NFB Adopts Resolution Urging Apple to Require All iOS Apps to Be Accessible

Member of the AppleVis Editorial Team

Update, 7/5/2014, 4:02 PM CDT: Members of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) have just passed Resolution 2014-12 at their annual national convention. The resolution calls upon Apple to work with the NFB to develop standards and policies to ensure the accessibility of all iOS apps. The full text of the resolution, as well as our original blog post, is below.

Earlier this week, a resolution was proposed at the National Federation of the Blind (a United States organization of and led by blind people) annual convention that would urge Apple to adopt and enforce requirements to ensure that all iOS apps be fully accessible to VoiceOver users.

The proposed resolution, Resolution 2014-12, calls upon Apple to "work with the National Federation of the Blind to create and enforce policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the accessibility of all apps, including core apps distributed by Apple in the base iOS distribution, and to ensure that accessibility is not lost when an app is updated."

The full text of the proposed resolution, which will be voted on this weekend, is below:

"Resolution 2014-12 Regarding Policies, Standards, and Procedures to Ensure and Maintain Accessibility of Apple Inc. Apps

WHEREAS, Apple Inc. has made VoiceOver, a free and powerful screen-access program, an integral part of many of its products, including the Apple Inc. Macintosh, iPhone, iPod Touch, Apple Inc. TV, and iPad; and

WHEREAS, although VoiceOver has the ability to enable nonvisual access to hundreds of thousands of applications that are available today through these platforms, such access cannot be achieved unless the applications are written to provide VoiceOver with the information it needs to tell the blind user what he or she needs to know; and

WHEREAS, through presentations at developer conferences, specific guidance issued in programming guides, and application programming interfaces that are simple to implement, Apple Inc. has made it easy for application developers to incorporate accessibility features for VoiceOver users into their programs; and

WHEREAS, despite Apple Inc.'s efforts to encourage accessibility, too many applications are still not accessible to VoiceOver users because buttons are not properly labeled, images of text cannot be interpreted, and other display elements cannot even be detected by VoiceOver; and

WHEREAS, although Apple Inc. has given VoiceOver users the tools to assign labels to unlabeled elements on their own, a growing number of applications that have been released cannot be made accessible using these tools; and

WHEREAS, even if the current version of an application is accessible to a blind VoiceOver user, Apple Inc. has no policy, procedure, or mechanism in place to ensure that this accessibility will be maintained when a subsequent version is released; and

WHEREAS, not only are inaccessible applications inconvenient for the blind VoiceOver user, but they can also prevent a blind person from independently performing the duties of his/her job; and

WHEREAS, Apple Inc. is not reluctant to place requirements and prohibitions on application developers, but has not seen fit to require that applications be accessible to VoiceOver users; and

WHEREAS, making products accessible to users of VoiceOver should be as important as any other requirement imposed on application developers: Now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind in Convention assembled this fifth day of July, 2014, in the City of Orlando, Florida, that this organization call upon Apple Inc. to work with the National Federation of the Blind to create and enforce policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the accessibility of all apps, including core apps distributed by Apple in the base iOS distribution, and to ensure that accessibility is not lost when an app is updated."

A very similar resolution was adopted by the NFB convention in 2011, Resolution 2011-03.

What are your thoughts on this proposed resolution? Let us know in the comments!

Blog Tags: 

112 Comments

apple accessibility

I'm sorry, but I have to weigh in on this one. this same group of people who I am sorry to say are very angry, bully their way around companies to get their way. the resolution in 2011 passed, but here is my thought, it should not be up to apple to in force that guideline, apple shouldn't be the ones to force app developers to make their apps accessible, and anyway, some truly can't be made vo friendly such as drawing and painting apps. either this org needs to stand up and do things to make blind peoples lives better, or just go away. I would prefer the ladder, but that's just my preference.

whereas ...

WHEREAS has been used far too often in this text in my opinion :) As for the resolution, this is of course completely unrealistic.
First, the ACB , FNB, or whatever blindness organisation has nothing to say about what Apple can and cannot do. The best they can do is ask nicely.
Second, there is a huge amount of apps that simply cannot be made accessible even if the developer wanted to. Very visually-intensive games, image editing applications, the list goes on. Will these apps just have to stop existing because some blindness organisation think they're da boss? Apple has built a screenreader for iOS. One of it's selling points is how well it is integrated within the IOS ecosystem. Yes, API's often make it easy, or at least doable, for developers to implement accessibility. That is up to the developers though, not up to Apple. Where are the resolutions that state every single program running on Windows must be 100% usable with JAWS? ... Nowhere? So I thought. Why not though? Because that would be completely ridiculous? exactly, you get a cookie. This has happened before. It was a bad idea then and it is a bad idea now. All this does is send the message that the blind community is a bunch of ungrateful whiny folks who clearly have no concept of reality, something I very much doubt the FNB, ACB, or whatever-else-B there is out there is trying to accomplish. Please people, stop this foolishness. Yes, I want stuff to be accessible just as much as anyone else. But to approach it in this way is just wrong on so many levels that it isn't funny anymore.

the NFB and resolution

I just want to add one more thing to this thread. i don't see the NFB going after microsoft, or google at this level that they seem to go after apple. what is so special that apple needs to be the soul company targeted? it's quite stupid that they every single year single out apple as the victim of their attacks. if your going to represent blind people, and bitch about accessibility in america, then dam it, go after all the major players, microsoft, and google included, and not just apple.

lets at least get the org's name right

Hi. Let's at least get the org's name right, NFB or national federation of the blind. Otherwise I agree 1000% this is unrealistic at best, and downright whiny at worst. You don't see them going after Google, you don't see them going after developers of windows programs, and on Google's on operating system you can't even read email at all! Now let me stop everyone here for a second, I don't want this to turn into yet another apple verses android discussion, that's been done a bazillion times and doesn't get us anywhere. I'm simply saying that if they go through with this with Apple, they have to be fare and go to Android, and all the other programmers too. After all, every program ever invented must, must must be 100% accessible! right? lol

why yes of course

Every program must be accessible ...that isn't more than reasonable is it? I mean ...how else can the blind enjoy things like Draw Something? Photoshop is very relevant for blind computer users of course, they all have to be able to use that. Let's not forget to make washing machines,doors, microwaves, ovens, cars and dishwashers talk when they first come on while we're at it. Every device in the house talks, one big happy family :)

NFB resolution

Hi. As others have said earlier, it probably won't pass, and apps will probably not ba 100% accessible, sure usable is good but completely accessible apps would be great, but I don't think that is likely.Personally, i don't belong to any blindness organization, be it NFB, or ACB or whatever. I'd like to stay completely neutral on issues like apps being 100% accessible. I am sorry if I am being negative to the orbs out there, but this resolution is completely unrealistic as other people have stated previously. Whining about apps being 100% accessible in my mind will not accomplish everything. Look at certain mainstream video games. Sure some of them might be playable by sound, or however you play them, but not all are 100% usable. As I said earlier, I'm sorry if my views seem negative to others or whatever, but this proposal will probably not pass, and if it does then I'll be one surprised individual.
Have a good one!

