Hello, First, don't confuse timelines. Original Android accessibility was only with physical buttons and keyboards, and this was after VO was released on the iPhone.
Before VO was released on the iPhone, it was known that accessibility was not very possible on a touch-screen. In other words, the limited possibilities for touch-screen access were obviously impossible and expensive, so the ADA was satisfied because it was not practical to have blindness accessibility. The possible access was limited and easily arguably too expensive, so meaningless. Therefore, businesses and government were only required to provide a partially accessible alternative. This meant, the blind person would get a basic cell phone with buttons that could be felt, and if necessary, a laptop or netbook running a screen reader, or an accessible note taker such as BrailleNote or PACMate. Code Factory did not make enough of an impact to change the government register (yes, I checked in 2008), so slight accommodation was perfectly acceptible and met the law. Windows Phone Seven became inaccessible, yet Microsoft did not lose any government contracts over it. Therefore, we can easily argue that the lack of accessibility in the mobile phone market meant no companies would lose government contracts. The TeleCommunications Act said at least an entry level usably accessible phone needs to be provided by each carrier. This does not mean each phone manufacturer was required to make an accessible version, and the provided phone just needed to be useable, not all of its advanced features need to be accessible. I did clarify this information with an accessibility law specialist in 2008. As for the case of the Kindle, this happened in 2010 at Arizona State University. ASU required Kindles for certain classes and did not provide any accessible alternatives. Amazon could not argue that accessibility was impossible in a handheld device because, as was successfully argued, Apple's VoiceOver made the iPhone and the iPad fully accessible. Therefore, Amazon developed an accessible Kindle. It should be noted that the accessible Kindle has buttons and no touch screen, and the newest models, according to information I have recently received, are not accessible. Even Blackberry phones were inaccessible and Rim did not lose any government or business contracts because of it. Rim started having other problems, but that was not related, in any way, to their lack of accessibility. The fact is, Apple completely changed the paradigm around accessibility, and they are still significantly ahead of the competition. Will this continue? Only time can answer that question. However, Apple's pattern since 2005 speaks for itself, and gives me high confidence that it will continue in to the foreseeable future. The only other company which I have similar confidence about at this time is Google's Android, and my confidence is not as high. David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA Email: dchitten...@gmail.com Mobile: +64 21 2288 288 Sent from my iPhone On 18/09/2012, at 15:09, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote: > How do you know Apple wouldn't have lost any educational or governmental > contracts if they hadn't made IOS accessible? I recall a situation where > the DoJ blocked the use of Kindles (at least I think it was Kindles) to > distribute text books as ebooks. Plus, more and more businesses are > using and requiring their employees to use cell phones and tablets. I > could definitely see a situation where Apple would be losing sales of > iPhones and iPads to small businesses, governments agencies and > educational institutions if Android were an accessible option and IOS > hadn't been made accessible. Of course, Apple deserves the credit for > being ahead of that curve and doing it in such an innovative way. > > I'm not sure Windows Phone 7 is much of a counter example at the moment. > I doubt they've lost any contracts due to a lack of accessibility, but I > figure it's more likely that they're just such a niche player right now > that they're just not considered a viable option yet. > > On 17/09/12 21:41, David Chittenden wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Please forgive my cynicism in my final statement of those poor blind people. >> I am preparing my proposal for my doctoral research. My proposed topic is >> how are blind people able to adapt to touch screen devices, so I am >> currently reading all the academic and professional research I can find on >> the topic. >> >> I do not know why Apple shifted its core values to include accessibility >> within its business model. If we look at the numbers, especially with iOS, >> it would appear to be a bad decision considering that there was no >> expectation for it, and Apple would not lose any governmental or education >> contracts over it. Consider that Microsoft has not lost any government >> contracts even though they removed accessibility from Windows Phone Seven >> and still have not put it back in. >> >> We do know that Apple is committed to the end-user experience. The visual >> actions of the display have many affects which make it extremely pleasing >> for sighted people. Microsoft and Google are constantly trying to copy many >> of these affects with mixed results (according to sighted friends). Sighted >> people I know who are not at all computer savvy talk excitedly about their >> iPhones, MacBooks, and even Airport Xtreme routers because they are so >> intuitive and even fun to use. I only hear geek friends talk about Windows >> or Android that way. >> >> I suspect, therefore, that Apple perceives universal accessibility in a >> similar vein, that it should be innovative, and should encompass the sighted >> experience as much as possible. And, they obviously do not pay attention to >> what the experts in the field say. >> >> >> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA >> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com >> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288 >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 18/09/2012, at 13:51, Joanne Chua <shuang.an...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> If that is the case of what you said, we "poor blind people", why >>> Apple should care on putting voiceover in their touch screen products? >>> Not only that, Apple also advertise that their products are friendly >>> to people with access needs. >>> >>> Just a thought >>> >>> Regards >>> Joanne >>> >>> On 18/09/2012, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> You are correct for the Mac. For iOS devices, however, this is not the >>>> case. >>>> Most of the professional proofs and studies clearly demonstrated that blind >>>> peepul, as a whole, did not have the necessary spatial awareness, and >>>> attempting to memorise, without good tactile clues, would be almost >>>> impossible for most blind people. Therefore, an accessible pure >>>> touch-screen >>>> device was not expected or required. After all aside from some basic >>>> functionality, it couldn't be done anyway. Those poor blind people. >>>> >>>> David Chittenden, MSc, MRCAA >>>> Email: dchitten...@gmail.com >>>> Mobile: +64 21 2288 288 >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On 18/09/2012, at 9:34, Christopher Chaltain <chalt...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I agree with David here, but I also wonder how much of Apple's sales are >>>>> effected by their commitment to accessibility. For example, how many >>>>> government sales or small business sales or educational sales wouldn't >>>>> have even been possible if they weren't able to demonstrate that they >>>>> had an accessible solution and meet the various regulations and laws, at >>>>> least here in the US? I think this would explode the 100K figure by >>>>> quite a bit, although I'm not sure it's possible to capture such a >>>>> number. I also don't mean to take away from Apple's commitment to >>>>> accessibility. I think their commitment goes beyond just bottom line >>>>> dollars and cents, although they are a business, and I don't think >>>>> they're doing it entirely out of the kindness of their corporate hearts. >>>>> >>>>> On 17/09/12 16:05, Scott Howell wrote: >>>>>> David, >>>>>> >>>>>> True, but my point is that although a small portion of the overall sales, >>>>>> APple still considers this segment worth the investment. I would love to >>>>>> know what the real numbers are across all Apple products including the >>>>>> Macs. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 17, 2012, at 4:19 PM, David Chittenden <dchitten...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do not consider 100,000 iPhones to blind folk to be much of a market in >>>>>>> this case. This number represents 0.3% of 1 quarter year of Apple's >>>>>>> iPhone sales, but includes all models of iPhones for the past 3 years. >>>>>>> In other words, if Apple were to stop supporting VO, they wouldn't even >>>>>>> notice the tiny bump to their profits. Apple is not supporting concepts >>>>>>> of universal access for their bottom line. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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/viphone@googlegroups.com/. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>> viphone+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> 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/viphone@googlegroups.com/. >>>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> viphone+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> 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/viphone@googlegroups.com/. >>> To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> viphone+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> 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/viphone@googlegroups.com/. > To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > viphone+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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/viphone@googlegroups.com/. To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to viphone+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/viphone?hl=en.
