Steve, Apple may have chosen to respond to the RFP, but it was the State of
Maine that chose to award the contract even though Apple's proposal didn't
fully meet the accessibility requirements of the RFP.
Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven M. Sawczyn [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 3:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Alva ceases development of outspoken and enlarge for macintosh


Jim, I'm currently trying to do what you suggest, that is to have vendors
come forward publically and disclose their experiences with Apple.  Within
Maine, however, Apple accepted an RFP which called for the provision of
accessible devices.  In my mind, passing the responsibility of that
accessibility off to a third party vendor is risky at best and, now that
Alva is discontinuing development/support for the one product which provided
a degree of accessibility to blind folks, I don't feel that Apple remains in
compliance with the RFP.  Admittedly, the issue in Maine differs from the
more global issue of where the responsibility for providing access lies.
All I know is that, while these issues get sorted out, blind kids are unable
to be truely mainstreamed as they are unable to use their shiny new iBooks
here in Maine.

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: * EASI: Equal Access to Software & Information
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 2:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Alva ceases development of outspoken and enlarge for macintosh


Hi All,

Well, I don't know what kind of cooperation is needed.  I'm not a Mac
developer, so I don't know how public everything about the Mac is.  On the
surface, there are thousands of other third-party products for MacOS, some
with pretty small markets themselves.  So either everyone else is getting
the right kind of cooperation and Apple is self-destructively ignoring the
AT world, or AT requires some sort of special cooperation, or there is
something else going on (possibly in addition to a cooperation problem).
Can the "other developers" you mention be persuaded to tell us what they are
not getting?  When Windows AT companies were not being let into the Windows
development cycle early enough, they made a semi-public stink about it.

I'm not trying to let Apple off the hook, just trying to understand where
Apple's legal responsibility ends.  There are similar cases elsewhere in the
land of "AT and UD".  For example, some combinations of digital wireless
phones and hearing aids create noisy interference.  Should the phones emit
less RF, or should the hearing aids be more immune, or both?
*****
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
[log in to unmask]
732.441.0831 v/tty
www.inclusive.com

-----Original Message-----
From: * EASI: Equal Access to Software & Information
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven M. Sawczyn
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 12:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Alva ceases development of outspoken and enlarge for mackintosh


I don't doubt that other developers are interested in developing screen
readers for the Mac, however, the feedback I've gotten is that Apple isn't
generally supportive of these development efforts.  Without cooperation from
Apple, I don't see how any vendor can develop accessibility products.

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: * EASI: Equal Access to Software & Information
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jim Rebman
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 3:25 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Alva ceases development of outspoken and enlarge for mackintosh


Jim,

Mostly agreed, and support for other assistive technologies on the Mac is
certainly well established, and nobody would argue with that, but if it
doesn't work for blind students, then it just can't be considered legal or
ethical for educational purposes.  Also remember that Apple made a conscious
decision to drop their accessibility group and has done very little, if
anything to support the screen reader manufacturers in the same ways
Microsoft has with things like MSAA (flawed as it is), internal policy
changes, developer support, accessible web pages and documentation, and so
on.  If it takes the same kind of threat that was necessary to get Microsoft
to "find religion", as it were, then I would think we would support that, as
well as hope it never came to an actual suit or proceeding.  They dropped
the ball and it's time for them to pick it up again.

-- Jim