06.09.09
Posted in Access and Disability, New Media and Tech at 7:34 AM by Shelly
I’ll make this short and sweet: the iPhone 3G S includes several features that should make Apple’s smartphone accessible to many blind and visually impaired people for the first time.
And rejoicing was heard in the land?
We’ll see what we’ll see.
The new phone, debuted at Apple’s annual Worldwide Developers Conference, and due for release on June 19, includes a version of Apple’s VoicOver, the screen reader built into Mac OS X. Since we learned at its launch two years ago that the iPhone is an OS X device, lots of accessibility advocates, including me, have suggested that lighting up VoiceOver features in the phone was obviously doable. Now it’s happened.
Since I haven’t seen the phone, I can only report what Apple has told us about 3G S accessibility, and pose some questions. I’ll get the suspense over with right now, and tell you that after two years of resisting both the phone’s monthly cost, and lack of accessibility, I’m pretty eager to get one.
First off, let’s get our definitions straight. The iPhone 3G S will become available almost simultaneously with iPhone 3.0, a software release that works on both the new phone and existing iPhones and iPod Touch devices. VoiceOver, and another new feature with accessibility implications, Voice Control, require the iPhone 3G S. Though I haven’t confirmed this with Apple, I’m making an educated guess that the new features require the faster processor in the iPhone 3G S. iPhone 3.0, a free update for existing iPhone owners, and $9.95 for iPod Touch, does not appear to include specific accessibility enhancements. Apple has not announced any new iPod Touch hardware, so you’ll need to buy a phone to get VoiceOver and Voice Control.
Apple’s iPhone vision accessibility page touts VoiceOver as the same screen reader available in its Mac OS X computers. The accessibility toolbox also includes a couple of other options that are familiar to OS X users; zoom and white on black.
Apple uses the term “gesture” to refer to the many ways in which you tap, double-tap, drag, or pinch to use the touch screen. This nomenclature may not be familiar to blind users, for whom a tactile keyboard is the usual means of interacting with a screen reader. With VoiceOver turned on, the iPhone, whose glass screen is completely devoid of tactile reference points, save a button at the bottom, will speak the names of items over which a finger passes. Open the item with a double-tap, or use other gestures to manipulate it. Another detail for the uninitiated visually impaired user; the iPhone’s home screen does not contain the usual vertical menu of functions, but a grid with square icons representing your applications. Apple’s description touts contextual information provided in VoiceOver, and the freeform ability to interact with the screen reader. In a computer environment, screen readers deliver information in a specific order, as set out by navigation commands and arrow keys. On the iPhone, you can drag your finger to another part of the screen, getting audio feedback as you go. Speech rates and voices are customaizable. The device will even duck other audio, such as iTunes music, when VoiceOver is speaking
Like the innovative pinch gesture that makes it possible to zoom into and out of Web pages on an iPhone, the rotor, new in iPhone 3G S, appears to be an ingenious navigation aid that will make moving around, and keeping your place a lot easier for VoiceOver users. From Apple’s accessibility page: “Turning the rotor— by rotating two fingers on the screen as if you were turning an actual dial — changes the way VoiceOver moves through a document based on a setting you choose.For example, a flick up or down might move through text word by word. But when you choose the “character” setting, each time you flick up or down VoiceOver will move through the text character by character — perfect when you’re proofreading or editing text.”
The iPhone uses a virtual QWERTY keyboard. VoiceOver will speak text as you type it; letter by letter, or as you complete a word. It’s unclear to me how the software assists a blind user in finding virtual keys in the first place. That’s among the first features I’ll be testing.
VoiceOver speaks 21 languages, and Apple says you can activate it without sighted assistance, along with your iPhone.
Let me mention a few non-VoiceOver accessibility upgrades. I make extensive use of what Apple calls “white on black” in Mac OS X. I call it “reverse video”, but that seemed to confuse some of my Twitter followers yesterday. This feature inverts your screen, so that text is light and the video background is dark. This essential (to me) feature is part of iPhone 3G S, along with more flexibility in controlling font sizes, and zoom that is available outside Safari. On a Mac, reverse video can be toggled on and off with a keyboard shortcut (control-option-command-8, if you want to see what it looks like). I hope the iPhone also provides a quick toggle.
There is one major caveat about VoiceOver, and accessibility in general. While Apple has made these tools available, and implemented them in applications it ships with the iPhone, there is no guarantee that app developers will fully support accessibility. An app could, for example, be completely invisible to VoiceOver, or choose not to allow you to adjust its font size. In most cases, small developers will make these choices either because they simply don’t realize that they have visually impaired customers, or because they believe that the time required to implement accessibility is prohibitive. It’s going to be up to iPhone users and potential iPhone users to educate developers. I’m hoping to talk to a few, and learn how much work it is to implement Apple’s new goodies. While advocacy is important, it’s also a good idea to understand what challenges a developer faces in making an app accessible. I’ll let you know what I learn, though it’s safe to say that since the iPhone 3G S has just been announced, learning the ins and outs will take a little while. I intend to be persistent, but patient. And rest assured that each and every app reviewed on my App Store Pundit podcast will be evaluated based on its accessibility.
