elements, or at least subclass them, would > have to, though, since that is a matter of the developer not > ordering/labeling/flagging things appropriately. > > Yes, other disabilities exist than just sight. However, the same > principle applies: apps need only be made accessible where feasible. > For instance, MBraille would not work well for someone with one hand, > and it would not makes sense for that app to change since it would > lose its ultimate purpose, just as Plants Versus Zombies would lose > its overall design if it were forced to be vo-accessible. > > Yes, app demos would probably be the very best solution, but Apple has > not budged on that policy ever since the App Store launched. Pretty > much every user, not just disabled ones, want demos, and there is no > technical reason I know of why Apple could not make that happen. > > I worry about an accessibility rating system, since, as others have > said, "accessibility" is such a subjective thing. What I, as someone > who has used VO for nearly three years, consider perfectly accessible > might make no sense to a relativley new user, or even someone with my > experience but a different mindset. While a systme to rate > accessibility would be good, I worry that it would be too subjective > to make a real difference. After all, how many three-star apps have > you downloaded only to have them be great, or horrible? Even Apple's > own Apple Store app has just three stars, but it works just fine. I've > taken to practically ignoring the rating of an app because I don't > feel it is an accurate reflection of the quality of the app. > > On 9/12/13, Scott Berry <sb356...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Nick, >> >> I didn't think about the process this way but you made some darn good >> points. I'd like to see the middle of the road approach you suggest. >> >> >> >> On 09/12/13 05:40, Nicholas Parsons wrote: >>> I agree that providing refunds for inaccessible apps would be a good >>> policy, but I accept that there would have to be some limitations. >>> Firstly, sometimes what one person says is inaccessible, another person >>> claims is accessible. Sometimes things are only accessible once you >>> learn >>> how to use them. Secondly, accessibility is often a matter of degree, >>> not >>> a matter of absolutes. Thirdly, what if a developer makes his or her app >>> accessible after a user has received a refund, will they then have to >>> pay >>> again? Fourthly, Apple doesn't know whether we really are blind or not, >>> and only takes us at our word. This means that the whole process is >>> vulnerable to abuse, and I'm not surprised Apple makes these decisions >>> on >>> a case-by-case basis, rather than a simple blanket policy that anyone >>> can >>> have a refund if they say the app is inaccessible. One thing in >>> particular >>> I imagine they look at, and rightly so, is how frequently you request a >>> refund on this basis. I imagine if it's a one off, or if you buy lots of >>> apps without asking for refunds, they'll be more happy to refund the >>> money. If, however, you frequently ask for refunds they might be >>> reluctant. Especially if it's an expensive app, I think it's probably >>> prudent to contact the developer first or make some other enquiries to >>> check whether the app is accessible before purchasing it. >>> >>> With regard to making accessibility mandatory, I agree with Josh de >>> Lioncourt from Maccessibility.net that it's not a good idea. Do you want >>> it to be mandatory that apps are accessible only for people who are >>> blind >>> or have low vision, or for anyone with a disability? Clearly it would be >>> discriminatory to make them accessible for people who are blind or have >>> low vision, but not for people with other disabilities. If they are to >>> be >>> accessible to people whatever their disability, do you realise how many >>> apps we use on a day-to-day basis would fail this test? There are >>> plenty >>> of apps we use – e.g. audio games, braille typing apps etc – which would >>> not be accessible to people who are deaf or have other disabilities. It >>> would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a blind developer, >>> for instance, to make their audio game accessible to deaf people. >>> Moreover, there are plenty of mainstream apps, and I'm thinking here >>> particularly of games, which it would just be impossible to make >>> completely accessible for someone who is blind. Many games require just >>> too much speed in hand-eye coordination for a blind person to use; and >>> in >>> many instances it wouldn't be worth making these apps accessible. >>> Sometimes, sadly, it's just not possible for someone who is blind to do >>> the same things as someone who can see. In these instances, we're better >>> off with a specialised solution rather than making the mainstream app >>> accessible. >>> >>> Then there are other problems with mandatory accessibility. What would >>> the >>> standard of accessibility be? Does every single feature need to be >>> accessible, or only some, or only most? Does it need to be blind user >>> friendly, or only possible to use? What happens if one blind person says >>> the app is accessible, but another says it's not accessible? Can you >>> imagine how much the app approval process would be slowed down if every >>> single app and update needed to be thoroughly tested by a VoiceOver >>> user? >>> Developers already complain that Apple is slow in approving apps. But it >>> wouldn't just have to be tested by a VoiceOver user, it would also need >>> to >>> be tested by deaf users, people with motor disabilities etc. >>> >>> This is not to say that the process couldn't be improved. I think we >>> could >>> find a middle road. I suspect that the best solution would simply be for >>> Apple to allow demos of any app in the App Store. If we could simply >>> test >>> an app before buying it, we wouldn't have this problem. Moreover, this >>> solution would likely be welcomed by both users and developers. >>> >>> Nic >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > > -- > Have a great day, > Alex (msg sent from GMail website) > mehg...@gmail.com > > -- > 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 macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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 macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
