Update, 7/4/2016, 3:25 PM CDT: Members of the National Federation of the Blind have just passed Resolution 2016-04. The resolution, Resolution 2016-04, calls on Apple to "make nonvisual access a major priority in its new and updated software by improving its testing of new releases to ensure that nonvisual access is not limited or compromised." The resolution further calls on Apple to "work actively to incorporate feedback from testers who use VoiceOver during the beta testing phase of software development to ensure that accessibility for blind individuals is properly and fully addressed."
At its annual convention, members of the National Federation of the Blind (NFB)—a United States organization of, for, and lead by blind people—are considering passage of a proposed resolution concerning accessibility bugs in Apple Software.
The proposed resolution, Resolution 2016-04, calls on Apple to "make nonvisual access a major priority in its new and updated software by improving its testing of new releases to ensure that nonvisual access is not limited or compromised." The resolution further calls on Apple to "work actively to incorporate feedback from testers who use VoiceOver during the beta testing phase of software development to ensure that accessibility for blind individuals is properly and fully addressed."
This is not the first time that Apple has been the subject of an NFB resolution:
- In 2014, Resolution 2014-12 was passed, calling on Apple to require that all iOS apps be made accessible. This included stock iOS apps developed by Apple, as well as a desire for a requirement that accessibility would not be lost during an app update.
- In 2013, Resolution 2013-12 was passed, urging Apple to fully expand accessibility to the iWork productivity suite--specifically Pages, Numbers, and Keynote.
- In 2011, Resolution 2011-03 was passed, expressing the organization's "frustration and deep disappointment" with Apple for allowing the release of inaccessible apps on the App Store. The resolution further urged Apple, "in the strongest possible terms," to work with the NFB to develop a set of guidelines that would establish a minimum required level of accessibility for an app.
While not a resolution, in September 2009, the NFB presented Apple with a special award for its work making the iPhone accessible.
The full text of proposed Resolution 2016-04, which will be debated and voted on by the convention on July 4, 2016, is below:
Resolution 2016-04
Regarding Apple’s Inadequate Testing of Software Releases
WHEREAS, Apple, Inc. has made VoiceOver, a free and powerful screen-access program, an integral part of many of its products, including the Apple Macintosh, iPhone, iPod Touch, Apple TV, and iPad; and
WHEREAS, when a significant software update for one of these products is released, there are often accessibility bugs that impact the usability of the product by blind users, causing them to lose their productivity or their ability to perform certain job duties when the use of Apple devices is required; and
WHEREAS, recent updates have included a large number of serious, moderate, and minor bugs that have made it difficult or impossible for blind people to perform various tasks such as answering calls, browsing the internet, entering text into forms, or adding individuals to the Contacts Favorites list; and
WHEREAS, for example, after iOS 9.0 was released, some iPhones running VoiceOver occasionally became unresponsive when getting a phone call, and there was no way to choose any option on screen; and
WHEREAS, although this issue was fixed in a new release of iOS, it would not have occurred if Apple had conducted more thorough testing with VoiceOver; and
WHEREAS, another example of inadequate testing by Apple involves VoiceOver failing to render the contents of the screen when a user attempts to add a contact to the Favorites list in the phone app and has multiple contact groups from which to select; and
WHEREAS, because Apple products and its accessibility tools are built by the same company, there is no need to share confidential information with partners that may affect the normal development of the software; and
WHEREAS, we recognize the efforts made by Apple to inform developers about the accessibility features built into Apple products and encourage the company to keep working in that direction; however several accessibility issues still appear with new software releases even when they have been reported during beta testing; and
WHEREAS, it is vital that Apple give priority to addressing bugs that have an impact on accessibility before releasing software updates: Now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind in Convention assembled this fourth day of July, 2016, in the City of Orlando, Florida, that this organization call upon Apple to make nonvisual access a major priority in its new and updated software by improving its testing of new releases to ensure that nonvisual access is not limited or compromised; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this organization call upon Apple to work actively to incorporate feedback from testers who use VoiceOver during the beta testing phase of software development to ensure that accessibility for blind individuals is properly and fully addressed.
We've reached out to Apple for comment.
What are your thoughts on this proposed resolution? Let us know in the comments!
