ShellyBlog Shelly Brisbin's life consists of several long tails. She writes about them here.

July 15, 2014

Mainstream Cheerleaders Defend Apple Accessibility

Filed under: Access and Disability,General Store — Tags: , , , , — Shelly Brisbin @ 1:24 PM

Last week’s kerfuffle about the National Federation of the Blind’s (NFB) resolution asking Apple to make a more vigorous effort to ensure the accessibility of third-party apps accomplished several things: it got lots of mainstream attention for the NFB, and united the Apple-centric press in righteous indignation over perceived defamation of the Cupertino company. What it didn’t do, in mainstream journalism, at least, was facilitate a discussion of what the NFB resolution seeks, or whether it’s reasonable. The controversy has also not demonstrated that the Apple defenders in the press actually know much about the relationship between accessibility support in the OS, and the need for implementation by app developers.

So here’s what happened. NFB members passed a resolution (Word doc) asking Apple to strongly encourage, if not require, that app developers make their software accessible, as a condition of availability in the App Store. And by that, the resolution means that developers should take advantage of accessibility hooks provided in Apple operating systems, so that interfaces and content can be read by the VoiceOver screen reader, or viewed by people with low vision. The “whereas” portion of the NFB resolution actually does a thorough job of describing how apps are rendered inaccessible, how blind consumers often inadvertently purchase inaccessible apps, and how updates sometimes break pre-existing access support. The resolution suggests that since Apple already exercises a lot of control over what gets into the App Store, adding an accessibility requirement is consistent with the company’s highly-regulated approach to app approval.

Next came the Reuters article, which stated (incorrectly) that NFB had sued Apple over accessibility in the past. The author then took a famous Tim Cook quote about Apple’s reasons for championing accessibility out of context. Finally, several leading Apple-focused writers rose as one to defend Cook’s good name, eviscerating the Reuters piece, and praising Apple’s commitment to accessibility in the distant past, in the now, and for all time to come. (And Google sucks, by the way.) This Fortune article does a nice job of fleshing out the story, and linking to more Mac press responses. 

Here’s the thing: lots of folks in the Apple-centric press have a regrettable tendency to cheerlead. Call it advocacy journalism, homerism, or reality distortion field, but it’s a fact of the way many who cover Apple’s every move ply their trade. Whether Fortune’s assertion that they responded at the behest of Apple PR is true or not, the discussion certainly wasn’t very substantive; beginning with the erros in the Reuters article, and winding up with unreserved praise for Apple’s leadership in accessibility, and their altruistic commitment to it. 

A few things were missing:

  • No mainstream article I could find included the opinions of people who use Apple’s accessibility tools, whether affiliated with NFB or not. Newsflash: blind folks are not united on this issue, and they know about what makes an app accessible, and whether and when it’s reasonable to take Apple and developers to task. Marco Arment makes a detailed case for including accessibility support in the app review process.
  • Apple writers were extremely concerned about getting Tim Cook’s words down completely and correctly, but none bothered to link to the resolution that started this beef, never mind exploring what motivated it, or whether what the resolution asks for is reasonable or possible. For their reference, Jonathan Mosen’s response attempts to explain the issue by taking a historical view of tech accessibility, and Apple’s role in its evolution.
  • This isn’t an Apple versus Google story, no matter how much some would like it to be. And if that’s really the story a journalist wants to write, it would be important to address the degree to which Apple controls what goes on in the App Store, and how that makes enforcing access requirements on app developers much more possible in the iOS world than on the Android platform. 

Even in the accessibility community, the Tim Cook quote about why Apple makes its products accessible is held up as a reason to venerate the company. But as proven by the manner of the MacPress response to this little dustup, it’s much easier to cut and paste pretty words from the CEO than it is to take on the challenges and successes of accessibility on a substantive level. Whether you’re a fan of the NFB resolution, or think it goes too far, its real value is as a conversation-churner. Apple understands that conversation is happening, probably far better than most of its journalistic cheerleaders do.

April 30, 2008

iPhone Accessibility: But Not For Me

Filed under: Access and Disability — Tags: , , , , , , — Shelly Brisbin @ 9:57 AM

I spent last weekend with friends who use their matching iPhones to great effect. Though new in town, they were able to zoom in on (well, close) to my house with Google street view, and find a store we wanted to visit before I could complete my call to directory assistance. They also kept up with emails from home, and conducted searches just because they could, all while holding up their end of the conversation.

Tap, tap, tap.

I’m past the angry part. No iPhone for me. OK. I don’t really feel the need for a Google IV on a constant basis, but every once in awhile, it would be nice, as would a quick look at my email account while bouncing along on the #7 bus, or a recipe onscreen as I work in the kitchen. OK, I want one. So sue me.

But I have to say that this post from Disability Nation about AT&T’s plan to make iPhone accessible to deaf users, really did get my goat. AT&T (and other cell carriers, I assume) offers a data-only plan for deaf or hearing impaired users of its other phones. You get unlimited text-based features, and aren’t charged for a voice plan you can’t use. Right on! It should also be pointed out that cell carriers often subsidize the cost of Mobile Speak, an audio interface for compatible phone. That subsidy is needed by many, because Mobile Speak, low-volume product that it is, costs $300, otherwise.

These are perfect examples of inefficient cost-shifting.Why should a phone carrier subsidize individual purchases of expensive software for disabled users? Why should I go begging for such a subsidy? In the case of the iPhone and accessibility for blind and visually impaired users, where is the native interface, voice or text, that can be adapted to my needs, especially given the capabilities of Apple’s OS? I’d pay for that, or would support grants that would pay for its development. Why leave users completely out of the loop, or rely on carriers to subsidize what hardware vendors should have provided in the first place?

Powered by WordPress