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

Mon Apr 15 08:14:17 UTC 2013

Actually, Apple had a accessible installer in Tiger which came out in 2005. April to be exact. Anyway even beta tester in 2004.

Gabe Vega 
Sent from my iPhone
(623) 565-9357

On Apr 14, 2013, at 11:57 PM, Jude DaShiell <jdashiel at shellworld.net> wrote:

> 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?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/theblindtech%40gmail.com