Permalink
06.04.09
Posted in Podcasts at 12:16 PM by Shelly
If you’re on Facbeook, please become a fan of Shelly’s Podcast. C’mon, click it. You know you want to. If you don’t know the show, check it out here.
Permalink
05.18.09
Posted in Access and Disability, Random Personal Nonsense at 12:32 PM by Shelly
Birth announcements almost always end the same way. Baby is healthy and doing fine. That’s what we all hope for, right? And mostly, it’s what parents in the United States can expect to get. But seeing those words once again on a birth announcement made me wonder. What’s the best ending line for the announcement of the birth of a disabled child? Should parents be less giddy and thankful when they learn their new son or daughter can’t see, won’t be able to walk, etc? Should they equate disability with unhealthfulness? I don’t think so. No parent wants their child to be disabled, but let’s not begin separating our disabled kids from everyone else right away. My mom certainly didn’t.
Permalink
Posted in New Media and Tech at 10:15 AM by Shelly
I’m acquainted with a lot of podcasters and writers. Some of my friends are both, and some have used the spoken medium to gain wider distribution for their written work. I love these people. I love that what they are selling is creative work.
They are, in a very real sense, also selling themselves. Tools like podcasting, Twitter, Facebook, fan art and the like are the grassiest of grass roots, and the most personal of mass media. There can be no cooler use for what has come to be called social media. Aside from posting links to words, audio, video an illustration, or engaging in conversation about their work, authors have come up with clever ways to promote wheat they’re doing to wider audiences. From cross-promotion with other content-makers to character naming rights, a lot of these methods are both free and engaging to their fan communities. And because book promotion is so often self-promotion, many authors bring the audience along when they have success; announcing book deals, reprints of past works, and even movie options. These events are not merely a press release for the author, but a cause for celebration in their fandoms and communities of social media followers. In this way, the reader’s early faith in an author is vindicated, and fans are more likely to spread the word far beyond their own social media networks that they know someone who as written a great book. And it’s available at a bookstore, web site or multiplex near you!
In the past few months, though, I’ve been feeling a little overwhelmed by these homegrown publicity machines. If you’re already a part of a community where authors “work the room” a lot, you will have read or heard their messages and their success stories many times over. You’ll know not only that book x has been added to Amazon’s catalog, but that it’s improved in sales rank by 500 places in the past day. And the author’s success will be amplified again and a gain by friends sending “congrats” via Twitter and Facebook. Great stuff for the author, but grounds for me to say “enough already” even if I’m a supportive fan.
The challenge is for the author: how much is too much, and how can you make that determination in a world where the milestones you achieve are magnified many times over by your community of friends and fans? I’ve written a lot of books myself, and I don’t mind telling you that I would have LOVED to have access to social media tools when I published them between 1997 and 2005. But the point at which you begin overloading your fans, tempting them to unfollow you, and making it hard for them to feel like hitting that Retweet button, is a place you don’t want to be.
Permalink
05.11.09
Posted in New Media and Tech at 3:51 PM by Shelly
I’ve been following a local story about police shooting a couple of suspects when they surprised them in a car suspected of involvement in some robberies. Neighbors were angry at the cops, and broke out windows in several police cars. Big story, still under investigation. Too early to know exactly what happened. Many details yet to be made clear.
I tracked the story on Twitter, where I follow a local TV station and two newspapers. But I wasn’t able to put the timeline together until late in the day when I read a full account, posted on the TV station’s Web site. Aside from the fact that 140 character bursts aren’t much good when you’re trying to take a comprehensive view of multi-dimensional stories, it was also striking that this story, a crime story that took place in a rough neighborhood, and that featured the kind of violence that might affect people’s real lives, was not chronicled by on-site observers. No hashtags popped up. No grainy cell phone video appeared on uStream or blip.tv. In short, the Twitterati, so capable when it comes to covering movie openings, tech conferences and even the occasional airline delay, was utterly silent.
The next time you’re tempted to dance on the graves of newspapers, or even television stations with local news operations, ask yourself whether the work of your police department and those with whom they interact is newsworthy. And if it is, which iPhone-toting Twitterers will turn covering the police beat into a volunteer project or a business model.
Oh, and just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that social media geeks need to cover the police beat. That might not be the highest and best use of their skills. Rather, I’m saying that the police beat, along with a whole lot of other unsexy but essential beats, are best covered by professional journalists who don’t use words like “long tail” and “niche marketing”. We need them.
