NFB Adopts Resolution Urging Apple to Require All iOS Apps to Be Accessible

Yeah, what's next braille on every product sold in the US? Come on for goodness sake! Learn to live in the real world!

I really can't believe some things I've read.
Blind people are rude and ungrateful because they ask to be able to use the technology equal to the sighted folks??
Blind people shouldn't ask for more because big bad Apple could pull the plug on the accessibility???
So I suppose, blind people should just bow their heads and kneal before the master???
You must be kiddin' me. If you don't ask for something you won't get it. Apple doesn't employ mind readers, those are just folks with expertize in technology and if we don't tell them what we need they won't see it in the crystal ball.
Come on and get serious, please.

Hi, I totally agree with you, dude. We live on a World where the sighted people are majority, and they do what the majority wants. So no, apple shouldn't accept this policy.

There is a difference between asking for something to be accessible that could use a few tweaks, and asking for something to be made accessible that can't be. If the NFB really wanted for this to work, what they should be doing is focusing on the companies who produce apps that are already somewhat accessible, but could use some help with some unlabeled buttons and such as that. If they get a group of developers together, explain how it works with VoiceOver and make some recommendations or suggestions as to how the apps can be made more accessible, I see nothing wrong with that. But asking that all apps be made accessible? That's what the resolution says folks, *all* apps. They ask the impossible.

If they really wanna make things totally "accessible," they should make there own phone/tablet company and design it the way they want. that way they can approve/disapprove any and or all apps they want that don't meet with there ridiculous demands!! also, they use "whereas," way too much in there resolution. how about a vowel Vanna? I mean, they have all sorts of grants from the government and the like, so why not? is it just me, or does the NFB's demands seem way too high on whatever they try and do? and if they don't get your way they'll sue ya. very mature guys very mature. and don't even get me started on the bias review of the mac in the june 2009 braille monitor? yeah they tried to fix it, but that's not the point! can ya tell the NFB really grinds my gears? making apps accessible that can be made so, good idea. all apps, unrealistic, stupid, ridiculous, unreasonable.

The world doesn't owe you everything because you are blind NFB! Get over your mighter than thow selfish attitude! Its not the world's fault that you are blind! Stop the greed and selfishness! You already have tons of things others with they had like free college educations! There are veterans homeless and dying in the streets and all you can do is sit there and bitch about stupid Iphone apps! Be greatful you have an Iphone! There are much worse things like maybe being starving to worry about than stupid iphone apps! Grow the hell up!

So the conclusion is to approach every single app developer individually and not Apple itself??? NFB should waste time and money and other resources on contacting the developers of hundreds or thousands of possibly useful apps each one of them separately???
One strict accessibility policy in the AppStore conditions could solve it all at once.

My thoughts are that One, we live in a sighted world as others have stated. 2, we can't have *everything* on a silver platter. now, I've had note takers, the blind, non mainstream devices for years. However, when I got a Mac back in 2010, I'm actually using that exclusively for *all* of my note taking. Just my opinions on this issue. Also, @alexandria, sorry if I got the name wrong, but I completely agree with ya on your points. 100%! We need to accept that not *all* apps can be made accessible. If there is an accessibility bug or problem, then we should contact the debs and politely tell them what is going on with the issues and see if they can fix them in new releases. That's enough waffling from me on this!! I don't belong to any blindness organization here in US, and this is exactly why! No offense meant to anyone who is a member of any of the organizations, it's just my opinion that the NFB wines and complains and kinda bashes things a little too harshly.
Ok, guys, take care and have a good one!

There is no argument from me that we live in a sighted world. I don't ask for privileges, I just ask for the same access my sighted peers have. There is no shame in having "blindy" products, so long as the end-goal of becoming independent, employed and an active community member is met.
I object to the "all" apps being made accessible, but I think all that could should be. I've written to many developers: some I've gotten good results from, others don't reply to my requests, and most give lukewarm responses but make no commitment to change their app. It's exhausting and disheartening. Why not start from the top and get Apple on board? Not for clearly unusable apps, but for the majority that should be usable to all.
The nastiness I've seen today is sad. We as a community won't get anything done if we continue to be mean to each other. Discussion and debate is healthy; vitriole is not.
As for Apple's record, I'm grateful for what they've done, but I expect them not to become complacent regarding accessibility. I refuse to just be happy with what I have and not complain (constructively, of course), if things don't work.
Obviously other platforms should be addressed here; I hope this happens in due course.
As a final comment, if we won't advocate for ourselves and ask for what we want and need, how can we expect to get it?

