How to make apple indicate if an app is VO compatible on the App Store, my stupid idea

Think about it, if you flud the apple website refund form with not accessible with voiceover, then when people actually want refunds; the apple staff won't believe them.

In addition, sighted developers wouldn't be in a good position to determine whetehr or not an app is accessible by blind people using Voiceover. If the developers didn't think about accessibility when designing their apps it isn't very likely that they would know how to assess whether something is accessible or not.

Nice that Apple does have a mechnaism for getting a rebate though under such circumstances. Kudos to Apple!

--Pete

I'm not even sure blind people are qualified to say whether an app is accessible or not. Read any discussion thread on this forum about MS Word on MacOS, for example. Some people claim Word is accessible. Others can't use it.

To the original topic: At the very least, it would be useful for developers to state whether they had tested their app with VoiceOver or not, and we could see that response while browsing in the app store. The vast majority of developers would answer "no," of course. But it might raise awareness.

We've known for years that most computer science programs don't include curriculum for accessible design. This is the root problem. By analogy, imagine if architects and construction engineers were never told that buildings must be wheelchair accessible.

I have some connection with cs program in quebec and you'd be lucky if it's a footnote, as far as practical teachings are concern. To the original, unpractical idea in real world.

Before you download an app from the App Store, it’s safe to assume that most apps—probably 90–95%—aren’t accessible for blind users. This is the unfortunate reality. Accessibility isn’t something many developers prioritize or understand, and different disabilities require different approaches to accessibility. For example, what’s needed to make a building accessible for someone in a wheelchair is usually clear-cut: ramps, elevators, and accessible doorways. But for apps and websites, accessibility isn’t as simple, especially for blind users. It’s not just about adding one feature; accessibility for us involves countless nuances and context. On the surface, making an app accessible might seem easy, but it’s not. Developers would need to understand screen readers, navigation methods, and how we interact with technology. Most people—developers included—have never met a blind person, let alone watched one use a phone or computer. When I mention that I use a phone, the first reaction I get is, “Oh, you must use Siri,” or, “Do you just use voice commands?” It’s hard for people to grasp what a screen reader is or how it enables us to interact with apps. Yes, I’m blind, but my brain works perfectly fine. I can still understand what’s happening on my device because the screen reader describes it to me. I know how to process and act on that information. People often ask, “How do you know where to press?” or “How do you navigate if you can’t see?” Well, my device talks , and I’ve learned to interact with it, just like sighted people learn to use their devices. The difference? I taught myself how to do all this through trial and error, and it wasn’t easy. And that’s the thing: sighted people can learn almost anything on their own by trial and error or by watching tutorials. They don’t need systematic, step-by-step instruction for everything. But for blind users, learning can be a completely different experience. It’s rarely intuitive. For us, technology often has a steep learning curve. We usually need hands-on guidance from someone who knows what they’re doing. Without that, many of us wouldn’t even know where to start. Plus, what might be accessible for one blind person, might not necessarily be accessible for another blind person. Now, learning to use technology is one thing, but it’s not comparable to learning something like crossing a street or cooking a meal if you’re blind. Here’s why: technology is a controlled environment. If you mess up on your phone or computer, there’s a reset button. You can undo mistakes, start over, and figure it out without risk. Learning how to cross a busy street or cook a meal, on the other hand, is entirely different. Those situations carry significant risk. If you’re unprepared, lack guidance, or don’t have the proper tools or techniques, it can be downright dangerous. It’s not something you can just “trial and error” your way through.
Now let’s talk about refunds for inaccessible apps. Sure, it’s great to ask for a refund if you purchase an app that doesn’t work with a screen reader. But here’s the reality: if you repeatedly buy apps knowing that most aren’t accessible and keep requesting refunds, it can cause more harm than good. Your account could get flagged for abuse, and it makes things harder for people who genuinely need refunds. Developers and app stores may start seeing these requests as spam or abuse of the system. This is why accessibility needs to be built into apps from the start. Developers shouldn’t wait for complaints to address these issues, and it’s up to all of us to advocate for this. But expecting apps to just be accessible without groundwork or awareness is unrealistic. Many developers don’t even know blind people use smartphones. And even when they do, their understanding is often so basic that they don’t know where to start. To be clear, I’m not coming down on you personally. I understand your frustration, and I agree that accessibility needs to improve. But this approach—repeatedly buying apps and requesting refunds—could backfire. Instead, let’s focus on raising awareness and pushing for accessibility to be prioritized from the ground up. That’s the only way to make real, lasting change.

