I think Section 508 applied to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. I also think it's for federal agencies, not for private companies or app makers.
It is for any organization that sells to the federal government or receives federal funding. So if a company sells any software or equipment to the government, then technically all their software and web sites must conform. We went through this with our company as we sell equipment to the government and the user manuals, product information, training videos, etc are on the support web site. Kind of useless in our case as we sell radiology equipment and you cannot use it if you are blind, but I suppose it is possible a doctor might have a blind office manager. Really a lot of work to comply especially with the videos.
With VoiceOver enabled it can be used quite a bit.
Yes and no. Everything seems to work well with VoiceOver enabled but the app is so cluttered that it's a not a great experience.
Yes, if you're talking about the built-in one.
But but the blind person must first know where to touch, right? For a smartphone the whole screen is touch sensitive. One can accidentally touch an area causing unwanted response.
I think what is really needed are apps designed specifically for disabled person. To require every approved app to be easily accessible to disabled person is technologically backward. In reality it limits the functionality of apps.
But but the blind person must first know where to touch, right? For a smartphone the whole screen is touch sensitive. One can accidentally touch an area causing unwanted response.
When in voiceover mode, you touch once to get the name of the button, then again to activate the button. The blind person touches around on the screen to discover where the buttons are, but they don't activate until touched for the second time within a short delay.
I think what is really needed are apps designed specifically for disabled person. To require every approved app to be easily accessible to disabled person is technologically backward. In reality it limits the functionality of apps.
You really should do some homework on this subject before offering your opinions.
When in voiceover mode, you touch once to get the name of the button, then again to activate the button. The blind person touches around on the screen to discover where the buttons are, but they don't activate until touched for the second time within a short delay.
When in voiceover mode, you touch once to get the name of the button, then again to activate the button. The blind person touches around on the screen to discover where the buttons are, but they don't activate until touched for the second time within a short delay.
Is voiceover enabled by the app?
By the OS but it is inherited by the app. The developer should name the buttons in their code in order for the VO to read them aloud.
I wonder how much an iOS developer needs to add to make an app compatible for the blind? From what I've seen it seem baked into the system. It's supporting other languages that seems to be a little more work for developers.
It is for any organization that sells to the federal government or receives federal funding. So if a company sells any software or equipment to the government, then technically all their software and web sites must conform. We went through this with our company as we sell equipment to the government and the user manuals, product information, training videos, etc are on the support web site. Kind of useless in our case as we sell radiology equipment and you cannot use it if you are blind, but I suppose it is possible a doctor might have a blind office manager. Really a lot of work to comply especially with the videos.
I was under the impression the flow was different. If the Feds want to buy your product it has to be compliant but you don't have to make it compliant just because they want to buy it.
I was under the impression the flow was different. If the Feds want to buy your product it has to be compliant but you don't have to make it compliant just because they have bought it.
In order to sell to the government you have to be an approved vendor, hence you must comply in order to sell to them. It really depends on what your law firm tells you to do based on the terms they are negotiating with the federal purchasing manager. It is not always enforced, but smaller organizations like state or community colleges that receive federal funding are more strict as they don't want to be out of compliance since they are dependent on the funding.
Quote:
I wonder how much an iOS developer needs to add to make an app compatible for the blind? From what I've seen it seem baked into the system. It's supporting other languages that seems to be a little more work for developers.
It is mostly about naming the buttons. Same for the website. And don't use hover as a navigation method even though it might work, you can't depend on it.
I my self am blind. What NFB is doing is crazy! Apple has done some much for the blind and if you wants Apps accessible why not go directly to the devs? This is not the rite way to do this. Also, This is a broad resolution. What about games? It would all most impossible to do this for visual Apps.
This is over the top. If an organization wants to request that something be made more accessible (cell phones are very accessible for their standard functions, i.e. phone calls) than they request it be so. Using the ADA to batter companies (seemingly only high profile ones that have the pockets to respond) is inappropriate, not every product in the country has to be made accessible, or have to fit a certain percentage of the populations definition of accessible. If you want an vehicle that is "accessible" for someone who is disabled the financial burden for the majority fall on the disabled person, if they want a super accessible phone, they need to fork over the bucks.