Vash,

Why the hostility: “Be ashamed of yourselves for thinking impossible. Be ashamed of yourselves for thinking that we shouldn't be petitioning Companies including apple for more accessibility.”
Are you implying, sir, that those of us who do not agree with this resolution should be ashamed of ourselves? If so, you telling me, and others who agree with me, how to feel is either really laughable or really sad—depending on from whose perspective you look at it.

To answer your question as to why people should file bugs, etc: comparing bug-reporting to asking that Apple require all iOS apps to be accessible would be like comparing grapes to watermelons.

I completely agree with the last comment. I think that apps should be accessible, but will they be? It's completely possible, but highly, scratch that, very highly unlikely. Not all apps can be made accessible. I used video game examples above because they are a prime example of inaccessible, but sometimes usable apps. And, we live in a sighted world, and there is nothing we can do about that. I'm sure some sighted people talk to developers s of apps if they don't like certain aspects. Making all apps accessible probably won't get us anywhere. It's up to the developer to implement voiceover support or if that can't be implemented, then possibly develop a type of spoken system or auditory thing or whatever works best! Ok, guys, have a good one and end rant or however ya wanna take it.

I certainly hope that some of the proponents of this resolution do not use the same tone of voice they use here when talking to Apple, developers, and other people they meet. The over the top rhetoric is COUNTER PRODUCTIVE. I refuse to engage with that form of discourse.

While sometimes I wish this place had an "ignore" filter, I'm glad it doesn't.

Yeah, I agree with ya on that. seeing the different viewpoints of us can make a difference. I just don't like complaining about things. If it's not accessible, I just won't use the app and wait till it gets an update. If that breaks accessibility more, ah well. I'm just happy with my apps that I have currently. If they make "all apps" 100% accessible, great. If not, that's fine. I'm fine with how things are currently.

All right, guys, I refuse to use this comment to call anyone anything but a person. No one here is stupid, whiny, or anything of the sort and it gets us no where to say such things.
The first thing I want to say is this: the resolution passed and, as such, it is a part of the NFB's policy. It is written like it is for a reason, each whereas having its own purpose. This is to make the resolution look and sound professional and has been happening for years.
Next, this resolution does not seek full accessibility of all apps It seeks to have a way to make sure that, at the very minimum, an accessible app that is updated does not break the accesibility. If you haven't noticed, you cannot downgrade to a previous version of an app, so does this not seem reasonable?
Games are a large part of the App store, bbut all we are asking for is a button to be labelled, for goodness sake. There are enough requirements for an app to enter the app store that one more, labbelled buttons and static images should not be a problem for Apple.
Now, my last point: other companies. The NFB is going after Google and Microsoft as well. If, by going after, you mean networking and having positive diiscussions. That is all this resolution seeks to do: start a positive discussion. There are no lawsuits threatened, no protests planned, so everyone just chill out a bit. I am in favor of this resolution and am glad that it passed. At the same time I am grateful for the many Apple products that i work with today to make my life as technologically connected as possible.

hi all, the NFB is at it again. take a look at this stupid article and let me know what you all think of it. I am sick of this org ruling and companies bowing down to their demands and threats. I would be interested in the comments. take note, the last app talked about in this article they falsely claim that buttons are not labeled, which is not true. happy commenting. http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/07/09/national-federation-of-the-blind-pushes-apple-to-add-accessibility-requirements-for-apps

I had no idea. [smile] The title of this thread didn't give it away.

I can't believe this.
"Attorney Daniel Goldstein, who brought the suit against Apple in 2008 as counsel for the National Federation of the Blind, said the 2008 action could provide a model for a suit focused on apps." Now its important to say that is just one guy speaking and not the n f b. Come on N F b. You can pass your silly resolution that is probably not going to do any good in the first place. That is fine. but do not sue apple for what other companies are doing. I mean if you want to sue apple for something sue them for how terrible pdf's are on the mac. At least I could understand that. I mean that is totally apples fault and it is because of their own app, preview. but do not sue them because other people have not followed apples lead.

Absolutely. Couldn't have said it better myself. Apple is responsible for accessibility in their own apps, which they have done remarkably. They have also made it easy for other developers to find and use accessibility tools. They've done their part. I can't speak for PDFs because I've not tried to read PDFs on an Apple device yet.