I suggest that you consult the Refund Policy; This won't turn out as expected.

I would also like to add to Winter's post (not sure if they mentioned this as I sort of did a TLDR, apologies), is keep in mind once an app is fully built, it's built. Put it like this; It's like having to rebuild a building. People expect developers to unravel all of what they built, do tons of research, and essentially break the app for the sighted, because they have no clue about the blind side. It's really not that easy as taking off the roof and a bunch of pillars, then shoving things in and topping it off. It'll probably collapse.
What we really need is accessibility to considered from the very beginning, that way it is built into the app's foundation, and not added as an afterthought that will likely introduce instability.

I don't have any answers. Perhaps, it is Voice Over and the whole concept of accessibility for blind users that is our problem, rather than the app developers not making apps accessible. If Voice Over did what a person's eyes do, only on a code level, we wouldn't be talking about app developers needing to use extra steps to make apps accessible, VO would do it. The pain in the neck gets shifted back to the coders making Apple OS products in that case. So now we have all this AI stuff going on, and that actually seems possible in the near future.
I can remember back when the near future was thought of as disabled people being made able, if not more than able, by way of technology, often depicted as a bunch of wires and lights and sometimes a real to real tape machine that replaced the parts that didn't work, rather than extra steps that everyone else in the world had to go through to make their technology work for the disabled. That really never quite worked out well because we still have wheelchairs and ramps, rather than commonplace exoskeletons or what ever it would take to get people in wheelchairs up regular stairs.

You know, the privacy section that was introduced relatively recently, provides information on what data a certain app collects, if available. If the developer has not submitted privacy info though, this is also stated so you should either go through the developer's privacy policy if you can find one on the website or in the app or elsewhere, or just refrain from installing the app altogether or deny all the permissions the app requests. So having such an accessibility section might still be useful and we can at least ask the users on here to test the apps and update the accessibility information on the App Store based on the AppleVis accessibility rating, and developers to make their apps more accessible based on the same information.

I think what would be good is making VO better as someone else on this thread had added. I will say that it would be a good idea if it showed what things are accessible for the blind and what aren’t. But for all accomadations. I think it would be good if we used some form of indications for any of apples many features for accessibility.

Well, why not just integrate Apple Intelligence into VoiceOver and enhance the screen recognition/OCR/image description capabilities? I am also wondering why we're not given the option to use Apple Intelligence online even on devices that do not support it on-device. What's the difference between having a "conversation" with ChatGPT using the ChatGPT app or visiting chat.openai.com in Safari, or using some other app or service like Claude or Gemini, and using Apple Intelligence online in terms of supported hardware? Sure, Apple appears to prioritize privacy-oriented approaches, but users already consent to the data collection and processing practices of whatever company whose services they use, so having to use Apple Intelligence online should not cause such a major problem compared to using the other LLMs I mentioned earlier. Accessing Apple Intelligence online should be an option even on devices supporting on-device AI tasks, as local versions of LLMs will be smaller in size and less accurate.

If you open the App Store, go to the Apps tab, and navigate to near the bottom of the screen, you will find the list of categories. In this list is a category of accessible apps for people with different abilities, and, to my surprise, a category for apps that work with VoiceOver. I'm not sure if the whole app is accessible, since I downloaded one and had trouble creating a free account. However, I found many apps related to blindness, such as Blind Square, TapTapSee, Seeing AI, and others. I also found apps I had not heard of before. So, if we are looking at an indicator of an app's accessibility, this could be it. I must say, it was pretty awesome finding this list of VO accessible apps in the App Store.

I don't think that list has been updated in a long time. It's missing a lot of recent popular apps that a lot of us use. No Be My Eyes? AIRA? Oko? Disney+? Dice World?

It would be nice if they updated that list with at least the apps that win Apple Design Awards for accessibility, like the affore mentioned OKO and Be My Eyes.

A while ago I emailed the Apple accessibility address and asked if there was a way they could make it easier to find apps that I could actually use - some kind of "works with VoiceOver" filter or something. They actually pointed me at applevis and told me to look at the app directory.

I would love it if a developer could indicate if they are supporting VoiceOver with their app, and then potentially have a way for users to dispute that if needed. I think there is a difference between an app being accessible today for whatever reason, and the developer behind the app having a commitment to keeping it that way.