Blind Entitlement Again

I think passing this resolution would be a huge step backwards for the blind community. I don’t think there’s anyone on the planet who wouldn’t want as many apps as possible to be fully accessible, but asking that Apple work with NFB to establish policies that would mandate accessibility for *all* apps is, at best, counterproductive.

I think we sometimes lose track of the reality that we are just one of many groups of people that Apple serves. For better or for worse, Apple’s App Store review process is quite selective. If developers are forced to make their apps fully accessible as a basic requirement of entry into the App Store, that would *potentially* turn some developers away from developing apps on iOS. And believe me, Apple wouldn’t want that—nor should they.

If people are having individual access issues with an app, especially if it impacts their ability to do their job, I firmly believe that the best way to handle it is on a case-by-case basis. Many developers are perfectly willing to add accessibility if people just ask, and I know that if I were a developer, I’d respond much more kindly to requests from users rather than a regulation from Apple.

In the end, all passing such a resolution will likely do is perhaps give those responsible for its creation some satisfaction and an outlet to express their frustration. At worst, it will serve to underscore the very negative stereotypes about blind people that we’re all working to dispel.

@AMTK62

Hi. sorry if I got the name wrong. Anyway, I completely agree with your comment. This is a huge step backward in terms of the blindness community and everyone as a whole.

My Thoughts

Completely unrealistic, to begin with and here's why. Every app accessible? Impossible! I have seen several games that have been ported from old systems such as the Sega Genesis for example that just can't be made accessible and neither should they have to be. Ok, sure, we can pick up a controller and mash our way through, but the point is that asking for every app to be accessible to us is ridiculous.

I have seen plenty of apps I'd like to be accessible but aren't and this is where we can contact the developers ourselves and request, politely, accessibility features and provide help and resources to make it so. I think this would just make the entire process so much harder than it should be.

It would be great if more things were accessible, but let's be realistic, not everything will be. I think Apple has done a great service by providing VoiceOver and the tools for developers to add their own accessibility to apps, this should, however, not be something they should have to do and mandate across the board, nor do I even see it being possible anyway with as many apps as there are.

Also, I have to agree that the word 'whereas' was used way too much, part of that seemed abit wordy just because of that one word. Maybe it's a resolution documentation thing but I sort of saw 'whereas' as a bullet point rather than anything really important.

Right then, that's all I have to say on this matter!

Completely pointless.

Hi.
Here are my thoughts. Whereas, I think that there is no way that all apps are going to be accessible, no matter how much this NFB group whine and bitch. Whereas. I also think they need to find a better writer. Whereas. okay I'm going to stop using whereas now but you get it rite? It doesn't even make sense grammatically or otherwise. WHEREAS, although VoiceOver has the ability to enable nonvisual access to hundreds of thousands of applications that are available today through these platforms, such access cannot be achieved unless the applications are written to provide VoiceOver with the information it needs to tell the

Whereas although? who the heck writes this stuff?

My spelling isn't the best by a long shot but even I know that makes no sense and that whereas is way over used. I'm sorry but no, there is no way this is going to go through.

I too disagree, but a little less vocally

I don't think this makes very much sense for the reasons described above, but a couple of points.
First, the semicolons, the whereas, etc. are a legal tradition that is not meant to be annoying or wordy. Basically all resolutions will be the same. If you aren't used to reading legal text, it may appear strange, but it is the way those documents are written.
Second, I do not oppose Apple making more stringent requirements as to accessibility. I, for example, would ask for an accessibility rating directly in the app store. I believe this would help raise awareness for the issue without annoying all the developers.
Even so, I agree that this resolution sounds entitled and would be ludicrously unproductive.

I read both resolutions

When I read this new resolution alongside the one passed three years ago, I couldn't help thinking of one definition of insanity I heard somewhere, which is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. What makes the NFB think this one will do any more than the other?

A better way to go about this is to do what we do here now, which is to provide accessibility info for apps as observed by blind users themselves. Maybe Apple can team up with someone that can provide such data and have their ratings appear within the App Store. If we want to require accessibility for apps, the requirement should only apply to certain types of apps, mainly those that blind people will actually have any need or desire to use. Even then, such a requirement would be overdoing it in my opinion, and it would potentially discourage developers from supporting the iOS platform in the future.

Ah.

Thanks for your help, it does look strange to me.
As people have said this just won't work, even with an accessibility rating it still wouldn't work. Because then every ap from photo apps, and map apps. would need an accessibility rating. Honestly I just think leave it alone. If it's not broken don't fix it... Er, I think that's how it goes, or is it if it ain't broken don't fix it... Hmmm... Oh well, me, I'm going to forget about this and just move on.

Thoughts

Well, everything I would have said has already been stated above. However, I would be interested in hearing from some of the app developers that frequent this site to see if they laughed as much as I did when I read this tripe. Moronic!

Not happening

I agree with what's already been posted, especially with the word "moronic." I'd love to know why they're just going after Apple though, and not Google or Microsoft. Either way, the whole thing sounds ridiculous to me.

Whining and Bitching? Your arguements are stupid and idiotic

I have tried very hard to remain positive towards and non-judgmental of some of the individuals making comments such as the ones above.

But at this point, I have to say that your comments are stupid, idiotic, and incredibly irresponsible. Your use of Photoshop and games not being able to become accessible leave me enraged and offended in ways I cannot properly express.

Why would a video game or Photoshop need to be accessible? They clearly stated that what is wanted is the buttons to be properly labelled and still images to be properly tagged. This does not happen in inaccessible apps because of a developers laziness due to either not taking the time to label something or forgetfulness. When a sighted person can visually see what a button does, why would it have to be properly tagged in the background? Why would a resolution to request devs to not forget or take the time to do it be problematic?

The request is to work with the nfb to make the apps more accessible overall. There is no demand, no threat; nothing but a set of issues and requests to work together for the better accessibility of products which the majority of blind individuals use. You talk about video games when that is a minimal part of the app store. You talk about photo shop when those too are not a majority of the apps? What about the news apps? The sports apps? The netflics and skypes and more that you use on a daily basis? What about Pandora which has started to become somewhat inaccessible due to unlabeled buttons and images? You cannot even tell which artist station you are on anymore until double tapping into the station. No, it’s all about Street Fighter and Grand Theft Auto and your narrow-minded stupidity shutting down possibility.