The more I read about this, the harder I find it to see how anyone could be against this. Is it possible to make *all* apps accessible? of course not. I would hope the NFB realizes that, but maybe they were thinking it's a place to start a negotiation. As for why iOS and nothing else? It's Apple's app store and it's the only place you can get iOS apps unless you jailbreak. It's also the most popular mobile platform among bline people. So I don't see why they couldn't have some kind of minimum standard for accessibility that apps have to meet, I.E. some kind of pop up warning when an app is being developed that tells the dev that their buttons aren't labelled. But people say that'll encourage devs to just do the bare minimum to get an app into the store. But maybe from there people could continue to tell devs how they can make their apps better.
As for people saying it's up to us to let the devs know about VO and how they can make their apps useable for us. Of course I agree with that, but what about the apps made by big companies, I.E. ESPN and Disney? Horribly inaccessible. I know there have been campains of the momth for stuff like that, but have they made a difference? Maybe and I just haven't heard about it.
I read something else this morning that was really interesting. Jonathan Mosen, who has been in the middle of some similar stuff, wrote another thought provoking blog post about why he supported the NFB resolution, albeit a long one. It made me wonder if Twitter and the Internet would've ben around in the 60s, would it have been full of of the same kind of harsh opposition to the civil rights movement in the US?
Maybe that didn't make sense. I don't generally agree with the NFB, but I'm with them on this one.
Just my two cents.

Hi
here in my country, we say: "give him a finger. He'll ask for your whole arm". It is said for people who receive a consistent help and then keep asking more and more.
Or, we also say, "if you want too much, you'll hold nothing"
I am very frustrated when i find inaccessible apps, this is true; some people here in this long thread wondered if, why don't they ask for jaws-compliance for all apps?
I may answer to this, simple, question: blinds do not ask more, because Windows operating systems do not contain a real screen reader themselves. Well, maybe windows8 has narrator in it but i do not know it enough to say if it is a good screen reader or not; apple has integrated a real screen reader instead, so they find it as a reason, a right, to ask more and more.
I am not so negative-thinking such as, apple may give up with accessibility for this association's fault; but, as I said before, NFB's approach, is not the good way to cooperate with a company which is already doing a lot for us.
But IMHO there's another matter to consider.
Apps needed for public transportation, mobile banking, health, phone and internet providers, on line buying. These apps are, let's say, publicly useful.
Here in italy we have a private company called Italo treno whose app is not usable with voiceover, the web site is inaccessible too; it's true we have Italo's phone number but if you want to travel by train using that company, you can't buy tickets as other people. You're forced to give the credit card numbers to operator talking on the phone, with risks we all know about. We gave them feedbacks on the need to make it accessible but we got nothing but a "i'm sorry".
If I was apple, I'd not approve the app: you are a company regarding transportation, you want to stay on my market? You make it accessible or I cut you off.
Same thing for mobile apps regarding public services, such as Poste italiane (the postal service) or those. We have the law, the Stanca act, which forces public entities to have their web sites accessible. But, but. Web sites may lose accessibility with restylings, verifications can fail, people engaged to verify sites can do it in the wrong way but they pass the verification.
But apps? Apps must pass through apple
And, if they do not approve apps which allow music download because piracy is illegal, why do they approve inaccessible apps made by companies which should have accessibility required by law?
I'd never, never, never dream for a world where all apps are accessible, where photo editings and graphic-based games are accessible. Not at all.
It would be good to have every game to be playable but a game is not essential for life; having less games does not worry too much, but having less services is very, very annoying.
I read this resolution involves also social network apps, well, I do not think it's so important to have facebook 100% accessible. I think now its' a 80 or 90%, or more, but it's not a tragedy.
Italo is a frustration instead

Vash,

If you think that Apple is just in it for the money, consider this Forbes article in which Apple CEO Tim Cook says, in no uncertain terms, that a return on investment is not Apple's only motivation when making products accessible. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim-cook-doesnt-care-about-the-bloody-roi/

Android is also based on Unix, so the dropping of the term does not really mean anything. Yes, there are differences, but one of them is that Google has spent much less time on accessibility development. That is certainly their choice, but it is not the fault of the code, the system, or the users, but the fault of the people who chose to change their priorities.

Ask Apple Nicely to put a ratings thing into the app store, similar to the ones that say "Provides In-App Purchases" and "Rated 15+ for infrequent violence" or whatever.

Simply have something that says:

Supports users of screen-reading technology
Supports Users of switch controls
Supports alternative notification styles.