Permalink
04.16.09
Posted in Access and Disability, Politics and Public Affairs at 3:28 PM by Shelly
I avoided what’s being called the Susan Boyle Phenomenon as long as I could. I first learned about it from distant acquaintances on Twitter, then from some fellow book club members. More links followed, all pointing to a video of a woman appearing on an American Idol-like TV show called Britain’s Got Talent. Words like “amazing”, “inspiring” and “it gave me chills” accompanied each link, along with an admonition that I “must watch this!”
The trouble with “amazing” and “inspiring” is that they are most often applied to disabled people by their non-disabled observers. You’ll have to trust me on this one, folks. It’s kind of like using “girl” in reference to a grown woman. Alarm bells go off until and unless some context is applied. To be amazing is to accomplish something that a “normal” person judges to be impossible for you. To be inspiring is to tug at heart strings; to bring tears, or renewed faith in humanity, just by doing what one’s own inner compass directs. Amazing and inspiring are two of my least favorite words. They evoke shallowness and emotion that is disrespectful of the life force and intellect of the person about whom they are used.
I finally clicked on Susan Boyle when her link came to me from sources I know to not be soft-headed. and I’m glad I did. Like the majority of people who have reacted to this middle-aged, unprepossessing woman’s star turn in front of skeptical judges, I was captivated. and I cried some, too. As it turns out, Ms. Boyle is not physically or mentally disabled, merely ordinary, and outside the normal demo of televised talent contests. and the surprise in the room, from judges and audience, seemed sincere. Great stuff!
As someone who has always disdained the televised talent show TV format, it occurs to me that Ms. Boyle’s triumph is an excellent illustration of what bothers me so much about American Idol and its ilk. Unassuming, less-than-attractive, or odd people brought onto such a show are put there to serve as comic relief, or as punching bags for cynical, mean-spirited judges who apparently get paid by the putdown. Audience members discuss their flaws endlessly, much to the delight of show promoters. Their very presence, and ultimate dismissal serves to reinforce stereotypes and norms about physical beauty and conformity to social norms. Not to mention conformity to the demands of music marketing. Even the people who have a chance to win out, do so by studying to the test; generating the kinds of performances, with the kinds of singing styles expected by the show’s stakeholders. No great guitarist or captivating songwriter wins such a program. It’s pure pop candy; songs we’re al supposed to know, performed on a bare stage. I want to see the band, thank you very much.
Ms. Boyle won because she first presented an unacceptable package to the judges and audience, then shattered their expectations. She could do that only because she had an extraordinary talent. If she had been a singer of middle quality, she would have been laughed off the stage. If she had matched the physical stereotypes of the show and had a middling voice, she might or might not have won, but her story would not be an Internet phenomenon today.
The victory is Ms. Boyle’s. It makes me no more likely to embrace televised talent shows. I hope that she grabs her 15 minutes of fame, and makes it pay off. She will be feted, offered makeovers, interviewed on television, and, depending upon the people around her, will have the chance to make some money and record some music. That’s her dream, and I hope she gets it.
Permalink
03.31.09
Posted in Announcements, Podcasts at 11:13 AM by Shelly
Time to give one of my own podcasts a plug. I’ve just recorded a quick overview of the new Skype for iPhone app on the App Store Pundit podcast. Download it or stream it, and let me know what you think of the show and of Skype for iPhone. I’m crowd-sourcing a full-fledged review for the next show.
Permalink
03.26.09
Posted in Cocktails and Spirits, New Media and Tech, Podcasting at 8:00 AM by Shelly
I’m a big ol’ critic of the current frenzy for social media. That is, I’m critical of the “social media can do EVERYTHING, replace ALL mainstream media, CURE CANCER, etc. school of thought. But I am not critical of the tools that make it possible to exchange information, or add deeper meaning to the content of media. Platforms like Twitter, podcasting, uStream, and Facebook, to name just a few, can unleash not only creativity of content-makers, but the imagination and enthusiasm of content consumers.
I’m thinking about this today because I’m working on a plan to cover a conference I’ll be attending this summer. Tales of the Cocktail is an annual event for bartenders, beverage professionals, and cocktail enthusiasts, held in New Orleans.
I say “cover” because, as a long-time journalist (and proud of it) that’s how I view events that I attend. I see my attendance as a way to bring information, context,and energy to people who can’t attend themselves. that mindset is in my DNA. I want to tell people what happened, how it felt to be in the room, and who made what kinds of impacts on or within the audience. Frankly, I’m still working on the interactive part; how, using social media tools, can I let my audience influence my coverage, ask questions, give me feedback?
So much of what passes for social media coverage of events is poorly thought-out or lazy. Pointing a camera at a speaker, or lieblogging a seminar on Twitter feels great in the moment, but how, six months later, can content consumers process hours and hours of video, or Twitter posts which, if archived at all, lack real context outside the instant they occurred? I want the work I do in July to stand on its own in December, and also be consumable by busy people who wouldn’t have time to sit and watch old seminar sessions. I want what I do to inform people who attend the conference the following year, or discuss and write about its topics between events. You know, kind of like those old-fashioned things called news and feature articles used to provide a record that people could rely on for reference.