Why is Microsoft not being petitioned or Google? What gives you the right to assume that there aren’t such requests being made? Moreover, Apple’s accessibility has become almost synonymous with the blind community. If you go to a blind convention, the overwhelming majority will be using IPhones, IPads, Macs, etc. Just because 10-15 people have an android, that doesn’t mean it’s better or more accessible. Apple marketed and won the accessibility field. And Frankly, I would prefer choice, but the focus is currently what is the most used and usable; and that is Apple.

They were the first to come out with touch screen accessibility, they were the first to promote accessibility for EVERYONE at MAJOR DEVELOPERS’ CONFERENCES. If it wasn’t for people working their butts off on both sides (Apple, NFB, etc.), you would probably be sitting in your rooms, fiddling with Symbian phones from ten years ago.

I am absolutely disgusted by the reactions the majority have had to something that probably should be embraced as a step in the right direction. Instead, you call individuals whom are uniting for a good cause whiners, entitled, and bitchers. Some of you have even gone as far as making fun of the way the proposal has been written. Are you kidding me?

If it weren’t for the NFB and other related organizations, you would not have half the rights or technology you have. What the heck is wrong with requesting that buttons be properly labeled? They would deter developers? Do you have any idea how stringent the requirements are for an app to be accepted in the app store anyway? One or two more steps (properly tagging images, and labelling buttons (takes an absolute of 10-15 minutes extra on top of the hours these devs work) would not keep a developer from making an app because of the potential money they will make. You think a developer will think, “I have an app, but I better not submit it because they want me to label my buttons. Man, that’s too much work, Screw it…”

I cannot believe you people. I am absolutely disgusted by how this is being treated. Some of you do nothing but complain about things on this website. And when there are ideas different than your own, you cannot handle it so you hide in your “safe” ways.

Some of you are the same people who fought getting an IPhone because you loved your Symbian phones and thought touch screens for the blind was unrealistic. You are the same people who fought Jaws because the computer was just a passing fad and you were secure with your braille type writers. You are the same people who fight tooth and claw to keep what you already have. So much so that you refuse to believe that better possibilities may be available.

I don’t want a war with any of you, but am willing to hear your negativity. Bring it on because no matter what you say, there will be people still fighting for you to have the accessibility to even write on a forum like this. And, in the end, you will bitch and whine and complain about taking steps back and the unrealistic things that others are trying to do. But you will be the ones benefitting in the end due to the people who actually do push forward making things happen while you are sitting around in your “comfortable” ways, fighting progress and change.

Interesting.

Hi Vash.

I see what you're saying but, here are some apps I'd like to see accessible. they're all gaming apps: sonic the hedgehog apps, not going to happen, fighting game apps, not going to happen, rpg's, we have some on the Iphone like a card game where you have to battle demons, it's good but requires a capture now. And others that I don't know about.

Maybe they can be made accessible in the future though, who knows.

If you're talking about non gaming apps like amazon, kindle, Paypal, and others, sure they'd be nice, with a couple improvements. having not used amazon's app I can't say how accessible it is.

As for making fun of the way it was written, yep that was me, but mainly cause of the way they put whereas in the writing.

I just felt that it was over used and put in the wrong places, but hey if it's how legal documents are meant to look, then so be it.

Oh and this part of your post confused me a little.

You are the same people who fought Jaws because the computer was just a passing fad and you were secure with your braille type writers.

OK I'm only 20 years old and started using a computer when I was Nine, but really I can't believe that people would have actually gone against JAWS being made. Can you show me proof of that? Cause honestly I don't believe that happened. But if I'm wrong, show me.
Oh and just to point out braille type writers? Hmm as far as i know they never were invented, they are called Perkins Braillers, not braille type writers? Although if one of those were made, you no, with the type writer layout that would actually be quite cool and I'd like to see it.

Narrow-Mindedness?

Vash,

It’s incredibly disappointing that we can’t have a respectful discussion about this. As the first dissenting opinion to be expressed on this topic, it’s disheartening that you lowered the level of the discussion (well, probably just your post) to attacks on the intelligence of the community—all because those of us who have commented previously do not hold the same beliefs as you. I’ve had the opportunity to discuss this resolution with some very passionate federationists, and it was quite refreshing (and encouraging) to have an open dialog without either side belittling each other’s intelligence level (“and your narrow-minded stupidity shutting down possibility…”).

As for why people were talking about video games and the like: The resolve of proposed resolution 2014-12 includes the words “all apps”. So, we mention video games and the like because, well, “all apps” includes…all apps. The author of the resolution did not include any exceptions in the proposal, so, as far as I’m concerned, I take the “all apps” wording at face value.

You wrote, “I cannot believe you people. I am absolutely disgusted by how this is being treated. Some of you do nothing but complain about things on this website. And when there are ideas different than your own, you cannot handle it so you hide in your “safe” ways.”
What, exactly, is wrong with not subscribing to an ultra-progressive viewpoint? Is there something wrong with not pushing developers to the limit—possibly risking doing more harm than good while at it—if a system of technology and individual advocacy is working for a person? Have you developed an iOS app? Have you even talked with developers of complicated apps to determine what exactly is required to make those complex apps accessible?

You further wrote, “Some of you are the same people who fought getting an IPhone because you loved your Symbian phones and thought touch screens for the blind was unrealistic. You are the same people who fought Jaws because the computer was just a passing fad and you were secure with your braille type writers. You are the same people who fight tooth and claw to keep what you already have. So much so that you refuse to believe that better possibilities may be available.”
I think the issue is a little different. I don’t think there is anyone among us who would disagree with you that there is room for improvement in iOS accessibility. I think where you differ from the majority of the opinions expressed here is that you feel the NFB’s approach is the right way to go.

Lastly, as far as your comment that “I don’t want a war with any of you, but am willing to hear your negativity. Bring it on…” I think you’re making this into something a lot bigger than it really is. While you may feel that a lot of what you're reading in these comments is "negativity," I for one could interpret your response to be just as, if not more so, negative. While I certainly appreciate the advocacy efforts of the NFB and other blindness organizations, no good organization’s policies are beyond criticism and debate. And, for the record, I think the NFB is doing a lot of great things (advocating for fair wages, equal opportunities in education, etc). I just don't agree with their approach to this particular issue.

You talk about games, And the majority talks about making progre

I am glad you feel so strongly about Sonic. I don't think the NFB is concerned about accessibility of video games exclusively. If they are, they might be simply talking as far as making the buttons in the menu screen accessible. I don't speak for the NFB, but I do feel that it is important to recognize that many of us simply have different interests beyond games.