All of these could be something that developers check when they upload their apps, and they'd not be allowed the ratings unless the conditions were met etc.

The last one could be applicable if a developer has included preferences which allow combinations of visual, textual and audible notifications.

With all of this in place (possibly with amendments / additions), anyone could look at an app's description and know at a glance if they'd be good to use the app.

And if they brought Zombies VS Cheeseburgers because it advertised it's self as "Supports users of screen-reading technology", and it wasn't, they could get a refund.

Simple, but effective. Without annoying anyone, you've brought accessibility even more into the lime light, because developers can see when they submit their app that oh, actually, there's another box they could click to make their app look more appealing. Finally, if they don't know what screen reading technology is, they can click the "What is this?" button next to the tick box, and receive a brief explanation along with a link to Apple's accessibility documentation.

It would be nice if something changed, just to stop people having to run off to their various forums to check before shelling out money on a new app that hit the market, but I'm not sure that "demanding" a company who is already dedicated to accessibility is the right fix.

Have a wonderful day. And if this forum has you stressing out, feel free to relax with some nice easy listening music from my very own band:
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/public-transport-ep/id896672255

[AppleVis Editorial Team Note: The below URL links to a blog post by NFB President Mark Riccobono, explaining the organization's position regarding Resolution 2014-12.]

https://nfb.org/blog/vonb-blog/comments-apple-and-nfb-resolution-2014-12

The blogs I have browsed on the NFB website do not allow the posting of comments. Now I'm sure there are other blogs out there that do not but they are sometimes known for saying "It's the NFB way or the highway." With that being said, it is unfortunate that they do not allow comments so that readers may debate the authors opinions. Even if the comments were to be screened first which some blogs do, it would show willingness for discussion of other viewpoints besides their own. I would assume however that people can post to their twitter accounts, I wouldn't know because I am not following them at the moment.
I also find it interesting that whenever NFB wants to drive home their viewpoint (punn intended) they bring up that self driving car, even if it is completely off topic.

First, thank you to all of you on this forum that have debated this topic with decorum. Even if you may disagree some of you have done so in a respectful manner.
To the rest of you who have been engaging in NFB bashing just for the sport of talking trash, you think you are better than us? Without the work of the National Federation of the Blind, Blind Americans wouldn’t have access to quality education, fair wages for workers with disabilities, and many other things that I would imagine you take for granted every day.
To all of you who think we are going to make big bad Apple mad and Tim Cook is going to come to your house and remove Voiceover from your phone just because we would like to open up a dialog with Apple around app accessibility… I would ask you to please reread (or read for the first time) NFB resolution 2014-12. You will find that we are not demanding anything, or threatening anything.
The media has taken the comments of a few NFB members who do not speak for the organization and used them as if they came from leadership.
If you don’t know much about the NFB, and you would like to learn about our 74 year history may I suggest reading the Braille Monitor found at: https://nfb.org/braille-monitor

Regarding Policies, Standards, and Procedures to Ensure and Maintain Accessibility of Apple Inc. Apps

WHEREAS, Apple Inc. has made VoiceOver, a free and powerful screen-access program, an integral part of many of its products, including the Apple Inc. Macintosh, iPhone, iPod Touch, Apple Inc. TV, and iPad; and

WHEREAS, although VoiceOver has the ability to enable nonvisual access to hundreds of thousands of applications that are available today through these platforms, such access cannot be achieved unless the applications are written to provide VoiceOver with the information it needs to tell the blind user what he or she needs to know; and

WHEREAS, through presentations at developer conferences, specific guidance issued in programming guides, and application programming interfaces that are simple to implement, Apple Inc. has made it easy for application developers to incorporate accessibility features for VoiceOver users into their programs; and

WHEREAS, despite Apple Inc.'s efforts to encourage accessibility, too many applications are still not accessible to VoiceOver users because buttons are not properly labeled, images of text cannot be interpreted, and other display elements cannot even be detected by VoiceOver; and

WHEREAS, although Apple Inc. has given VoiceOver users the tools to assign labels to unlabeled elements on their own, a growing number of applications that have been released cannot be made accessible using these tools; and

WHEREAS, even if the current version of an application is accessible to a blind VoiceOver user, Apple Inc. has no policy, procedure, or mechanism in place to ensure that this accessibility will be maintained when a subsequent version is released; and

WHEREAS, not only are inaccessible applications inconvenient for the blind VoiceOver user, but they can also prevent a blind person from independently performing the duties of his/her job; and

WHEREAS, Apple Inc. is not reluctant to place requirements and prohibitions on application developers, but has not seen fit to require that applications be accessible to VoiceOver users; and

WHEREAS, making products accessible to users of VoiceOver should be as important as any other requirement imposed on application developers: Now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind in Convention assembled this fifth day of July, 2014, in the City of Orlando, Florida, that this organization call upon Apple Inc. to work with the National Federation of the Blind to create and enforce policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the accessibility of all apps, including core apps distributed by Apple in the base iOS distribution, and to ensure that accessibility is not lost when an app is updated.

