![The Mac-cessibility Network – News [Lioncourt.com]](http://www.lioncourt.com/wp-content/themes/Maccessibility/img/maccessibility.jpg)
In our latest editorial, Apple in the "Blind" World, Mac-cessibility contributor M.J. Phoenix voices her frustration with an article from the RNIB regarding the iPad, which includes some blatant mis-statements.
An interesting take on this matter. I think the RNIB thinks that blind people are somehow incapable of tinkering and figuring out how things work. So what if the iPhone doesn’t speak out of the box? does a PC or Nokia speak when you pull it out of its box? There are steps to follow and these steps aren’t hard. I had more trouble getting Rockbox to work on a Sansa than starting up my iPhone for the first time using iTunes.
How about taking all of the energy and time spent in ripping on Apple and channeling that into career training and education? How about educating programmers about accessibility APIs and building accessible software out of the box? How about encouraging innovation and challenging the status quo with regard to designing products for the blind? Perhaps these blindness organizations would be much more effective at that rather than keeping their fat cats’ technology contracts at the top of their agenda.
April 20th, 2010 at 4:55 pmWhile I agree, in full, with this editorial I do need to point out one incorrect fact. Starting up Narrator does *not* require sighted assistance in Windows. Installing the audio driver, on older versions of Windows, often does however but that’s a separate issue. Let’s stick to the facts, everyone, or else we look as bad as those we deplore.
April 21st, 2010 at 5:22 amAs the author of the RNIB article, I though it would be helpful to post a response. First, thank you for your comments. I do, however, need to address a number of points. As I mentioned in the article, Apple has committed to, and achieved, a tremendous amount in terms of embedded accessibility. RNIB are acutely aware of this and often use Apple as an example of what is achievable if a company is willing to address accessibility head-on. Hence, my comments “when it comes to embedding accessibility, Apple has set the standard in recent years and, as a result, changed the expectations of consumers when it comes to accessibility features. The iPad looks set to continue this trend.”
In response to your assertion that the article is attempting to dissuade people from purchasing the iPad, I can assure you that it was not my intention to discourage potential users. In particular, I draw your attention to the penultimate paragraph of the article. The observations outlined in the piece, many positive and some less favourable, are those of a blind user and a partially sighted user and it would be remiss of me not to report all our findings, given the diverse nature of our audience. This does not mean judging Apple against a different set of standards, but merely reporting the facts. Had the article directly compared products from different manufacturers, I am sure the iPad would have performed very well. This was not the point of the article, although it maybe something we decide to revisit when other similar products are available. This is perhaps one of the disadvantages of being among the first to market.
Finally, with reference to the iPad being inaccessible out of the box, I agree with your point regarding the need to connect to iTunes to register the iPad, from which it is possible to activate the accessibility features. I believe I eluded to much the same point. To clarify my position, VoiceOver was deactivated by default, making it difficult to ascertain when the iPad was powered-up and ready to connect on first use. I agree that compared to the overall accessibility experience, some may consider this a minor issue. Again, this is not to suggest that other products are accessible out of the box; few, if any are and Apple are better than most. Furthermore, I agree that if you connect the iPad to a Mac with VoiceOver 3 running and open iTunes, you should be able to set up the iPad without sighted assistance.
It appears that you felt I was trying to play down the work of Apple in the field of accessibility, or the accessibility of the iPad in general. Alternatively, that RNIB is interested in maintaining the status quo. Nothing is further from the truth. Along with our partner organisations, we are committed to achieving an inclusive society. RNIB actively promote low-cost and no-cost accessibility solutions across a range of technology platforms, working with a wide range of experts from within our Organisation and externally. RNIB is also supporting work on embedding accessibility into mainstream products, as well as the more traditional methods of third party products.
I agree that for the first time in a generation, blind and partially sighted people are beginning to gain access to technology at little or no extra cost than sighted people. Whilst there is still much to do, companies and organisations at the forefront of these advancements, such as Apple, should be commended. The aim of the article, however, was to provide an unbiased first look at the iPad. I believe the article, which lists numerous positives and an honest assessment of some of the less favourable issues, achieves that.
April 22nd, 2010 at 3:01 amYou must be logged in to post a comment.