If all the apps in the store. For example, amazon, Pandora, netflics, pages (spell check inaccessibility no one notices or seems to care about), adobe, ap mobile (news), espn sportscenter, blastr, radio apps, and a multitude of others were made completely accessible, then maybe we could each focus on how to make Sonic accessible. Instead, some say things like taking a step back, and not gonna happen, and the org is a collection of whiners.

Its a suggestion for Gods sake. Not a demand, not a threat. The majority of blind people use Apple products. There are a few (FEW) who have bothered to mess with Android and that is fine. But the majority is using Apple products for the sake of simplicity and accessibility.

So if Sonic and Street Fighter "aren't gonna happen," then we should give up on the rest? How is this an argument?

I say let them make a resolution and pass it to Apple. If Apple recognizes a large groups request, it betters all of us.

Just because Sonic hasn't been made accessible (playable) to blind users yet, it doesn't mean it won't ever happen. How can you take a stance of never when you don't have a clue as to what ten years from now will be like?

Your 20, well I am 32 and when my vision began to go, I had to carry a braille writer around. You know, those heavy metal, 7 buttoned monstrosities that weighed 20-30 pounds. The ones that allowed a person to write on those thick sheets of paper. When Jaws first arrived, most fought it because they thought learning it was going to be too difficult and ultimately pointless because it was easier to type with the braille writer. You want proof. I don't have it and asking for something like that is impossible to defend against so think what you like.

Computer for the blind only became widely used when people were forced by organizations such as the Commission for the Blind who spent money and time to train individuals willing to try. Once people began to realize others were getting work done faster and not having to carry 10 braille books (covering one volume), and that the internet was not going away, they started to shift forward too.

These bitchy organizations, pushed for progress and were successful because your generation has software where 99% of the capabilities are accessible. But I digress.

I stand by my words

Again, you might find video games to be valuable to your time, but others might not. Beyond that, how can you use a video game as a reason for the rest not being made accessible?

My God, progress by definition is meant to go forward. Being conservative all the time gets people nowhere because by doing nothing, you aren't making any progress.

I'll go as far as saying that I am a beta tester, submitting bug reports for you to have a usable OS in the fall. What are you doing? You want to have accessible Sonic, but you aren't first concerned about having fully accessible Ap Mobile, CNN, blah blah whatever news app, or accessible productivity apps so that you can get some work done, or accessible movie and television apps so that you can watch and enjoy shows like others, or accessible dating applications so that you can find a person to do things with, or a accessible restaurant app which where you can get all the menu info so you don't have to keep asking a friend to read for you, or an accessible shopping app so that you can buy the things you need and want. Why are video games first on your list?

And if they at least give you a video game with the menu screens accessible, you would be one more step closer to getting a fully accessible game you want one day. If the devs are made more aware of the need for things to be made accessible, then maybe they will make apps for blind users exclusively as a viable, profitable market.

Calm down.

Okay Vash. calm down.

First off, those big braille type writers with buttons? I've never herd of those.

I've herd of a Perkins Brailler,I even have one.
That has nine buttons, 1 2 3, 4 5 6, space, return and backspace.

Now I'm going to brake your post down into little chunks and comment on it.

I am glad you feel so strongly about Sonic.

Strongly? No, just was one of the first games to come to my mind.

I don't think the NFB is concerned about accessibility of video games exclusively. If they are, they might be simply talking as far as making the buttons in the menu screen accessible.

Which would be a great improvement.

I don't speak for the NFB, but I do feel that it is important to recognize that many of us simply have different interests beyond games.

Of coarse we do, if you'd noticed I put apps like amazon and kindle there too.

all the apps in the store. For example, amazon, Pandora, netflics, pages (spell check inaccessibility no one notices or seems to care about), adobe, ap mobile (news), espn sportscenter, blastr, radio apps, and a multitude of others were made completely accessible, then maybe we could each focus on how to make Sonic accessible. Instead, some say things like taking a step back, and not gonna happen, and the org is a collection of whiners.

As for spell check, well I have an app on windows that I can't remember the name of that tells me when I've made a spelling mistake and I can press the applications key and then get a list of what it thinks I mean.

As for pandora and others like that, most of those apps are US based and I'm based in the UK so that would be completely pointless for me. That isn't to say I'd not want them to be accessible, of course I would but I'd not be able to use it so I'd not put 100% of my time into making that app accessible.

As for people saying the NFB are whiners, well I don't know much if anything about them so I can't comment much, but from what I've herd. They tried to sue a company for not letting blind people play paintball, well that's just stupid. If that did happen then yeah the NFB is stupid. But if that didn't happen then I'm not going to pick a side. But Vash, if that happened and they tried to sue a company for helping blind people, well I'm sorry but this NFB company, are complete idiots. of course they're not going to let a bunch of blind people play paintball, not only would they get hurt but they could sue the company as far as I know. But sorry I'm getting off topic.

Its a suggestion for Gods sake. Not a demand, not a threat.

I know, and I'm not treating it as a threat.

The majority of blind people use Apple products. There are a few (FEW) who have bothered to mess with Android and that is fine. But the majority is using Apple products for the sake of simplicity and accessibility.

True, they are.

So if Sonic and Street Fighter "aren't gonna happen," then we should give up on the rest? How is this an argument?

I didn't say that in my post Vash and you no that. I just checked it.

I say let them make a resolution and pass it to Apple. If Apple recognizes a large groups request, it betters all of us.

Sure, go for it. If it works it does, if not then it doesn't.

If it comes up as a voting thing or something I'll vote for it.

Just because Sonic hasn't been made accessible (playable) to blind users yet, it doesn't mean it won't ever happen. How can you take a stance of never when you don't have a clue as to what ten years from now will be Like?

Please read my post more carefully, I never said that it would never happen.
In fact, if you go to. www.forum.audiogames.net and wade through the posts there, you'll find an accessible version of the first 3 levels of sonic.

well I am 32 and when my vision began to go, I had to carry a braille writer around. You know, those heavy metal, 7 buttoned monstrosities that weighed 20-30 pounds. The ones that allowed a person to write on those thick sheets of paper.

Nope, I can't say I do, but if you mean a Perkins brailler, (maybe it has a different name in the states?) Which can take thin and thick peaces of paper then yes I've seen it and used it. It was heavy and had nine buttons, a carage that you had to pull back right? And had a bell that when you reached near the end of a line it made a nice, ding, sound?
If you mean those then yes I've used them.

When Jaws first arrived, most fought it because they thought learning it was going to be too difficult and ultimately pointless because it was easier to type with the braille writer.

Hmm I can see why if they had no training but still couldn't people see it was better?