This is over the top. If an organization wants to request that something be made more accessible (cell phones are very accessible for their standard functions, i.e. phone calls) than they request it be so. Using the ADA to batter companies (seemingly only high profile ones that have the pockets to respond) is inappropriate, not every product in the country has to be made accessible, or have to fit a certain percentage of the populations definition of accessible. If you want an vehicle that is "accessible" for someone who is disabled the financial burden for the majority fall on the disabled person, if they want a super accessible phone, they need to fork over the bucks.
For the most part it is pretty easy for app developers to comply. It is just writing clean code. Instead of only providing an icon for a button, they simply give it a label in the code as well. 10 extra seconds. It is a no brainer once you have been made aware. The main issue is that there are no trial apps available so a blind person would have to contact each app developer and ask if the app was compliant or not before making a purchase.
For the most part it is pretty easy for app developers to comply. It is just writing clean code. Instead of only providing an icon for a button, they simply give it a label in the code as well. 10 extra seconds. It is a no brainer once you have been made aware. The main issue is that there are no trial apps available so a blind person would have to contact each app developer and ask if the app was compliant or not before making a purchase.
This is the solution I suggested that Apple certify apps to be disabled person friendly instead of requiring every app to be so. This is backward to ask over one million apps to be so.
Since they are already disabled doesn't that make it considerably more difficult which is why we have these laws?
The law makes some things easier. But some situations are what they are. If you become severely disabled there are some things you are going to have to accept. You can get into some business, but for various reasons not others, public transportation is accessible, but if you want your own car its extremely difficult to have that provided and more than likely you will have to spend exorbitant amounts of money to make it happen etc... In this case the phones are accessible, but if the banking app isn't and you can do your banking some other way, that may be the situation you have to accept as part of your disability. There are a lot of examples out there that are tougher than this. Companies that spend there own money and assist in these areas make life for the disabled much easier, but there is no obligation to do so.
Comments
With VoiceOver enabled it can be used quite a bit.
Yes and no. Everything seems to work well with VoiceOver enabled but the app is so cluttered that it's a not a great experience.
Yes, if you're talking about the built-in one.
What law has apple violated here? Why not sue the app maker? Why not sue google?
I'm all for greater accessibility, but I don't quite understand this story...
The law in question is ADA Section 508
I think Section 508 applied to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. I also think it's for federal agencies, not for private companies or app makers.
I think Section 508 applied to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. I also think it's for federal agencies, not for private companies or app makers.
It is for any organization that sells to the federal government or receives federal funding. So if a company sells any software or equipment to the government, then technically all their software and web sites must conform. We went through this with our company as we sell equipment to the government and the user manuals, product information, training videos, etc are on the support web site. Kind of useless in our case as we sell radiology equipment and you cannot use it if you are blind, but I suppose it is possible a doctor might have a blind office manager. Really a lot of work to comply especially with the videos.
With VoiceOver enabled it can be used quite a bit.
Yes and no. Everything seems to work well with VoiceOver enabled but the app is so cluttered that it's a not a great experience.
Yes, if you're talking about the built-in one.
But but the blind person must first know where to touch, right? For a smartphone the whole screen is touch sensitive. One can accidentally touch an area causing unwanted response.
I think what is really needed are apps designed specifically for disabled person. To require every approved app to be easily accessible to disabled person is technologically backward. In reality it limits the functionality of apps.
When in voiceover mode, you touch once to get the name of the button, then again to activate the button. The blind person touches around on the screen to discover where the buttons are, but they don't activate until touched for the second time within a short delay.
I think what is really needed are apps designed specifically for disabled person. To require every approved app to be easily accessible to disabled person is technologically backward. In reality it limits the functionality of apps.
