Apple and Accessible iOS Apps
Jul. 3rd, 2014 08:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
diannaamarichI read the following a little while ago and felt that I should write down my thoughts.
Here is Jonathan Mosen's post about Apple and iOS accessibility.
The NFB has a resolution out there specifically asking Apple to mandate that all apps be accessible for VoiceOver users. OK, so just how does Apple do that? Who, exactly, determines what apps need to be accessible and which ones do not? Which apps is it practical to make accessible, anyway? Some that you might not think of should be, like NetFlix and Facebook (which keeps getting broken with every update or two), and some, well, it's just not practical. How would you make Angry Birds accessible and playable? (Admittedly, I'd love to play it, but I try to be realistic.) Tetris? All those interesting video games that I hear about and sound fun? How do you code accessibility in for fast-moving graphics and story lines?
Then there are the apps that are visual, but I think could be made accessible, like fun dice games that have pictures instead of numbers on the dice. (Zombie Dice!) I'm fairly sure there are more apps like that, but they don't come to mind right away.
We won't even get into the newspaper apps that I routinely avoid these days. No, we should. Those ought to be useable by blind and visually impaired users, and not all of them are. NFB Newsline is great, and I'm glad I have it, but I'd be even happier if I was able to get apps for newspapers that I enjoy and browse through those each day. Or maybe I could get a Kindle subscription sometime, but apps are overall cheaper.
Sometimes you have to do extra coding to make an app accessible for blind/visually impaired players. Take Freeq coded and sold by Psychic Bunny. Yes, I promise the company is really called that.. They had to add in some extra stuff--and I do not fully understand what they did or how, so don't ask. Anyhow, they had to basically code in extra commands so blind players can play the game by tilting their device around and listening to sounds until they "lock on" to a call. Then they have to tap certain choices that are read out. They actually had to put in commands that mimic VoiceOver functionality, because the only way the game can be properly played is with VoiceOver off. They even have a warning that plays if VoiceOver is running that explains how to play and reminding you to turn off VoiceOver to play. This also meant extra work for them as far as making more voice messages that blind players will hear. There's lots of help, so that is easy to play. But should that be done for all apps this company develops? I think not. Games where you have to match up colors? Just how practical is it to make such an app playable by blind players? Not sure I can see it.
Assuming Apple mandates accessibility and the developers are willing to do this, based on whatever criteria are used, we're still missing some other users. We, the blind, are not the only ones with disabilities out there. There are people with other disabilities. Dyslexia, autism, various forms of ADD or ADHD, and others that I am likely missing. If we want to be inclusive, great! But being inclusive means including as many different disabilities as possible, and that gets difficult, I think. There's no way all the apps out there are going to be suited to everyone or made totally accessible so that every person can have a fun experience.
Would Apple have to have more people added to their review teams (or however it is done) to make a decision on accessibility? If some apps are not accessible and allowed through, or apps are not allowed through even though they should, what kind of processes would need to be in place? It seems to me that doing this would make an already lengthy app store review process even longer.
Some developers are happy to work with us when we reach out, and others do not want to work with us. If developers do not want to do this, I don't see how forcing accessibility will fix things. They'll just avoid the app store.
I wrote all this down hoping I would come to some sort of resolution (no pun intended) in my own head, some way to figure out this problem of accessibility once and for all. I haven't. All I know for sure in my head is that mandating accessibility is not the way to go.
Here is Jonathan Mosen's post about Apple and iOS accessibility.
The NFB has a resolution out there specifically asking Apple to mandate that all apps be accessible for VoiceOver users. OK, so just how does Apple do that? Who, exactly, determines what apps need to be accessible and which ones do not? Which apps is it practical to make accessible, anyway? Some that you might not think of should be, like NetFlix and Facebook (which keeps getting broken with every update or two), and some, well, it's just not practical. How would you make Angry Birds accessible and playable? (Admittedly, I'd love to play it, but I try to be realistic.) Tetris? All those interesting video games that I hear about and sound fun? How do you code accessibility in for fast-moving graphics and story lines?
Then there are the apps that are visual, but I think could be made accessible, like fun dice games that have pictures instead of numbers on the dice. (Zombie Dice!) I'm fairly sure there are more apps like that, but they don't come to mind right away.
We won't even get into the newspaper apps that I routinely avoid these days. No, we should. Those ought to be useable by blind and visually impaired users, and not all of them are. NFB Newsline is great, and I'm glad I have it, but I'd be even happier if I was able to get apps for newspapers that I enjoy and browse through those each day. Or maybe I could get a Kindle subscription sometime, but apps are overall cheaper.
Sometimes you have to do extra coding to make an app accessible for blind/visually impaired players. Take Freeq coded and sold by Psychic Bunny. Yes, I promise the company is really called that.. They had to add in some extra stuff--and I do not fully understand what they did or how, so don't ask. Anyhow, they had to basically code in extra commands so blind players can play the game by tilting their device around and listening to sounds until they "lock on" to a call. Then they have to tap certain choices that are read out. They actually had to put in commands that mimic VoiceOver functionality, because the only way the game can be properly played is with VoiceOver off. They even have a warning that plays if VoiceOver is running that explains how to play and reminding you to turn off VoiceOver to play. This also meant extra work for them as far as making more voice messages that blind players will hear. There's lots of help, so that is easy to play. But should that be done for all apps this company develops? I think not. Games where you have to match up colors? Just how practical is it to make such an app playable by blind players? Not sure I can see it.
Assuming Apple mandates accessibility and the developers are willing to do this, based on whatever criteria are used, we're still missing some other users. We, the blind, are not the only ones with disabilities out there. There are people with other disabilities. Dyslexia, autism, various forms of ADD or ADHD, and others that I am likely missing. If we want to be inclusive, great! But being inclusive means including as many different disabilities as possible, and that gets difficult, I think. There's no way all the apps out there are going to be suited to everyone or made totally accessible so that every person can have a fun experience.
Would Apple have to have more people added to their review teams (or however it is done) to make a decision on accessibility? If some apps are not accessible and allowed through, or apps are not allowed through even though they should, what kind of processes would need to be in place? It seems to me that doing this would make an already lengthy app store review process even longer.
Some developers are happy to work with us when we reach out, and others do not want to work with us. If developers do not want to do this, I don't see how forcing accessibility will fix things. They'll just avoid the app store.
I wrote all this down hoping I would come to some sort of resolution (no pun intended) in my own head, some way to figure out this problem of accessibility once and for all. I haven't. All I know for sure in my head is that mandating accessibility is not the way to go.