Well, the past is the past and hopefully we don't go back to that.

You want proof. I don't have it and asking for something like that is impossible to defend against so think what you like.

I just wanted proof of something I'd not herd of before. And a quick Google search shows me that yes, the Perkins brailler and braille typewriter are the same thing.

Computer for the blind only became widely used when people were forced by organizations such as the Commission for the Blind who spent money and time to train individuals willing to try. Once people began to realize others were getting work done faster and not having to carry 10 braille books (covering one volume)

Oh god, I remember that, it was horrible. lol.

and that the internet was not going away, they started to shift forward too.
These bitchy organizations, pushed for progress and were successful because your generation has software where 99% of the capabilities are accessible. But I digress.

Ah well, good for them. I'm glad they did cause as you say, if they didn't we wouldn't have this tech.

Second post.

Again, you might find video games to be valuable to your time, but others might not.

Sure, I agree with that.

Beyond that, how can you use a video game as a reason for the rest not being made accessible?

I never did... Please read my post again.

My God, progress by definition is meant to go forward. Being conservative all the time gets people nowhere because by doing nothing, you aren't making any progress.

Okay Vash, since you seem to be wanting to know what I've done, lets see now. I've signed countless petitions, which have helped people. I've donated to NVDA which has helped more people. I've written reviews on software which has helped people. Basically I've helped people.

so as for you saying I'm doing nothing I totally disagree. Just because I feel that accessible everything isn't going to happen, yet, does not mean I don't fight for it in my own way.

I'll go as far as saying that I am a beta tester, submitting bug reports for you to have a usable OS in the fall.

Cool, I hope you enjoy doing that.

What are you doing? You want to have accessible Sonic, but you aren't first concerned about having fully accessible Ap Mobile, CNN. (Don't use it.) blah blah whatever news app. (umano. See this site for this amazing accessible app. http://www.umanoapp.com/ Which by the way Vash I commented on and they replied to and have made it more accessible in me doing that.) or accessible productivity apps so that you can get some work done. (Hmm Would Tap tap see count?) or accessible movie and television apps so that you can watch and enjoy shows like others. (there's an audio description app that is meant to be coming out in the UK and I am on the beta team for it, in fact Vash, I went to the RLSB meting to become a beta tester. There's a Pokimon app that I can't remember the name of that is accessible too and netflix which is useable...) or accessible dating applications so that you can find a person to do things with. (No thanks, not for me.) or a accessible restaurant app which where you can get all the menu info so you don't have to keep asking a friend to read for you. (talking menus is one of those kind of apps, then there's Good Food Talks, which I'm going to try out sometime and there's one more that i can't remember the name of, it's for the UK and has menu listings and prices.) or an accessible shopping app so that you can buy the things you need and want. (Amazon... Paypal...) Why are video games first on your list?

Because that's the first thing that came to my mind.

And if they at least give you a video game with the menu screens accessible, you would be one more step closer to getting a fully accessible game you want one day. If the devs are made more aware of the need for things to be made accessible, then maybe they will make apps for blind users exclusively as a viable, profitable market.

Maybe... But as you say we never no what will happen 10 years from now.

For example I know that a UK based company are working on a cheaper Braille display that will have more than one Braille line of text at a time, sound awesome? well it will be and I can't wait to get my hands on one of them.

I hope that helped you Vash, and I think you need to read through posts a bit more before making statements that aren't true or in other words, don't put words in peoples mouths when they didn't say them.

I can see where the NFB is coming from

Hi! I read all the comments on this blog post with great interest, after reading the NFB resolution which inspired the blog entry. Speaking for myself, I can see where the NFB is coming from here, in spite of the fact that I don't know if anything happened after a similar resolution some years ago, and in spite of the fact that it would probably not be realistic to expect accessibility for every single app in the App Store. I am not a member of any blindness advocacy organisation, and, not being from the USA, I know next to nothing about the NFB, but I wonder, have they ever made similar resolutions about Microsoft and Google? In an ideal world, apps on all platforms, OSX, IOS, Windows, Adroid, whatever, would be accessible where appropriate, but we're not in an ideal world: that doesn't mean people can't dream of such a world and put together resolutions to reflect that dream. Much as the wish for accessibility should apply to all platforms, I can see the NFB's logic in picking on Apple in this case, since Apple quite rightly is proud of making computers, phones, etc, which are accessible out of the box. Will Aple take notice of this resolution? Who knows? But I don't see this as being the wishes of whiny blind people, I see it as a wish which, while maybe not totally realistic, is totally understandable in a world where many blind people want to be able to do the same things as their sighted family and friends.

I am shocked

vash I admire you.
I am shocked with most of the comments made by the blind who do not deserve more than they already have ...

these blind do not deserve the NFB fight for them because they are the first to criticize a stupid way that an entity intends to do so that accessibility is more respected.
are so idiots were not even able to understand the true purpose of the article.
that's why I always say:
most blind people do not deserve more than they already have ...
if accessibility is not more consistent in our lives is because there are so blind idiots who do not know be good to themselves ...

I am extremely embarrassed to be part of some blind community that embarrass me ...
god please get me out of this movie ...
cheers.

cheers.

Just A Few Thoughts

Hi!

I'm following Applevis for almos two years since I got my iDevice but this is the first time I'm posting something. Before I start I have to say that English is not my mothertongue so if there will be some misspellings or form/style errors don't beangry at me :D.

I read the resolution, I read the Jonathan Mosen's article and I read all of the comments posted here. After cooking it all I have to say that NFB initiative have to be supported by the blind community. To make things better there has to be some way of conduct. If Apple is willing to create rules and guidelines to make the apps accessible with Voice Over it will be much much better than blind individuals contacting app developers to make their apps more accessible in future. This kind of initiative has to come from the top, not from the bottom of the pyramid.

Correctly labeled buttons, properly tagged images, reliable flicking between screen objects are not time consuming tasks to include in app developement. If I put the "Settings" button in the app it takes me just a few seconds to label it "Settings" instead of leaving it blank. I believe in human common sense so I didn't suspect for a single moment NFB aimed on photo or video editing apps or high graphic video games to be made accessible. It's never going to happen but there's much more areas of AppStore full of apps which are not photo/video editing or games.

I'm coming from Croatia which isa small European country with population of about Milano in Italy, half of London or one third of New York and with only 6000 registered blind people of which are atleast half partially sighted so I'm aware how things are getting hard when you're trying to achieve some major change. Sighted people are not aware of our potentials and knowledge and most of them are falling on their butts seeing us using computers or touch devices. Most app developers literarly don't know there are blind people using iPhone and their apps. We won't change this by contacting every single developer, there must be a global initiative taken by the umbrella organizations working with Apple, Microsoft, Google or whatever major IT corporation to set out some regulations in app developement.

