Apple in the “Blind” World
— ♣With the increase of mainstream accessible products from Apple, it was only time that the “blind organisations” decided to put their opinions into the mix. However, I don’t think some of these people are very well informed.
An article on the RNIB Website has continued my thought pattern of situations that have occurred in recent months, with not only British "blind organisations" but those of other countries.
Assistive technology was necessary for years and due to low market demand, prices are high. Whether you agree with those prices or not, they are fact and it would seem little can be done to change that. However, Apple has made a commitment to accessibility in the majority of its product line, only the AppleTV and iPod classics remain out of touch for its visually impaired end users. All of its computers, third gen iPhones and iPod touches, fourth gen nanos and shuffles and now the newly anticipated iPad boast accessibility features for a huge group of disabled customers from various backgrounds.
Not only are these products accessible, (and yes, RNIB, out of the box), but they are no more expensive than our sighted peers would have to shell out for. Similar tablet devices, (and I say similar because there are few that can be compared to the iPad), would not be able to boast the same level of accessibility without third party software and the price tag, although a little more than what people would want to pay, is no more than what everyone else will be paying.
For once as a generation, we are able to buy a mainstream product and not be penalised because we our visually impaired.
The article has some fair points about certain features or the lack thereof. (I say fair as I am A. not a low vision user and B. I haven’t touched an iPad yet). The screen reader component is relatively accurate to all attempts and purposes. I realise this as I have A. heard someone else recount their IPad experience and B. use an IPhone and the experience sounds similar. However, it feels that this article is doing what it can to put off users without "lying".
One issue I take exception to strongly is the "not accessible out of the box" line. This is ludicrous. If any of you have used an iPhone or an iPod, you will know all of these products only require you and your computer to get them going. Unlike a PC computer or a smartphone from another company you can literally plug your apple product in and get it going independently. For RNIB to say it is not accessible out of the box is a blatant mis-statement. I’m sure they know this as later on they write that the accessibility features can be activated in itunes. Well, RNIB, I’d like to point out you need to link the device to ITunes in order to register it and in that summary section you can indeed activate your chosen accessibility feature.
It almost feels like they are holding APple to a different standard. Can they honestly say that any product from Nokia or the windows side of the world has automatic turn on accessibility features. On the windows platform alone, you need sighted assistance to turn on narrator or someone to assist you closing apps when you need to install software so I deem the Apple line up as "accessible out of the box" as a completely accurate statement.
Editor’s note - The iPad requires all users visually impaired or otherwise, to connect the device to iTunes before its first use. In that regard, the iPad is inaccessible to sighted users "out of the box" as well.
RNIB, like other organisations are sticking strongly to "blind specific" products as a rule. Yes, they may acknowledge these products exist and indeed recommend the iPhone on their list of accessible phones, but do they promote them as a viable alternative? I’d say no.
Their sister organisation is not even aware that macs are a viable option. And plenty of IT technicians that are allocated to the blind community either do not know or in fact refuse to train on macs. Slowly, through user demands, I’m aware that several higher education students have received macs through funding but I believe this is more to do with the individuals demanding it rather than it being posed as a viable alternative.
Apple has committed to their accessibility since 2005 and continues to implement its features and invent new ones on its increasing line of products. When will these organisations that are meant to be supporting the VI community catch up and offer the lower cost, potentially alternative solutions? Or will these organisations never take the chance of moving toward a medium where both mainstream products and "blind specific" products are offered as equals? For the time being, I’m saying it’s up to those of us who use these products to advertise their benefits and demonstrate the facts.
Response From Original Author
by Shaun Leamon
Editor’s Note - We’re very pleased that Shaun Leamon, the author of the original article that sparked this editorial and discussion, took the time to clarify the RNIB’s position, and we post the submitted comments here for your consideration. We thank Shaun for the response, and hope that the Mac-cessibility Network can continue to encourage such constructive discussion.
As 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.