Thanks for reading.
-Mike Mello @melloinseattle on twitter

Vash,

What evidence do you have to suggest that Apple's commitment to serving the needs of all customers is anything other than what Tim Cook has said it is?

I think profit is a key motivator for all companies--Apple included--and that is as it should be. However, I have seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Apple's commitment to accessibility is any less than what its CEO has said.

While you are, of course, free to think whatever you want about Apple's motives...I'll be sticking to the facts. If Tim Cook has publicly stated that a return on investment (ROI) is not Apple's motivation for going above and beyond to make their products accessible, the facts simply do not support any other conclusion than to take him at his word.

I feel this resolution has its positives and its negatives. I feel that ultimately, all blind/visually impaired users of any computer, whether that be a mobile device like an iPad, iPhone, Android etc, or a desktop device like a PC or Mac, are aiming for the same results. We want access to as much of an OS as possible but still be a user of a mainstream product like the iPhone or iPad. Different people have different thoughts and views on how we should achieve this goal as a community. Some feel that federations should take the lead and encourage companies to incorporate accessibility into all of their apps, and also have developers make their apps accessible whereas others would rather individuals make developers aware of accessibility on a case-by-case bases. Personally, I feel that putting a big 'resolution' out there helps few people. It may indeed work and give us better access to nearly as much of iOS as a sighted user but with that comes other issues. If this were to get out into the mainstream tech field, it further increases the negative ways that sighted people see the blind community, which of course doesn't benefit the NFB in any way.

As for the discussion about video games, I think that they were just being used as examples. I don't think that the original poster meant that he/she was particularly interested in the accessibility of Sonic the Hedgehog. There are thousands of examples out there and poor Sonic just happened to be one of them. He/she could have said Colour the Dragon, Flappy Birds or Maths games for Kids; the concept would have been the same.

I think we just need to calm down and talk sensibly about our individual views, rather than beating each other down in order to get our voices heard over the noise of everybody else, if you get my point.

Along time ago a blind person could not use a computer could not use a touch phone now weekend how about making a little more apps accessible not all of them because that will be hard but how about a little more apps accessible Life is not perfect Applegate a lot already they did a lot for us like I said just a little more apps accessible that's it because anything is not perfect and thank you Apple for all your help

Vash,

I'm only taking Tim Cook's words at face value. I'm not taking a media publication's spin on Mr. Cook's words...I'm only basing my conclusions on what Mr. Cook said himself.

I try to believe in the basic goodness of people unless I'm given evidence to suggest otherwise. If Tim Cook says that a return on investment is not Apple's only motivation for making their products accessible ("When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI,"), I have no evidence to suggest that Cook's words are not true. The quote in question was delivered at a shareholder meeting, in response to the National Center for Public Policy Research's request that Apple give an account of their environmental programs--and continue only those programs which were profitable. And lest you think that the quote in question was just spin from a particular publication, it was widely reported in many mainstream and Apple news channels.

According to your line of reasoning, is it possible for companies to both make a profit and do the right thing by consumers? If we extend that logic a little further, why do so many developers implement accessibility? It does take extra work, after all. Should we assume that the only reason developers make their apps accessible is just because they see dollar signs? What about those developers who see a need, either from hearing from VoiceOver users or by another means, and respond just because it's the right thing to do? Or are there no such developers and are the rest of us just delusional?

The NFB can just plain go away as far as I am concerned. They are still up to their bullyish our way or the highway attitude as always. Even at one of their Centers, it is our way or the highway. I could go on about that for awhile but will say this about it. I had no business in the Braille class since a medical issue has left me with no or very little feeling in my fingers. Also, trying to get help from this organization is basically a waste of time partly because their attorneys have no clue about employment laws or the ADA in my personal opinion. I ended up fighting back against my university without any help from the NFB or ACB, which is not much better, and made things happen to ensure things are going to now be accessible. They cannot tell Apple or any other company what they have to do with the products or services that they provide.