Let's imagine for the moment I'm the app developer who never had a chance to meet a blind person. I have no idea they are able to use modern IT technology and I develop my apps as I think they should look. Maybe some blind person will contact me maybe not. It depends on lots of things but if I have list of guidelines and regulations what it takes for my app to be available in the AppStore I don't have to worry is there or is there not blind folks using modern technology. I do what I have to do and if blind people find my app useful we're all be happy. What I want to say we'll never raise the awareness of our needs by acting as individuals, we need to do it through our organizations with higher instances of corporations, developers etc.

To conclude, I appreciate NFB's efforts and strongly believe it will make more good than bad things.

Take care all!

The main issue for me.

I am making no comment on how I feel about this resolution. For me the biggest question is weather or not the NFB is being hypocritical or unfairly singling Apple out. This is a question I do not have an answer for. I welcome anyone who is for or against this proposal to search for and show us examples of NFB resolutions that target other technology companies, such as Microsoft or Google, and are as expansive and far reaching as this resolution. For some this might not matter, but for me it is a key question. We can go back and forth forever about weather or not every app on the app store could or should be made accessible, but weather or not the NFB is treating everyone equally seems to be something we could, perhaps, all agree on if we had more information. As I said I am not trying to pass judgment on this resolution, or even answer my own question. I am simply asking for more information.

Do Not Agree With This Resolution

I do not think the pressure should be put on Apple. They have already done more than any other technology company to provide accessibility. Apple has provided the tools to make applications accessible. I am sure that all blind people are not interested in all applications. Attention should be directed at specific application developers. When enough blind people express interest in their applications they may respond positively when enough interest is shown to make it worth their time.Expecting everything from everyone is unrealistic, and unnecessary. We should focus only on what is important to us.

Just my Thoughts

Before I speak my mind about this resolution, I want to mention that for quite awhile I wasn't a fan of the NFB. I think that's probably putting it lightly. But it seemed to me as though they really didn't give a hoot about accessibility. Read back issues of "The Braille Monitor," and you'll see what I mean. I'm talking probably as far back as the early to mid-90's, when they were all up in arms about accessible pedestrian signals, audio description and the list goes on. In fact I seem to recall a recent article in "The Braille Monitor" where the author basically bashed Apple for not being as good as Microsoft in terms of accessibility to their respective operating systems. But I think times have changed, not only for the rest of us but for the NFB as a whole. I've never been a member of either of those organizations, but I have read numerous accounts of this. They're embracing accessibility a heck of a lot more than they once did, and that is a good thing indeed. I'd say more about that, but I'm running short on time. But needless to say I agree with them on this one. I don't own an i-device, but I firmly believe in accessibility as a universal principle. Perhaps not for painting apps and a few other things which might be impractical to achieve, but you get the idea I hope.

Looking at all these comments

Hi.

I can see where people are coming from. it's good to make change and if we can then great.
If this goes through then that would be cool. Like I said I'd vote for it if possible, I'm going to look up more about this NFB and do my own research. I've not looked into them before so that's why I'm going to look at there magazine if I can.

Speaking of change, 3 years ago in the UK we never had talking ATM'S But now, thanks to the RNIB and barclays (The name of a bank,) we do. people including myself signed a petition and wrote to banks and went into banks and I'm glad we did, cause now over 97% of barclays ATM'S talk. And other banks are doing the same thing. For example: Nationwide, the co op, santandair and others.

So yes change is a great thing and I myself cannot wait for what happens in ten years from now.

Another example would be the robot guide dogs. If you've not herd of them, write robot guide dog in to Google and you'll see what I mean.
In ten years I bet that owning one of them would be normal and I think that's amazing.

Sorry for going off topic.

Reply: Do Not Agree With This Resolution by Walkseasy

Hi!

I can't agree on this one. Taken from my point of view it's not a good approach. I already wrote I'm coming from the small country with 6000 registered blind people of which half aren't actually blind. There are maximum of 100 iPhone users amongst other half and same number of Android users, the rest is still sticked to Symbian devices.
A few weeks ago I was testing the app for watching live streams and TV-on-demand from our national television company (HRT) and the app is pretty much inaccessible and useles to a blind IOS user.
So, do you really think the app developer would do something about the accessibility when there is less than one hundred affected users of the app? The app is free, they are getting nothing out of it and knowing the situation in my country when people with disabilities are in question approaching the developers with this problem wouldn't help a bit.
On the other hand, if Apple had accessibility regulations and guidelines for accepting app to the AppStore it would be completely different story and one hundred of blind Croatian users would have this application accessible right out of the box.
The same is with every other app on local basis we find inaccessible. We are too small market anyway and our blind community is even smaller and is not able to make changes using individual approach. We need some major changes on the top level.

a more moderate proposal

My main problem with this resolution is that it sounds very demanding and infeasible. Would I love for Apple to be able to say "all apps will be accessible from now on"? Yes, I would. But let's head for real street. The cost in developer time would be enormous, yes, but what else would apple need? They would need millions of testers to see if every app was accessible. That is just not feasible. I would recommend asking apple to increase the time and dedication spent on app accessibility awareness while trying to put the pressure on Google to fix the still present big bugs in android. This, to me, seems much more feasible and proper.

This just won't work, sorry NFB guys

Seems to me what other folks are saying makes sense here, the NFB needs to go to the individual app developers, not Apple themselves. This is a joke.

it passed

Well, the resolution apparently passed a little over half an hour ago. I still think that visual apps will be an exception. I like the concept, but it will not be perfect, and it might turn some devs away from releasing apps on the App Store. Also, some developers don't even know about VoiceOver or any accessibility feature at that, but once they are aware of it, they start making their app accessible. I also agree that if this is going to happen, the NFB needs to go after Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and any other tech company. Not just Apple. Apple never needed to improve VoiceOver. Look at Microsoft; they are improving, but ever so slightly.

I'm glad.

Hi.
I'm glad it passed and now can't wait to see what will come of it. My main point was that I didn't think it was possible, but I was wrong and am glad I was. Let's see what becomes of this.

Games are not a minority of the app store

Vash, Octocorn, you both state that games are a very small part of the app store. This is completely incorrect. The majority of app downloads on the app store are games. Feel free to check the facts.

My 2c - greater pressure from Apple on developers would be great. In particular if it results in improvements to middleware accessibility, as that's a huge barrier to accessible gaming at the moment.