Comments
If the nfb wants to
If the nfb wants to continually go after someone then why don't they go after these screen reading companys that have major bugs in their updates? For example there was an update to jaws that came out last year I think where IE was totally unusable because jaws was causing it to crash. I have never had any issues where vo was totally unusable with an app unless it was not made accessible by the developer. I love apple and will support them because after all where can you buy a smartphone that was accessible right out of the box? Just my 2 cence
VFO Group Monopoly
*ALL* Windows screen reader and magnifiers are now housed in VFO Group, but was this mentioned at #NFB16 as a monopoly?
To the people who are not involved in advocacy organisations
Some people who have commented here say that they are not involved in advocacy organisations. I believe that such organisations are necessary because without them, we would have far less access than we do today. It is due to the advocacy efforts of organisations such as the NFB and ACB that we have such things as access to websites, access to mainstream computing and mobile devices, white cane and guide dog laws. These organisations have also gone and spread information to employers about how it is okay to employ people with vision impairment, and making more information accessible.
If you are not a part of such an organization as a member or have never contacted a company about their discrimination of people with vision impairment, in my opinion you are taking the rewards of the advocacy organisations without giving anything in return.
In response to Michael
In response to Michael's comment about how Apple did not have to make their products accessible, I point to this piece of legislation: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/21st-century-communications-and-video-accessibility-act-cvaa.
Unbelievable
This makes absolutely no sense. If a person did not know any better, this resolution would lead you to believe that Microsoft, Google, and Amazon were lightyears ahead of Apple in accessibility. In fact, the opposite is true. Certainly, Apple is not perfect and certain things can be improved, they are the only company that ensures accessibility is built in to all their products.
Why should Apple be isolated and held accountable, without also holding Microsoft and Google to task. This is absolutely crazy. While there have been some bugs, I regularly use an iPhone, Mac and AppleTV and very much appreciate the accessibility built in to these devices.
Passing such a high-handed resolution isolating the leading company for accessibility will not accomplish anything.
I don't understand this at all.
Like I said...
Like I said, money talks. Those who sponser the NFB don't seem to get called out. THose who don't, do. Gotta love the almighty dollar.
Disgusted
That explains why Pearson is not forced to make there stuff accessible. I will never, ever, ever join the NFB. They talk out of both sides of there mouth, and to me, that fact is shown by the idea that this resolution passed in the first place.
I used
I used pierson products once. Just ugh. Never, ever again.
Annoying mosquitos
Reasonable people respond much better and are more likely to listen when they are treated with respect, not sued and harassed. The NFB risks being seen as an annoying mosquito that needs to be squashed if they continue on their current path. I already have the opinion that NFB members aren't the brightest bulbs in the box, and the people who have defended the NFB's latest spoon banging resolution only serve to cement my view.
If you feel that you must attack those that make your miserable little lives difficult, how about being more specific or targeting those who thumb their noses at the mere suggestion of making their website, software, or hardware more accessible, instead of targeting a company who already consider accessibility important and who try to encourage developers to create more accessible software on their platforms.
My experience is that Apple employees are pleasant to deal with, and I would hate them to see the NFB and its members attacking them and getting the impression that all blind people are whining spoiled brats. I agree that Apple could do better when it comes to addressing accessibility bugs, but they don't need to be under constant attack for not doing it fast enough.
Back At It Again With The BS
It's just kind of amusing to me how the NFB is going after Apple when I have much more difficulties with google and Windows products. Is Apple perfect? No, no one is. Could they improve? Yes, there is always room for improvement. But a bunch of disgruntled blind people banging there fists at Apples door like a bunch of nap-needing children demanding sweets at a grocery store is not going to help anyone. You know, bugs are named that way for a reason. They are small and hard to spot. Often, they aren't even found until the software is made public and people with different devices access it. Sighted people experience bugs as well as the blind and other disabilities. If Apple didn't give a darn and refused to fix them, I'd be worried. But consequently, Apple does care so people need to take a breath and find something else to complain about.
non-Apple A11y
Many other companies have been called-out in this thread as not building-in accessibility into all their products.
It's entirely possible that I'm overlooking it, but I've not seen evidence or concrete examples in these 60 comments of what products / services are *sooooo* inaccessible....
ANyone able to cite them and provide repro steps?
Thanks!
Two examples of accessibility back steps for microsoft.
Just picking on Microsoft here because I have been trying to fix this for the last two weeks. I upgraded to Windows 10 and just now got to testing and playing with it. The two features that Microsoft is the most vocal about don't work properly with JAWS 17 and Narrator. They are the new Edge browser and Cortana. I am sure glad that the second can talk for it's self. I found out about the fact that the features were not working when I called Freedomscientific support. I am sure gratified to know that it wasn't my bad memory causing me problems.
