[nfbcs] FW: compiling iPhone apps to Android apps

Fri Mar 27 17:44:25 UTC 2015

>From what I've heard, the biggest problem is that Android doesn't expose enough via the public APIs to allow talkback to do more.  This is 2nd hand information, but I tend to believe it.

I'd also point out that being open source doesn't guarantee much when it comes to development effort for screen readers.  NVDA is open source, but it needed to find funding for any significant development.  Orca is an open source Linux screen reader which is not currently receiving a lot of attention.

Finally, I'm a little perplexed by your statement that it's hard to code inaccessibly.  One one needs to do to not code accessibly is to step outside the guidelines and frameworks that support accessibility.

Jim

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:47:25PM -0400, Jorge A. Paez via nfbcs wrote:
> Appologies but I hit the send button by accident while trying to go
> between what I was writing and reading the previous email.
> 
> ---
> 
> OK, so let me start off with the standards argument, and while I'm
>  added, bring something else up for discussion that I've been
>  wondering.
>  I think its pretty muchimpossible, at least as far as languages go, to
>  code inaccessibly, unless you use something like Flash.
>  That said, what remains then is a whole bunch of unlabeled
>  elements--the lables then turn into the main issue.
>  If a standard develops for accessibility though, who would determine it?
>  Obviously Freedom Scientific or an AT company in general shouldn't be
>  allowed to write the standards because then there would be a great
>  risk that the company would be bias towards its own screenreader.
>  of course there is the option that every AT company would write
>  standards to comply with its own products but that would lead us
>  nowhere as it would just create a confusing net of standards and
>  protocols that companies would either ignore altogether or else they
>  would choose to follow some and ignore others which wouldn't fix
>  anything.
>  So, if standards were to be made for accessible software or mobile
>  development, then it should be done by a group similar to the web
>  consorsium, although how many companies would subscribe to something
>  like that it'd be hard to say.
>  Now, dealing with an issue directly affecting Android, I'm curious.
> What do you think is holding up Talk Back's development?
> I'm asking this because Talkback is open source while Apple's
> Voiceover is not, and I'm wondering if you think this has something to
> do with what appears to beAndroid's lag in screenreader development?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/27/15, Jorge A. Paez <jorgeapaez1994 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > OK, so let me start off with the standards argument, and while I'm
> > added, bring something else up for discussion that I've been
> > wondering.
> > I think its pretty muchimpossible, at least as far as languages go, to
> > code inaccessibly, unless you use something like Flash.
> > That said, what remains then is a whole bunch of unlabeled
> > elements--the lables then turn into the main issue.
> > If a standard develops for accessibility though, who would determine it?
> > Obviously Freedom Scientific or an AT company in general shouldn't be
> > allowed to write the standards because then there would be a great
> > risk that the company would be bias towards its own screenreader.
> > of course there is the option that every AT company would write
> > standards to comply with its own products but that would lead us
> > nowhere as it would just create a confusing net of standards and
> > protocols that companies would either ignore altogether or else they
> > would choose to follow some and ignore others which wouldn't fix
> > anything.
> > So, if standards were to be made for accessible software or mobile
> > development, then it should be done by a group similar to the web
> > consorsium, although how many companies would subscribe to something
> > like that it'd be hard to say.
> > Now, dealing with an issue directly affecting Android,
> >
> > On 3/26/15, Steve Jacobson via nfbcs <nfbcs at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> >> Joe and all,
> >>
> >> Here are a couple of philosophical questions for you.  I've been in this
> >> field for a long time, forty years or so,
> >> mostly working for a large corporation.  As a blind person, I've also
> >> worked
> >> a lot outside of work trying to deal
> >> some with accessibility issues.  Like any programmer, I have at times
> >> been
> >> frustrated when I had to follow a
> >> particular coding standard that seemed to more or less get in the way, so
> >> I
> >> do understand that side of this
> >> discussion.
> >>
> >> Two of you have expressed the sentiment that you don't want to develop
> >> for
> >> Apple because they are a closed system.
> >> I can understand that to a degree because a good deal of Apple's tendency
> >> to
> >> be closed seems to be designed to let
> >> them have a piece of every software sale.  Therefore, nothing I say here
> >> is
> >> meant to imply that Apples closed
> >> system is the way to go, rather I am interested in a more general
> >> discussion.
> >>
> >> Very often, problems we have with accessibility arise because software is
> >> developed to have its own look to give it
> >> an edge in the marketplace.  Sometimes choices are made to achieve
> >> greater
> >> efficiency, but sometimes choices are
> >> designed to just provide a different look to set software apart.
> >>
> >> I remember sitting with a couple of developers from a major company a few
> >> years ago at one of our NFBCS meetings.
> >> At one point in the discussion, one of the developers said that he never
> >> realized that decisions he made as a
> >> developer might cost people jobs.  This guy was willing to learn and that
> >> was to his credit, but somehow he had
> >> gotten a long way in his field thinking of software development more as a
> >> game rather than something that could
> >> impact lives.
> >>
> >> An architect can no longer design a building just for looks, and to some
> >> degree they never could, although there
> >> were cases in the past where appearance anc cost did outweigh safety.  So
> >> one specific question I have is how do we
> >> really get software developers to think about accessibility, but more
> >> generally, how do consumers really benefit by
> >> development that really has few standards to follow?  Again, I am not
> >> trying
> >> to say that People should develop for
> >> Apple instead of Android, because that isn't really my point, but how do
> >> we
> >> balance the artistic licens of
> >> developers with the fact that we are paying for a product to do a job in
> >> most cases now, not just to entertain us?
> >> At what point do we say that something like Android is so pervasive that
> >> there is a responsibility to maintain some
> >> level of quality?
> >>
> >> Now here is yet another aspect that needs to be discussed which sort of
> >> represents the other side of the coine.
> >> Let's say we agree that there should be some general requirement,
> >> particularly for accessibility.  How to we insure
> >> that the tools we use to access software evolve rather than expecting
> >> developers to conform to accessibility
> >> standards that may be limited by slow screen reader development?  Can we
> >> really expect that the ability of our
> >> screen readers to convey information will slow down general software
> >> development?  I don't think that is realistic
> >> either.  However, I don't think screen reader developers have the income
> >> and
> >> the time to think about how
> >> accessibility might be made easier for developers.  Screen readers are
> >> too
> >> busy just trying to keep up.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Steve Jacobson
> >>
> >> On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 22:43:21 -0600, Joseph C. Lininger via nfbcs wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'm not sure I agree with you about the high-end phone statement. I
> >>>think Samsung has some Android products that can (and do) compete at
> >>>that level. As for Windows phones, Microsoft is currently in the process
> >>>of shooting themselves in the foot where the mobile market is concerned.
> >>>Or perhaps I should say, they already did shoot themselves in the foot.
> >>>Whether they can recover from the mistakes remains to be seen.
> >>
> >>>I fully agree about the closed platform stuff; it's the main reason I
> >>>don't own an apple product actually. That and their "you don't need to
> >>>know how this works" mentality. I don't like being treated like a
> >>>technical ignoramus. Development is a real hastle too; you can't just
> >>>decide to whip up an app to do something, install it, and go.
> >>>Joe
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> nfbcs mailing list
> >> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >> nfbcs:
> >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jorgeapaez1994%40gmail.com
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jorge A. Paez
> >
> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jorgeapaez
> >
> > Elance page: http://jorgeapaez1994.elance.com
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jorge A. Paez
> 
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jorgeapaez
> 
> Elance page: http://jorgeapaez1994.elance.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nfbcs mailing list
> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jbar%40barcore.com
> 