[Electronics-talk] safari on the PC can you?

Mon Apr 15 06:57:14 UTC 2013

An accessibility group without any teeth makes it possible to put out 
all kinds of inacessible junk.  I've been hearing rumor that Microsoft 
is really going to get its accessibility act together for the release of 
Windows 9 and actually address accessibility problems with windows in 
ways those using accessibility will notice.  Their magnifier according 
to other low vision people who have used it has at least as many 
problems as screen narrator has if not more.  But aside from screen 
narrator, how is it Apple makes an accessible installation without need 
for sighted assistance possible on an operating system back in 2006 and 
Microsoft hasn't done it yet?  The other accessibility problems with 
Microsoft get encountered by programmers who used to be able to work 
perfectly fine until inaccessible integrated development environments 
came out of Microsoft.  Fortunately in a few years I'll be retiring and 
won't have to deal with Microsoft failures after that.

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, Christopher Chaltain wrote:

> It's true I'm not on that list, and I didn't see that response. I'd be curious
> to see it though since I'm surprised that's what MS Accessibility would say.
> Obviously, one group in MS cannot tell another group what to do and how
> another group should spend their resources and prioritize their issues. Those
> would have to be business decisions made by executives. I would expect an
> accessibility group in MS to be able to educate and inform other teams on
> accessibility issues and best practices on making applications accessible. I
> would also think they'd be able to take such issues to executives to try to
> get decisions related to lack of accessibility changed.
> 
> I still would not call this intentional though. It sounds like MS has an
> accessibility group with no teeth, which is probably intentional if true, but
> that's different than intentionally making an application inaccessible. I'm
> sure Apple knows Safari isn't accessible on Windows, and they've chosen not to
> do anything about it for years, which sounds to me to be just as intentional
> as anything MS has done.
> 
> IMHO, this is the issue you run into when one company controls the OS, the
> application and the access technology. Making iTunes accessible helps Apple
> sell iPhones, but what's there incentive to make Safari accessible on Windows?
> I guess MS would stand to gain some revenue from selling MS Office licenses to
> blind people using a Apple device, but how much money would they stand to gain
> by doing this versus how much it would cost? If a blind person needs to use MS
> Office, say for the government or their job, they could always use Windows
> which probably results in more revenue to MS than does the MS Office licenses
> they'd get from blind users on Apple devices.
> 
> Methinks this isn't on topic for this list though.
> 
> On 04/14/2013 11:38 PM, Jude DaShiell wrote:
> > You don't read the blind-l list where one of the other members wrote the
> > head of Microsoft's accessibility division and asked if the
> > accessibility division could do some work and get microsoft office
> > accessible on the mac.  The response from Microsoft's Accessibility
> > Division was that it wasn't allowed to tell other divisions how to write
> > code.  That response happened due to over-arching Microsoft corporate
> > policy.  That is why I wrote this was intentional on Microsoft's part.
> >
> > On Sun, 14 Apr 2013, Christopher Chaltain wrote:
> >
> > > Well, I don't think Microsoft is being hurt much by Safari not being
> > > accessible on Windows, so I'm not sure why Apple would retaliate against
> > > MS
> > > that way. The only people who suffer would be the blind, which is exactly
> > > why
> > > Safari should be accessible on Windows regardless of what MS applications
> > > are
> > > or are not accessible on Apple platforms. By your reasoning, iTunes
> > > shouldn't
> > > be accessible either. For that matter, since Windows Phone isn't
> > > accessible,
> > > the iPhone should also be inaccessible.
> > >
> > > Why do you say MS Office is intentionally not accessible on Apple
> > > platforms?
> > > Are you saying that MS specifically coded MS Office to be inaccessible on
> > > Apple platforms and spent engineering dollars to build inaccessibility
> > > into MS
> > > Office? I would doubt that's the case myself. I think it's much more
> > > likely
> > > that MS just didn't make accessibility a high priority for the Apple ports
> > > of
> > > their office suite, just as Apple probably doesn't consider Safari
> > > accessibility on Windows to be a priority.
> > >
> > > On 04/14/2013 11:07 PM, Jude DaShiell wrote:
> > > > Yes you can put safari on a pc, and no you can't buy anything from the
> > > > itunes store with it once you've done that.  Reason is, safari on
> > > > windows is inaccessible.  I think it may be a reciprocity policy on
> > > > Apple's part and if so, well deserved.  Microsoft office isn't
> > > > accessible for VoiceOver users on the mac because of the way Microsoft
> > > > wrote it.  So why should Safari be accessible on Windows?  This may not
> > > > have been intentional on Apple's part but it most certainly is
> > > > intentional on the part of Microsoft.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 12 Apr 2013, Mike wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >                   Can you put safari on a pc & if yes can you surf the
> > > > > itunes
> > > > > store & buy apps?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Electronics-talk mailing list
> > > > > Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
> > > > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
> > > > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> > > > > Electronics-talk:
> > > > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/jdashiel%40shellworld.net
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > jude <jdashiel at shellworld.net>
> > > > Microsoft, windows is accessible. why do blind people need screen
> > > > readers?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Electronics-talk mailing list
> > > > Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
> > > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
> > > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> > > > Electronics-talk:
> > > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/chaltain%40gmail.com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > jude <jdashiel at shellworld.net>
> > Microsoft, windows is accessible. why do blind people need screen readers?
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Electronics-talk mailing list
> > Electronics-talk at nfbnet.org
> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> > Electronics-talk:
> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/electronics-talk_nfbnet.org/chaltain%40gmail.com
> >
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
jude <jdashiel at shellworld.net>
Microsoft, windows is accessible. why do blind people need screen readers?