How about Narrator in Windows 10?
Since we're talking about other companies, let's talk about Narrator in Windows 10. I participated in the Windows 10 beta program and noticed few to no accessibility improvements. Narrator still can't operate within the Windows PE environment while OS X has allowed talking installs and computer maintenance for the last 11 years. The fact that Microsoft core apps like Edge are still not accessible is disgusting! Meanwhile, Apple has continued to add new and useful features ever since I started using iOS in 2012 and OS X in 2013. Microsoft has had 4 years since the launch of Windows 8 and they have done nothing to improve. The NFB is doing absolutely nothing about this and instead decides to bash the company that has changed my view of high quality built-in accessibility features. Mac OS X isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than anything else. The only thing that comes close to Apple accessibility is Android with TalkBack. For now, I will continue to use Apple and Google products because they provide the best built-in accessibility. If Microsoft ever wakes up, I may consider them again. Seriously though, where's the resolution stating that Microsoft needs to make the Windows installer talk or that they need to improve the accessibility of Edge and the mail program?
Pearson and accessibility
The reason that Pearson is an NFB convention sponsor is because of their highly accessible products and services for higher education.
Not seeing resolutions
If you want to see resolutions targeted at any other company, you can write them because if you do not, you can never be guaranteed that they will be written. All of the resolutions that are submitted to NFB and ACB were written by members of the organizations, not necessarily the staff of the organizations. Anyone can write a resolution and have it submitted for review before a public vote over it.
Requirement & Design
Often, there is a focus with accessibility to have a comprehensive testing plan. However, I've made the arguement and found it to be more effective that accessibility must be pushed further upstream.
1. By only testing for accessibility, it is way too late, and is a bandaid remediation approach;
2. Accessibility should be everyone's job, especially key stakeholders in product development;
3. Accessibility should be required by product, designers should design with accessibility in mind, and developers should build per requirement and design that all followed accessible standards and best practices;
4. If the above were well integrated into SDLC processes and tools: very few accessibility bugs would be discovered during testing and we wouldn't see accessibility regressions or critical bugs in production.
pierson accessibility
Hmm. Someone here posted that pierson's products for higher education were "highly accessible". I'd love to know how this is true. I've hever, ever had any luck with them, and I'd be willing to bet that I'm not the only one.
Pearson and accessibiility
See here for information: https://www.pearsonhighered.com/accessibility.html
resolutions
Because of this shameful ridiculous resolution, it makes one think that all of the NFB resolutions are idiotic. All that the NFB accomplished is to reduce any influence they might have had and insure that many other blind people will never join their organization. I suppose they don't care as long as they get their sponsor money.
Beta test?
You see, beta testing would require actually doing something, rather than just complaining. Complaining is, quite literally, all the NFB have been good for for the past two decades. Enough of them, I say. If I were in charge of Apple, I'd do what they've been doing so far--namely, ignoring these pompous idiots. And yes, by the way, most NFB members have an iPhone.
wow
just wow. I have no words.
resolution
i'm sorry all, but this isn't wrong, if any of you read this resolution, it didn't attack apple what so ever. whether you like this or not, the fact remains, sense the company has had a CEO in place as of six years now accessibility and voiceover most of all has really not gotten the overhaul it's needed, and I'm not just talking about iOS, it's happening on the mac as well. apple hasn't taken us seriously, and frankly I want this to change, I've beta tested for many years, and apple has not taken us seriously.
Seriously?
Apple hasn't taken us seriously? You're one ungreatful little punk, to be honest. Think about it: can you go pick up any other product and have access to... well, darn near everything built in? You think they haven't taken us seriously? I realize there's no reasoning with NFB diehards such as yourself, but people like you really make me mad. No, Apple aren't perfect. Nothing is. But to say they don't take us seriously? Well, they may not, after all of you NFB people's crying!
I wouldn't mind it so much
If it was out of a sincere desire and sincere frustration, then I'd not mind. However, the organization's behavior both last year and this, as well as what they've done in previous years, make it clear that all they want is money. They're hoping to guilt trip Apple into sponsoring them, like other companies (we've gone over how ridiculous they are) have done. And, on top of that, the fact that Apple is receiving an award at another organization and are attending said organization's convention instead... does anyone believe this is a coincidence that they'd scream at Apple this year? Really?