There's no point whatsoever in asking most developers to make the interfaces in their games voiceover accessible, because the majority games are not made in the same way as apps, they contain no interface elements to even make accessible. What sighted people see as interface elements are an illusion, for performance reasons the entire game is just one single element. That's something handled by middleware, the tools that are used to make games with - game engines, such as Unity. So that, combined with the right information from Apple, is where to focus advocacy, and NFB's resolution may help with that.

The ratings thing mentioned above is another great way to make a huge difference, and for everyone with any kind of impairment, not just the small percentage of disabled gamers who are blind.

But mandating that every app should be accessible is 1. absurdly unrealistic and 2. damaging. There are a great many apps/games that are simply impossible regardless of technology to be made accessible, and from plenty of past experience, telling a developer to try to do something that's impossible is a very good way of putting them off ever thinking about it again.

Also...

Remember that accessibility does not equal blindness. Accessibility covers all impairments. And it is physically impossible to create -any- game that is accessible to all impairments. Games by definition are little pieces of inaccessibility, there must be some kind of challenge involved (if not it's not a game, it's a toy or interactive narrative), and any kind of challenge will exclude someone with some kind of impairment.

But last...

You don't get to somewhere special by aiming low. Aim for something realistic, and absolute best case you'll get something realistic, anything worse and you'll get less. Instead, if you aim for something impossible, you'll get part the way to impossible. And part the way to impossible is often far better than all of the way to something realistic.

So if, rather than the end goal, the resolution is in fact just the first step in a bartering process, then that's great.

Apple will decide ultimately

Hi guys, I'd firstly just like to point out, that arguing about whether this resolution is good or bad, is rather pointless. As after all, Apple will be the one to decide whether it takes any notice of this at all, or how much it takes notice of it.

Secondly, I'd like to point out that the suggestions about putting an accessibility rating on apps in the app store, that several people have spoken about above, is a good one. And as to the fact of the NFB not focusing on Microsoft, I wonder if that is quite simply, because, Microsoft has in fact already done this. Microsoft's Windows 8 / modern environment -based store, has accessibility ratings, on all of its apps. This means it is somewhat easier to identify what app will be accessible, without having to download it first. I am not sure how this functions in terms of the Microsoft store, but certainly from Apple's strict point of view, if an app developer decides to select to display their app as being accessible, it would be checked thoroughly first.
In fact, at the moment, I would say that android is the one that needs to have the focus late on it. Android's own apps aren't not always completely accessible, even the built-in ones. But most especially, the play store needs to be far better at making accessible apps. Still, as I said, ultimately it is up to Apple whether they take any notice of this resolution at all. Or, how much to take away from it, in terms of how much to try to make default accessibility a factor in App acceptance.
But I certainly think that focusing this at Apple alone, is a little shortsighted. I don't think this sort of thing should be aimed at any one technology maker any more. However, I also am a little concerned at the definition of all apps.
Anyway, we shall see what comes of it.

More thoughts

I have gone through the arguments here, and I have done more thinking about what the NFB is trying to do here.

The main issue I had with this resolution was that it really wasn't any different from the one that had already been passed three years ago. I am still unsure what impact this new resolution would have, seeing as the first one never led to the results the NFB was looking for. I have yet to see anything that explains this.

As for the substance of the resolution, my biggest problem is the requirement for all apps to be accessible. Absolutes are dangerous, and I surely hope that any policy change on Apple's part in response to this would be less strict than the NFB is recommending. I will give a paint program as an example. Sure, it is technically possible for a developer, with a ton of effort, to make and accessible paint program, with all the features a sighted user would expect in a paint program. But why bother? How many blind people would use such an app? Few, if any, which means all that effort would ultimately be wasted. Requiring a developer to put in such effort is counterproductive and would ultimately lead to developers deciding not to bother with a paint program on iOS. This would mean that users would have to switch to Android or some other platform to get the functionality they are looking for.

I would be more supportive of the NFB here if their resolution wasn't so absolute in their demands. Rather than ask for all apps to be accessible to the blind, it would've been better, in my opinion, to ask for all apps potentially beneficial to the blind to be made accessible. An app for which a blind user would have no use, or a very low probability of having any use, should be exempt from any accessibility requirement.

Even so, I don't think the lack of accessibility support should be grounds for rejecting an app. A better solution would be to list the app in the App Store, but flag it as not being accessible to users with a certain disability. Give the developer information about the accessibility concerns, and give them a chance to improve their app's functionality for their next release. Only if a developer shows no interest in making the app accessible over time should their app be pulled from the App Store. That would be how I would implement this.

It would be nice if I could verify an app's accessibility before downloading it from the App Store. This site helps out a lot, but only a fraction of the apps available are listed here, so if an app I am looking at has no entry here, and if there is no accessibility information anywhere else on the web, I am torn as to whether or not to get the app. I don't expect every app in the store to have an accessibility rating, but I would like to see at least some of the apps, perhaps newly submitted ones, to show such a rating, and have the option to limit search results to apps that have been verified to work with VoiceOver, or whatever accessibility feature a user is relying on. That would make it easier for me to find apps I can actually use, without having to do any cross referencing to site like this one.

Anyway, we'll have to wait and see where all this leads, if anywhere.

Will this get us anywhere?

Having read above that this NFB resolution has been passed, and that apparently it's pretty much a copy of one which the NFB passed some years ago, it'll be interesting to see what actually happens. I've no idea whether Apple took any notice of the previous resolution, so I've no idea whether they'll act on the current one. I still stick to my opinion that this resolution is pretty unrealistic, and that it should have applied to Google and Microsoft as well: I also agree with the commenter who pointed out that some IOS apps are unlikely to ever be used by blind people, but it's too late now to say the resolution should have been worded differently, as the NFB has already adopted it. All we can do now is wait and see whether Apple takes notice of the resolution this time or not, and whether any steps are taken by Apple towards getting anywhere near doing what the NFB has demanded in the resolution.

do not agree with this resolution either

i would like to weigh in and just say its up to the developers to make there apps accessible i always write the developers some have never heard of voiceover i'm not a gamer but more of a music person the previous version of alchemy some spots needed some voiceover fixes i wrote the devs they got back to me and said it would be fixed in the next release and it is everyting is labeled nice

NFB

I do believe that accessibility needs to be on all apps. However we need to be realistic not all apps can be accessible. games that are base in graphics and programs that are photos or drawing. I am blind but If I was in charge of apple, I would not like to be told what to do with my company. This are the same people who protested the movie about a near sighted old man who got in trouble. It use to be a cartoon who name can not recall. The apps developers are the one who are responsible for making them apps accessible. Yes apple need to setup guidelines for making accessible but still is the responsibility of the people who created the apps.

Further Thoughts

Just a quick thought, I want to agree that knowing if an app is accessible via VoiceOver or even semi-accessible before purchasing in the app store would be nice.