We also have to accept that VoiceOver isn't the only accessibility tool on the iPhone so if we were asking for such a thing, we would also need the system to be able to cope with other needs - e.g. has dark background, colour blindness support, ability to change text size, suitable for the hard of hearing or motor impaired etc.

Right now I only use the search option in the app store to find apps promoted elsewhere. There is no way to browse for apps that I can use. So in some ways, the app store isn't really accessible to me - yes I can physically swipe through it but if it leads me to an app I can't use and doesn't indicate that, what can I do?

I think there is plenty that Apple could do to help promote accessibility from their end. For example, xcode should be giving compiler errors or warnings for things that can be easily fixed like missing alt text or other common issues. Similarly, part of the app submission process could involve going through some kind of accessibility checklist - maybe flagging up issues there too. They could also provide stats about which accessibility options are being used for an app. I'm sure loads of app developers would just presume that blind folk don't use their app at all and would be surprised to find that they were.

Maybe if I do find an app and it doesn't work with the tools I have enabled, it should give me a big dirty warning at the top of the app store page.

I would rather see Apple push developers to the path of making things work rather than relying on AI or something to fix it later on because this is only going to add more latency and make the experience worse for us down the line.

But when even Apple release their new photos app with loads of unlabelled images, it beggars belief how this doesn't get automatically flagged up.

I do recognise that there are essentially two types of app - one follows normal Apple UI elements, and its those ones that should be easy enough to make accessible if the tools demand it. And then the other types, I guess the Direct Touch apps, that would require quite a lot of effort to make them accessible and problems may be harder to detect.

I do think we absolutely should be asking for a refund if we download an app that isn't accessible to us. I'm not sure I want to use it as a protest vote, though.

There seems to be no clear-cut answer here. If the Apple list of VoiceOver accessible apps is out of date, then perhaps we should contact Apple directly, whether that's via Apple Accessibility or in their general feedback form, and let them know. At one time, I heard the general feedback address of:
www.apple.com/feedback
Also, another way to know if an app works with VoiceOver is to read the app's description in the App Store. I don't think you would be able to determine this simply by using the name and short description of the app from search results. For instance, an app like TapTapSee says "camera for the blind" in its short description after the app's name. I'm referring to opening the app up, scrolling passed the app's category, language, size, etc., and moving to the full description of the app. True, not all devs will put in this area whether their app is compatible with VoiceOver. In my experience though, many devs do include VoiceOver in particular or accessibility in general, in the app's full description. Also, it is worth looking at the What's New section on this screen. Again, not all devs will mention accessibility or what has been improved in that version. However, if they have just added accessibility support, or have increased the accessibility in their app, many will include this in the What's New.
If we want to see a broad stroke of apps which are accessible, I'm not so sure this solution would work. After all, repeating what another user said on this thread, what if the dev makes their app accessible to those who have learning disabilities, they may think that they have met the goal of making an app accessible to all, but VO users may not find the accessibility the dev worked on, since it was made for another group. And, we don't want to hurt the accessibility cause. I totally agree that an app should include VO access from the start, and not added on later. But again, there doesn't seem to be any 1 size fits all solution.

There are various types of apps and games if we should categorize them in terms of accessibility:

1. Apps developed for the visually-impaired in particular
2. Apps developed with accessibility in mind, whether primarily for sighted users or not, but used by sighted users as well as those with visual impairments
3. Apps developed primarily for sighted users but made accessible to be used with VoiceOver, with clearly-labeled on-screen elements, including those that work with the Unity plug-in without VoiceOver enabled
4. Apps that still happen to be totally or partially accessible with VoiceOver without requiring any additional steps like using Screen Recognition despite being developed without accessibility having been given extra priority
5. Apps that have been made totally or partially accessible for use with VoiceOver but become inaccessible after an update or never become accessible enough to be used conveniently
6. Apps that require Screen Recognition or direct touch but can still be used just by guessing and experimenting and tapping around the screen or labeling/memorizing unlabeled on-screen elements, or taking a screenshot and having some AI describe it and then either figuring out or asking that AI what region of the screen to tap for what

So that category on the App Store is but the first one on this list (i.e. accessibility apps rather than accessible apps).

This may, or may not, be helpful to you all. Anytime I am looking for a specific type of app within the App Store, I usually type my search with something like, "accessible (insert application category here)", or, "blind accessible (insert application category here)", i. E. "accessible games", or, "blind accessible games".

HTH. 🫡