If it were sincere, and they really saw a problem, then I'd not be so disgusted. I'd still think them misguided, but I could at least understand it. This though... this is pure vindictiveness and gold-digging. Nothing more.
yeah and
Yeah, and directly bashing people on here like this gets you ... absolutely nowhere. just a thought.
Just to clarify, I am not
Just to clarify, I am not saying that Microsoft deserves credit for anything third-parties do to create accessibility. But functionally, using Windows, You can get more powerful accessibility for less money than an Apple computer or iPad Pro. And I think any Windows screen reader user has to acknowledge that the bugs, when they rarely appear, are squashed more quickly than with VO. Sure, they are squashed by third-parties. I don't care. They are dealt with more quickly, and appear less often. Apple has decided it will be the sole screen reader provider for its products. If NVDA or V F O took as long to deal with problems as Apple does, I am sure the NFB would be all over them. The NFB's past fights with Freedom Scientiffic are a good indicator of this. If the commenters on this thread think the NFB should be angry with Microsoft for not having a useable native screen reader, they should join the NFB and try and spread that idea. the NFB is, like it or not, who companies and legislators often go to for the views of the blind community. Complaining on an Apple Vis forum that the NFB is corrupt and stating you will never join them is, ironically given the accusations being lodged here, mere speech unaccompanied by useful action.
I am also not equating criticizing the NFB with immaturity. The quote is out-of-context. I think commenters on this forum have a different view of how to go about creating accessibility than the NFB. That is fine. The mature reaction to this resolution would be to convince people that it is wrong, not make accusations of corruption without evidence or by lazily imputing bad motivations regarding the sponsorship of the convention. Again, I have to focus the conversation on the actual topic of this resolution, which is the prioritizing of VO compatibility with new software. If someone could show that updates to Google or Microsoft software did not prioritize accessibility, we would have a conversation. Again, if your argument is that Microsoft has products that aren't accessible, download NVDA, and your problems are solved. Yes, you might need sighted help for a minute. That is an issue, but not the issue of this resolution, which we are ostensively discussing here. If your argument is that Edge is not accessible, download firefox, and your problems are solved. Again, because of how Apple has chosen to address accessibility, focusing on what Apple specifically does is more important for accessibility than what Microsoft or Google does. And if your argument is that Windows Phone is not accessible, please consider the real world a bit. Windows Phone takes up a fraction of 1% of the mobile market. I do not care at all if I cannot access it.
Though I cannot join them because of my job, I happen to think the NFB is an incredibly important organization for us. That does not mean we shouldn't criticize them. The opposite in fact: we should hold them to the highest standards. I just think that denouncing them completely because of a couple resolutions about Apple's accessibility prioritization is a bit silly.
How will this really work?
Can someone clarify how this is supposed to work? If iOs 10 is released with voiceover bugs, is the NFB going to sue Apple? I think this resolution is extremely unrealistic in that every software has bugs. Major releases of iOs are centered around hardware releases, mainly the next iPhone revision. Since the software has to ship on the new phones, the first versions are often the versions with the most bugs, but they always release updates to address this. Is it always perfect? no. Are there bugs in Jaws, Window-Eyes, NVDA? Definitely. Again, no software is without bugs, and once something gets fixed, something else could break. I don't see how this resolution is going to have any impact and seems like a complete waste of time. I personally plan to test Sierra and iOs 10 once they become available for public beta testing. I will live with bugs and report what I find. Some NFB resolution from the NFB certainly can't solve any bugs, no matter how big or small. Bugs have to be reported with specific steps on how they can be reproduced before they can have a chance of being fixed. It's just the nature of software.
exactly
Exactly. Well said.
it's the way they're going about it
I have a serious question, and this is in no way meant to bash the NFB or anyone else. So, now that this resolution has passed, what happens next? Do the people in the NFB go to Apple and present the resolution and wait for a response? The last 3 resolutions, especially the one about making all apps in the iOS app store accessible to VoiceOver users sounds great when you hear that phrase, "accessible to all VoiceOver users", but it just simply doesn't, and can't work. It's simply not possible. I'd be interested to know what the NFB will do now that the resolution has passed.
Who knows?
Who knows? One would think that's what they'd do, but I dunno.
Re: resolution
What overhaul? What specifically do they need to change about how VoiceOver works? Generalities don't help anything. VoiceOver works well for me and I can't see how it needs to be improved on a large scale. Sure, it doesn't have the insane amounts of customizability found in a screen reader like Jaws, but customizability isn't everything.