My idea right now is to combine liveblogging with edited audio podcasts. My version of liveblogging will be more like note-taking than instant news reporting. After all, this isn’t an Apple product announcement, with readers hanging on every word I write. From the liveblog posts, which can stay up for anyone who needs that level of detail, I can construct more orderly “permanent” stories that place what I’ve seen, heard and experienced into some kind of context.
Podcasting, which will always be my medium of choice, gives me the ability to record both the voices of speakers and fellow attendees, and my own. I’m likely to roll a lot of tape, then edit what I collect into manageable audio pieces that can be released one or two per day during the event. If all goes well, I might do shorter, more frequent live-to-tape podcasts consisting of interviews, or cocktail tasting notes. These could be aggregated into their own feed for people who are comfortable consuming a lot of audio in bit-sized chunks.
These are preliminary ideas. I know from attending Tales last year that it offers ample opportunity for learning, and for sensory overload. My challenge is to distill (yeah, that’s what I said) what I see and hear in ways that make it valuable to readers and listeners, both in real-time, and after the fact.
Permalink
02.21.09
Posted in Access and Disability, New Media and Tech at 12:25 PM by Shelly
A couple days ago, I saw a Twitter message advertising AccessCamp, an unconference focusing on digital accessibility. At first,my response was a bit sarcastic: camps seem to proliferate like weeds, I observed. But the more I thought about it, the more an AccessCamp seemed like a brilliant idea, and one I wish I had been aware of earlier. Having fought and defeated inaccessibility in various ways all my life, I have a few thoughts.
The camp environment, where people choose the topics they want to address and learn about, and in which interaction is prized, is especially exciting in a field where lots of people have limited information, but where good will abundant. In short, most folks embrace the idea of accessibility, but few understand it, orhow to make it happen. And the experts in what’s needed, my fellow disabled citizens, often lack other forums in which to discuss the topic.
Right now, I’m watching on uStream, very happy to have a window into what’s going on in San Antonio, and happy that I was in the right Twitter place at the right Twitter time. Many others who surely could have benefited, were not.
Before I go on, let me acknowledge those who had the idea for AccessCamp. It is a lot easier to provide critical feedback than it is to organize such an event. I offer what follows in a spirit of good will, and I have every intention of being a part of any future AccessCamps held in central Texas.
A few folks at AccesCamp have asked the organizers what efforts were made to get disabled people involved in the event. The response was that most unconference events are publicized via social media and that there is no budget for more traditional publicity. What I take from this is that the unconference movement, grassroots though it may be, relies too heavily on the social media tools its proponents use daily, and the networks of people they are connected to there. Twitter and Facebook may be the currency of the realm in social media circles, but they are more casual information sources for many disabled people, even those who have email and Web access at their fingertips. Also, I wonder how many unconference enthusiasts can say that their social media networks include numbers of disabled people, as mine does. Disabled social media users are out there, but, like all of us, they tend to find those with similar interests and perspectives. And because they are often marginalized in the work world, the average social media enthusiast tends either not to know any, or not to be adept at seeking them out.
Being a constant social media user does not automatically make you the ideal attendee for an uncomference. That ideal attendee may, for example, participate in mailing lists, Web forums, or live chats, but may not have bothered to acquire a Twitter account. We always risk talking only to the people we know in the social media world, and the AccessCamp experience is for me, an amplified example of that risk.
How to make things better? The AccessCamp organizers are right to remind us all that unconferences do not descend, fully-formed, from on high. They are built by those with a passion for “the movement” and a knowledge of how such events should be organized. If, however, you’re unconfernecing about topics that profoundly affect people to whom you are not personally connected, and whose issues you do not fully understand, it’s important to reach out; to find people outside your own network who can make connections directly to individuals and organizations who require accessibility to get their work done on a daily basis.
Those folks will be invaluable advisors and leaders, as well as attendees. You can find them with a minimal amount of research.
They will remind you that your chosen facility needs ramps, accessible bathrooms, greeters who can guide folks to meeting rooms, transit access, a place on the wiki for rideshare planning, walkable access to lunch spots, etc. They won’t be afraid to step up to volunteer their time and skills. But they need to hear from you first.
Permalink
01.26.09
Posted in Announcements, New Media and Tech, Podcasting, Random Personal Nonsense at 2:55 PM by Shelly
I just learned that I’m listed in the Austin Social Media 100, in the tech category. I can’t say that I know much about this set of rankings, but I’m flattered to be included. I’m also mining the rest of the list for fun and interesting people to follow on Twitter or elsewhere.
Permalink
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