I still disagree with the comment that all apps need to be accessible and as for all that about focusing on only Sonic, it really was just the first game that occurred to me being an old favorite when I could see.

That said, there are many apps that should be accessible, that can be accessible, and there will always be some that just aren't able to be at all.

Another sort of app I can think of is these wallpaper apps, granted they can attach text descriptions to them so we know what they are, but how often would we use something like that?

Ok, I understand, picking apart various app types here won't help, but it's to try and point out some things that first off most of the blind community may not even use or two, may be impossible to make accessible with VoiceOver.

I agree that it is ultimately up to APple to decide what to do with this, but I hope the wording of it is not going to put them off.

App creation, and interest with blind folks in certain apps

I don't know if anyone involved in the process of passing the resolution frequents Applevis, but there is an app on the app store called Draw This. The idea of that app is for the user to draw something on the touchscreen, submit it for a group of people, and have other folks guess what that drawing is supposed to be. Now how the NFB expects Apple to enforce the developer of that app to make it accessible to voiceOver users is anyone's guess. I know a little about what goes into creating and developing an app, and I know of no way that particular app can be made usable with VoiceOver. I think most people voted for the resolution because it sounded really nice. The idea of having an appstore that is full of apps that is 100% accessible to VoiceOver users sounds nice on paper, but when you really look at the way apps are created, and indeed some of the apps available, you begin to realize that some apps just can not be made accessible, a. because of the way they're written, and b. some apps aren't of any interest to blind folks. I don't think there's anyone on here who would use Draw This on a daily basis. There's other apps than just that one like scrapbooking apps, painting apps, drawing ones like I mentioned before, there are tons that blind people just don't have any interest in. It's completely unrealistic. The last resolution won't work, and this one won't work either.

Considering The Other Side

As much as I didn't want this resolution to pass, and as much as I question its effectiveness, I did hear a viewpoint that really got me thinking.

A commenter on Jonathan Mosen's blog proposed the question: what if they buy a thermostat that can be controlled by an iOS app, the warranty expires, the developer releases an interface overhaul to the iOS app and breaks accessibility, and doesn't care that it's broken? What recourse does the person in that situation have?

Of all the arguments ("You have to dream big to accomplish big," etc.), that is the only one that gave me any pause.

Personally, if organizations feel that working directly with developers isn't accomplishing the desired result, it would seem logical to me that the next step would be to ask Apple to consider creating an "Accessibility Resolution Desk" of sorts. We all know that there are companies who have useful apps which are inaccessible. What my idea is, and I admit it is flawed, is that people who are facing truly unresponsive developers and who need access to an app for a job, or in-home automation...or anything else serious...could file a complaint with this "Accessibility Resolution Desk" at Apple. From there, the "Accessibility Resolution Team" could work with the developers to, hopefully, implement accessibility support into the app.

How Apple would choose to work this out, if they even entertained the idea, is totally their decision. It was just an idea for next year, or perhaps another blindness organization, to consider...something that I think would be a lot more widely-accepted.

Thoughts?

Weighing in with my own views, as well as convention experience

Hello all. First, Just because this passes, does not mean Apple will even take a glance at it. Not saying they don't care, but Apple is inundated with fix this, support that, as well as other serious and perhaps not so serious bugs, due to sighted testers which are critical fixes for the next IOS and Mac systems, so asking them to look at one more thing may not even be done. Besides that, they look at it, so what? They are under no obligation to entertain any ideas put forth from some resolution of a subcultural as this is. Take the U.s. treasury, yes we will make currency accessible, have they done it? Barely, now free iBills are being given to NLS patrons, i obtained mine Friday afternoon, and I thank them for that. What if you're not a member? The bills haven't been given larger numbers, to my knowledge and iknow for a fact thye are not differently sized, nor are they having tactile markings to distinguish denomination. All that is to say just because soemthing passes doesn't mean it will be, should be, put into play. As for the NFB themselves, I've never seen such a poor example of attitudes of blindness, having landed from the Orlando convention yesterday afternoon. No concept of personal space, yelling back and forth across a room, hygene is severely lacking as well as a common sense approach. Case in point, standing in the hallway awaiting entrance, two people up from my position, "Beep, beep, beep beep." Everyone behind him is confused. He explains there's a wheelchair coming out and we needed to stay against the wall. He was told by myself to have common sense and courtesy and to act with more thought, as well by others. I'm not starting an NFB dislike campign, however i will also state that drawing apps just, won't become accessible. Can we shade in a figure? Can we highlight someone's hair, eyes, draw the curve of a smile? relaistically not really, so why is it necessary to insist that all apps become accessible? Short answer, iit isn't. I'll end by saying that I met the developer of spoken games. Wonderful gentleman. He was surprised, and i agree there was no booth wherein we could pass along IOs and Android apps that maybe work good for insert task, game, etc/ for next year i may consider seeing how viable that idea is. I say good luck NFB.

Some thoughts.

I have read through all the comments. There are good points from both sides. I just had a thought. Instead of trying to have apple make accessibility a benchmark that has to be made to sell apps on the app store why not try and put together some sort of a group from The NFB? They wanted to be part of helping Apple regulate apps so why not just form a group that would be available to assist app developers make their products more accessible? Just a thought.

One other note

Also Apple should be praised for their work in accessibility. What other computer or device can a blind person use straight out of the box? I mean take macs for example. You turn it on and hit command f5 and you have a fully working screen reader. There is even a tutorial that you can use that will assist you very nicely. Then you have the IOS devices. You can hold down the home button and tell siri to turn on voiceover. No muss no fuss no extra money for a 3rd party program or app. Again I say Apple should be highly praised for their work in the mission of making their products accessible.

Who do they think they are!

Who the Hell do these selfish, entitled blind people think they are demanding a private company meet their absolutely unreasonable demands! This is why I hate blindness organizations so much! Bunch of selfish, entitled spoiled brats! Get it through your head NFB! The world is not all about us! Grow the freak up/! Stop bullying your way through things throwing tantrums like babies when you don't get your way! You claim you want to be seen as normal? Then stop acting stupid! Sighted people don't act like this. Try and sue Apple and see what happens! No wonder people see us blind people as rude and arrogant!

As the majority has already

As the majority has already stated, this will not happen for a lot of the points that have been raised.
Especially, as someone has already stated, Apple has done a lot for us already, heaps more than any other OS has already done.
We live in a sighted world and I think we need to accept that it's always going to be this way. I'm not being negative; I'm being realistic.
I hope this doesn't send a negative message to apple because they could easily pull the pin on the whole thing and .. wait for it .. I would totally understand if they did; a bunch of ungrateful whiny blindies they'll say who ask for more and more.

Pages