And let me ask you something, if Apple didn't take accessibility seriously, why would they bother wasting time on WWDC sessions that specifically address accessibility? For PR? No one outside the developer community is likely to give a rat's about the new/improved APIs Apple offers to developers for accessibility. Besides, if they really wanted to use accessibility in their PR strategy, they'd make it a part of the keynote, not just the sessions aimed at developers that most will never bother to watch.
Not At All Surprised
Thought I'd come back and add my voice to the chorus once again. I'm not at all surprised by this outcome, but not at all happy either. I can't really think of anything to say here that hasn't already been said, but I for one am very excited about the public release of OS Sierra. Yes there will no doubt be bugs, but like others have said nothing and nobody is perfect. That includes software. All one need do is report them to accessibility@apple.com or call (877) 204-3930. Let's also not forget that one user may experience bugs which the next user doesn't, and so on and so forth. I'm outa here, to try and listen to yesterday's ACB convention segment with Apple.
Pros and Cons
I have strong opinions going both ways. First, I think the National Federation of the Blind has done right in reminding Apple to keep accessibility standards high and even elevate them. An app developer myself (I'm just starting out), accessibility is a top priority in everything I will make and sell. However, that's as far as I go with this latest resolution; the most value it has is to remind Apple to keep going in the direction in which they've gone for a few years now. One user made an excellent point in noting that nobody is completely excerpt from bugs when any fresh annual update comes around. Also (perhaps in part thanks to the continual prompting of the National Federation of the Blind), Apple has been one of the more responsive companies when it comes to accessibility. Accessibility is very much integrated into Apple's software and objectives, much more than other top companies such as Microsoft or Android. While we along with all other Apple customers shouldn't expect anything less than the best from them, we need to consider a bit more what we're asking. Isn't everybody asking something of the same sort, whether it be improvement of accessibility bugs or flaws in the Messages app, etc.? While I appreciate the involvement of the NFB in Apple's products, I'm also taking a more realistic stance on things.
Totally Agree
The National Federation of the Blind is the greatest organization of blind people there is, and they do good things with advocacy work. But if you ask me, in cases like this, it seems like they just need something to make a fuss about, to put it in a Christian way.
ACB Convention
Hello,
How can I listen to the ACB COnvention audio with Apple?
For those who seem to think
NFB
OK. people. NFB will do what they want and nothing will change. I agreed that if the resolution had mention MS, Google, Amazon and any other software will not be having this discussion. Remember this is the NFB who protested Mr. Magoo. There you go.
Re: I have to laugh.
The NFB is showing nothing except that the majority of their members are cranky toddlers screaming for candy. If the NFB is as wonderful as you say, why haven't they targeted Adobe, Google, or Microsoft with one of their vague and powerless resolutions. Instead of attacking Apple with yet another NFB resolution, why not help them find the bugs instead? That's what the public beta is for. Who better to find the accessibility bugs than the users who rely on accessibility features.
My Resolution
Regarding the extremely volatile nature of the above conversation:
WHEREAS, the people defending the NFB are perfectly correct that it is appropriate for an organization such as the NFB to encourage companies to pursue a greater degree of accessibility, and to comment on where they believe that pursuit is falling short; and
WHEREAS, the above resolution could be seen as such an attempt, and not as whining or complaining toward Apple; furthermore
WHEREAS, the people criticizing the NFB are perfectly correct in pointing out the severe discrepancy illustrated by the NFB's passage of the aforementioned resolution, while other companies with a far less proven commitment to accessibility have received a less severe response, if any, from the Federation; and
WHEREAS, these people are also correct in suggesting that said resolution is contrary to the goals of the Federation, and of the blind community in general, if no accompanied by an actionable plan to enable greater accessibility in Apple's products; and
WHEREAS, on either end of the argument, there are those incapable of recognizing the validity of points from the other sides, or the limitations of points from their own; and
WHEREAS, direct name-calling and open hostility is not only contrary to the type of community that Applevis is supposed to represent, but is also counter-productive to both sides of the argument outlined above; and
WHEREAS, what should have been a civil discussion about the rightful place of this sort of action, as well as its limitations, is quickly and inexorably devolving into an all-out name-calling contest;
BE IT RESOLVED by me, assembled here at my computer on this thirteenth day of July, 2016, that we should probably just recognize that both sides have valid points, and leave it at that before this gets completely out of hand.
totally agreed
totally agreed. Name-calling is something 4 and 5-year-olds do. as far as I know, most of here are far beyond the ages of 4 or 5, unless i'm missing something here. :)