Inaccessible Apps on the Site
As I see it, there are a number of good reasons to include inaccessible apps in the App Directory.
The first is that accessibility can be very subjective. Some people are willing to tolerate issues that others would not. Some times this is due to an app having features not available elsewhere, or it could be that there simply isn't a more accessible alternative.
As an example, I recently purchased a Twitter app called TweetAgora. I already have Echofon and TweetList, both of which are more accessible, but TweetAgora has some features that I particularly like. I work around the issues that TweetAgora has, and hope that the developers are good to their word and improve accessibility. So, right now, could I say that TweetAgora is fully accessible? No, but neither is it inaccessible.
The accessibility of an app can also change during its development cycles. There are many examples of accessibility of apps changing as updates come along (either for the better or worse). Once an app has been posted to the App Directory, I would encourage people to post replies to the original entry to report on any changes to its accessibility. It would make things quite 'messy' if an app had to be removed from the App Directory because issues introduced in an update made it inaccessible, only to find that these were fixed in the very next update.
There is also growing evidence that developers take notice of negative comments posted on this site. Just yesterday an inaccessible app was added to the App Directory (QI Lite). Within a few hours somebody had mentioned this to the developer on Twitter, who responded that they had already seen the listing and would look into addressing the issues. Isn't this exactly what we would be hoping for? I certainly call that a result.
Another reason for including inaccessible apps is that it can save people time and money. Nobody is going to assume that an app is inaccessible simply because it isn't listed in the AppleVis App Directory. However, we can help steer them away from apps that are definitely inaccessible. This has to be seen as a positive, when the only other option is to pay your money and hope.
As for reading app entries only to find that the app is inaccessible, the home page, the main App Directory page, and App Directory category pages all show the Usability Rating below the app's name. Yes, this isn't perfect. The Usability rating was only added to the submission form a couple of months ago, so most of the apps submitted prior to that do not have a rating. I had hoped that people who had submitted information in the past would update their entries to include a rating, but so far few have done so. Clearly this is something that is only going to improve, as everybody who now submits an app to the App Directory is required to give it a usability rating.
As always, I am certainly open to suggestions on how the site might be improved. However, having said that, I do find the reasons given above for including inaccessible apps to be quite compelling.
Hey guys, just wanted to let everybody know please before submitting your app post. Please please please make sure that the app is accessible before you post. The reason for this is because some people have been putting apps that are parcially accessible or not accessible at all. I'm going to be mean here and say I don't understand why applevis doesn't take these posts down but whatever. Again please go over the whole app and make sure it is accessible. Oh, and one more thing don't talk for the developers tell them your problems with the app let them fix it and then post it.
I sincerely hope that folks do not honor this outlandish request.
The reason why it is important to alert folks using this site of the accessibility or lack thereof of various apps, is so that you and others like you, don't whine and carry on about how you purchased a $10 app in the app store that wasn't accessible and din't work with VO. It saddens me to see how folks totally miss the point of advocacy and accessibility. Part of that, is overall education; of users and developers alike. Something, which you apparently don't get; or you wouldn't have made such an inane and pointless post in the forum.
Frankly, it's a blatent misuse of this site to omit the apps that aren't fully accessible. I personally would prefer not to waste my money if someone else has already installed it and found it to not work well. Maybe your cash grows on trees, but mine, and I'm sure others here as well, does not.
Does it make the site a tad cluttered? Maybe a bit, but it's not beyond manageable.
I strongly encourage everyone to follow suit and continue to post their accessible and not-so-accessible apps to the site so that hopefully we can (for the most part,) prevent people from wasting money and/or time on apps that do not work. it's called growing the site: and good job so far! :-)