[joshstrange]

I’m not saying they won’t do that but Apple has been committed to accessibility in a way that no other company comes close to for decades. It’s in their core DNA and something their CEOs have said they will do even though the return on investment doesn’t really exist. Though I think overtime, it will.

I wish “accessibility” wasn’t such a dirty word for most people (thinking it’s only for “disabled” people, or people with a problem). Accessibility is for everyone and I encourage people to dig into that section of their phone settings. Most people will be surprised at what is there and that there are probably 1-2 things at a minimum that they might be interested in turning on for themselves.

[extraduder_ire]

I've seen more people using iPhone accessibility features without "needing" them than I have with people they're supposedly designed for. Having the rear light flash for notifications was a huge one a couple of years back, which I mostly saw out in nightclubs. (perfect application, if a bit annoying to get flashed in the face a few times a night.)

People using that floating assistivetouch button when they have a damaged screen/home button was huge too.

I think most non-technical people either don't know they're there or view them as hidden extra features. (which they kinda are, for things like mouse support)

[asciii]

Great point. My favorite to use is the back tap for shortcuts. Handy but unknown.

[superb_dev]

I think this is wonderful! The features benefit everyone

[busymom0]

You are spot on in your second para. A lot of the "cool" advanced settings on iOS are hidden inside accessibility settings.

[quickthrower2]

It is for anyone whose glasses get broken while they are out and about and don't have a spare pair.

[criley2]

I'm surprised to hear that "Apple has committed to accessibility in a way that no other company comes close to for decades" because Microsoft has already been doing that for over a decade, and is by far the most used OS for accessibility reasons.

Apple is actually pretty behind in accessibility on desktop from what I've seen. Their apple designed peripherals (kbb/mouse/etc) are extremely anti-accessible and seem to be designed for the youngest and coolest crowd with zero thought for anyone with any disability. Unlike Microsoft, they do not sell any accessibility or disability focused peripherals. And their OS doesn't make accessibility a first class experience.

Third party support for hardware and software is massive for accessibility, and OSX is notoriously bad for third party support. Major third party peripherals from the biggest companies often have pretty bad support, and so the accessibility minority gets the short end of a short stick on OSX.

[GeekyBear]

> I'm surprised to hear that "Apple has committed to accessibility in a way that no other company comes close to

Blind users who want to use Windows most often end up needing to pay over a thousand dollars for a JAWS license, since the built in accessibility software isn't very good. Remote support from them costs an additional $200.

https://www.freedomscientific.com/products/software/jaws/

Apple includes full featured accessibility software with the device, and free support for it as well.

[criley2]

Two comments here

1: my understanding is that blind folks DRAMATICALLY prefer JAWS to the built-in OSX tools by an overwhelming margin, something like 9 to 10. That suggests that the OSX tools are extremely inferior if nearly everyone feels obligated to spend.

2: You can literally get a windows computer AND add $1000 license to it and still pay as much or less than a OSX computer. My M1 MBP cost well over $2000! You could put JAWS on a windows computer for $1500 or less. Just pointing out the extreme, extreme cost difference for accessibility users with OSX vs Windows! You can't even get into OSX for under $1k these days, and even then, it's rough and you should spend more.

[GeekyBear]

Your claim was that Microsoft is as committed to accessibility as Apple is.

> I'm surprised to hear that "Apple has committed to accessibility in a way that no other company comes close to for decades" because Microsoft has already been doing that for over a decade"

The accessibility features built into Windows are just terrible, so your premise doesn't track.

Also, Amazon was selling an M1 Macbook Air for $750 this week, so you can get the hardware and the software cheaper than just buying the additional software you would need to make Windows at all viable for a blind user.

[criley2]

>The accessibility features built into Windows are just terrible, so your premise doesn't track.

Low effort quoting empowering false arguments. I'm disappointed in you.

I also said:

>Third party support for hardware and software is massive for accessibility, and OSX is notoriously bad for third party support. Major third party peripherals from the biggest companies often have pretty bad support, and so the accessibility minority gets the short end of a short stick on OSX.

And arguably "third-party support" was the biggest plank in my entire argument and the core problem with accessibility in OSX: worst-in-class support for third party hardware and mediocre support for third-party software.

To ignore the largest part of my argument to target an intentionally misunderstood snippet is intellectual malice, completely unserious, and undeserving of a serious reply.

Please re-read my comment which extensively discusses hardware, peripherals, price, and software (both first-party AND third-party support) if you want to have a serious discussion with me.

[Babypopdipstick]

Say what you want about Apple, but as someone with unilateral hearing loss I can tell you this is absolutely not true. Literally out of the box Apple products for at least the last decade have specific features such as a basic sound channel balance (missing from Xbox, unsure about Windows) and best in class hearing aid support (a third party peripheral). Reliability and ease is important for these features and I don’t think buying add ons from Microsoft is remotely in the ballpark.

[sentientslug]

iPhones are essentially the only smartphones with enough accessibility features to be used by the blind, I suggest you watch a video on it because it’s quite fascinating. What do you find anti accessible about the apple peripherals? I’ve also had some experience using VoiceOver and found it acceptable.

[smugma]

I have a friend who is legally blind. Her husband and kid use iPhones and iPads, and she has an iPad, but for her phone she prefers Android.

It’s very confusing to me because of all I’ve read about Apple accessibility but she says she finds Android much easier to use!