You really should do some homework on this subject before offering your opinions.
When in voiceover mode, you touch once to get the name of the button, then again to activate the button. The blind person touches around on the screen to discover where the buttons are, but they don't activate until touched for the second time within a short delay.
Is voiceover enabled by the app?
When in voiceover mode, you touch once to get the name of the button, then again to activate the button. The blind person touches around on the screen to discover where the buttons are, but they don't activate until touched for the second time within a short delay.
Is voiceover enabled by the app?
By the OS but it is inherited by the app. The developer should name the buttons in their code in order for the VO to read them aloud.
By the OS but it is inherited by the app. The developer should name the buttons in their code in order for the VO to read them aloud.
Why can't the OS force every button to work?
I was under the impression the flow was different. If the Feds want to buy your product it has to be compliant but you don't have to make it compliant just because they want to buy it.
I think another solution is for Apple to certify apps that are disabled person friendly. The developer can submit the request that the app is.
I was under the impression the flow was different. If the Feds want to buy your product it has to be compliant but you don't have to make it compliant just because they have bought it.
In order to sell to the government you have to be an approved vendor, hence you must comply in order to sell to them. It really depends on what your law firm tells you to do based on the terms they are negotiating with the federal purchasing manager. It is not always enforced, but smaller organizations like state or community colleges that receive federal funding are more strict as they don't want to be out of compliance since they are dependent on the funding.
It is mostly about naming the buttons. Same for the website. And don't use hover as a navigation method even though it might work, you can't depend on it.
This is over the top. If an organization wants to request that something be made more accessible (cell phones are very accessible for their standard functions, i.e. phone calls) than they request it be so. Using the ADA to batter companies (seemingly only high profile ones that have the pockets to respond) is inappropriate, not every product in the country has to be made accessible, or have to fit a certain percentage of the populations definition of accessible. If you want an vehicle that is "accessible" for someone who is disabled the financial burden for the majority fall on the disabled person, if they want a super accessible phone, they need to fork over the bucks.
Since they are already disabled doesn't that make it considerably more difficult which is why we have these laws?
This is over the top. If an organization wants to request that something be made more accessible (cell phones are very accessible for their standard functions, i.e. phone calls) than they request it be so. Using the ADA to batter companies (seemingly only high profile ones that have the pockets to respond) is inappropriate, not every product in the country has to be made accessible, or have to fit a certain percentage of the populations definition of accessible. If you want an vehicle that is "accessible" for someone who is disabled the financial burden for the majority fall on the disabled person, if they want a super accessible phone, they need to fork over the bucks.
For the most part it is pretty easy for app developers to comply. It is just writing clean code. Instead of only providing an icon for a button, they simply give it a label in the code as well. 10 extra seconds. It is a no brainer once you have been made aware. The main issue is that there are no trial apps available so a blind person would have to contact each app developer and ask if the app was compliant or not before making a purchase.
For the most part it is pretty easy for app developers to comply. It is just writing clean code. Instead of only providing an icon for a button, they simply give it a label in the code as well. 10 extra seconds. It is a no brainer once you have been made aware. The main issue is that there are no trial apps available so a blind person would have to contact each app developer and ask if the app was compliant or not before making a purchase.
This is the solution I suggested that Apple certify apps to be disabled person friendly instead of requiring every app to be so. This is backward to ask over one million apps to be so.
Since they are already disabled doesn't that make it considerably more difficult which is why we have these laws?
The law makes some things easier. But some situations are what they are. If you become severely disabled there are some things you are going to have to accept. You can get into some business, but for various reasons not others, public transportation is accessible, but if you want your own car its extremely difficult to have that provided and more than likely you will have to spend exorbitant amounts of money to make it happen etc... In this case the phones are accessible, but if the banking app isn't and you can do your banking some other way, that may be the situation you have to accept as part of your disability. There are a lot of examples out there that are tougher than this. Companies that spend there own money and assist in these areas make life for the disabled much easier, but there is no obligation to do so.