I know you didn't want conjecture, but I've seen several times, from people who were involved with the issue at the time, that Apple did this because they had no accessibility story and were losing out to Microsoft and PC's in government and educational contracts. When Berkley Systems went out of business or stopped developing Outspoken, the 3rd party screen reader for Macs, there was no screen reader for Apple products and no other 3rd party company was stepping in to fill the void. In order to continue to have an accessibility story, and compete with PC's for these contracts, Apple chose to enter the screen reader market themselves.
Like I said, I don't have any documents to prove this, only hearsay from people who were familiar with the issue at the time. I also wouldn't expect Apple to market the above story. For whatever reason, they embraced accessibility, and they can just market their commitment to full accessibility by everyone. I also don't think this takes away at all from Apple's commitment to accessibility and what they've been able to accomplish with VoiceOver. They are a corporation after-all, and if they saw a profit in making their products accessible, there's nothing wrong with that. I agree VoiceOver is a great product, and I can understand your willingness to support a company that builds accessibility into their product, but I don't think it's leaps and bounds better than every other screen reader out there. I think this is a highly subjective opinion. On 24/06/12 07:58, Daniel Miller wrote: > Hi, > > I completely agree here. Just look at other companies, Microsoft for > example, a company that claims all their products are accessible to persons > with disibilities. That statement couldn't be any more wrong. I myself would > much rather pay a premium for an apple product with accessibility built in > out of the box, as opposed to paying the same price for another screen > access solution, on top of a PC with Windows. > Yes, VO isn't perfect, but it's leaps and bounds over what other companies > like Freedom scientific and GW Micro could ever dream of creating. > I'm sorry if my post strayed off topic, I just can't help but admit I'm also > a fanboy and an Apple geek. > > P.S.: I can't wait to see them try to make Windows RT accessible on tablets. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Scott Howell > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 7:37 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: OT: Why Did Apple Create VoiceOver? > > Craig, > > I am not sure you will find a specific reason. I have heard stories that > range from Apple facing a lawsuit (not likely at all) to some child of an > engineer (more likely) who was blind. I suspect the real reason is that > Apple saw an opportunity and opted to take a risk which I should note has > paid in spades. Apple has done more than any other "mainstream" company has > ever done. In fact I will go as far as to say that VO on an iOS device is > revolutionary and really changed how blind people interact with touch-screen > devices. VO has really leveled the playing field in ways no other screen > reader has been able. I think Apple realized the success of VO on the Mac > and heard from users they wanted access to iPods, iPhones, etc. There is no > question that VO on iOS has been wildly successful. Oh and yes for the > record I am a fanboy and thrilled to be such. However, for the record VO > like any screen reading solution is not perfect; although it does one hell > of a job. :) > > On Jun 24, 2012, at 7:32 AM, Craig Werner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Greetings to the list. >> >> Over on the vi-kindle email list from freelists.org, a user asked a >> penetrating question: "Why did Apple build accessibility into all of >> its products?" Knowing the answer to this query might prove helpful >> as blind and visually impaired people work with other companies to >> make their products more accessible. I have heard that Apple made the >> iPod accessible because it was looking out for motorists who might be >> better served by finding music by touch than by diverting their gaze >> from the road to look at a screen. However, this information is >> anecdotal. Can anyone point to evidence right from the company as to >> why VoiceOver was integrated into the Apple line? I'm looking for the >> facts, not conjecture. <smile> Since this question is off topic, if >> you'll email me off list, I'll summarize to the list. >> >> Thank you for all help. >> >> Craig >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" > Google Group. >> To search the VIPhone public archive, visit > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/. >> 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/viphone?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google > Group. > To search the VIPhone public archive, visit > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/. > 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/viphone?hl=en. > -- Christopher (CJ) chaltain at Gmail -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "VIPhone" Google Group. To search the VIPhone public archive, visit http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/. 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/viphone?hl=en.
