7 ms·

The iPad was meant to revolutionize accessibility

83 points by thm 3y ago

bemusedthrow75 3y ago
I really dislike these "X was meant to Y Z. What happened?" stories. Because who "meant it" to? Did they have any influence? Who stated it as a goal? Do you just mean that a bunch of pundits said it and now you want to be a pundit saying they were wrong? In the specific case: did Apple ever say they would "revolutionise" accessibility, outright? Or did they just do what they've been doing since the iPhone: slowly, progressively trying to make accessibility a bit better and a bit more normalised? I'm sure everyone who needs greater accessibility thinks Apple could do more. But I'm pretty sure they think everyone else is even further behind. (I think Apple could do a couple of things much better -- one of those things would be endorsing or supplying a GPIO/I2C/SPI/CAN etc. bridge device with some official API support)
- parsimo2010 3y ago
  Yes, the article is probably better summarized as the iPad could have revolutionized accessibility, but it didn’t. A small market still has janky solutions to get by. Apple, nor any other major company, is likely to sink major resources into helping non-verbal people communicate unless there is a way to use those improvements in a bigger market. But with that said, the article is well written and worth a read for anyone that comes to the comments before clicking the link.
  - asplake 3y ago
    (Edited) I’m aware of some interesting things being done with iPads for hospital patients who suddenly find it difficult to communicate – eg in intensive care or post-operatively. Very domain-specific though, not general purpose. Revolutionary perhaps in care terms but not for accessibility more broadly.
jph 3y ago
I develop iPad accessibility software for people who have dementia, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, MS, etc. The iPad is a godsend. The large screen couples well with easy-grip shock-resistant spill-proof cases and attachments. My wishlist for accessibility: louder speaker (as the article mentions), and accessibility settings for a simplified patient-mode UI/UX versus a full-featured caregiver-mode. For example, zero-visibility interfaces (such as swipe up from bottom) are too complex for many of my users to understand and use. I'm hoping that as SwiftUI matures, adding a simpler UI/UX will become easier.
- maxxam 3y ago
  I think Assistive Access in iOS 17 would fit the bill for the simplified patient UI. https://medium.com/the-useful-tech/apples-new-accessibility-features-are-simply-mind-blowing-ios-17-5ecfedf286b3 https://medium.com/the-useful-tech/apples-new-accessibility-...
  - prime17569 3y ago
    This. Apps can declare support for Assistive Access by adding UISupportsFullScreenInAssistiveAccess = YES to their Info.plist: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/information_property_list/uisupportsfullscreeninassistiveaccess https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/in... There isn't any other way to further integrate into the feature though.
- hnbear 3y ago
  My father is 84 with cognitive degeneration. He’s used an iPhone for years but is stuck on an old one with the home button purely because we don’t think he’ll transition to swiping up. His short term memory is shot, learning new behaviors is tough, and his fine motor skills aren’t great. Some of the adaptive settings help, but the home button is so easy. Could someone not build the case you mention (shock, spill proof, easy hold) with a big speaker in it?
  - nordsieck 3y ago
    > He’s used an iPhone for years but is stuck on an old one with the home button purely because we don’t think he’ll transition to swiping up. Not sure if you know this, but the latest iPhone SE still uses the iPhone 8 body complete with home button. Depending on which phone he's on, it might be a good idea to upgrade; all of the rumors that I've heard are that Apple will make the next SE on a different body.
amelius 3y ago
The iPad was meant to de-revolutionize general purpose computing. All the rest is just made up fluff.
- meepmorp 3y ago
  > The iPad was meant to de-revolutionize general purpose computing. What does that mean?
  - nordsieck 3y ago
    > What does that mean? I assume it's a complaint about how iOS devices are computing appliances - they're much less open than the PCs that they've come after. From my point of view, I'm extremely glad that they're computing appliances and mostly locked down. The younger people here probably have never had the "pleasure" of removing 568 "helpful" toolbars from IE6. For people who just want to use a few applications, a locked down device is simply superior to a more open computer.
    - dataveg 3y ago
      Exactly. For the last few years of my Mother’s life she had her iPad with her everywhere. Given her failing eyesight and arthritis it was the only thing she could use and she loved it. She only did Facebook, scrabble and email but that kept her connected. And I was delighted when she ditched the PC so I no longer had to worry about what virus it was going to get next. I agree with others that much more could be done about accessibility, but picking on what for many is the best solution yet is a bit weird. And anyone who has had to be ‘informal IT’ for a non-tech savvy user will know the appeal of an appliance.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      Again, these ideals don't have to be mutually exclusive. Apple has made successful and secure platforms before with both an App Store and an external packaging system - they just don't bring that philosophy to the iPhone for profitability reasons. Once the EU enforces their external app store policy, you won't be forced into using non-Apple software. You can still continue using your iPhone exactly the way you do today, with the option of letting it do more if you ever wanted. It is truly a win-win situation unless your main source of income is Apple stocks.
faeriechangling 3y ago
It sort of worked? I know there's plenty of AAC software available for iPads. iPad has been great for accessibility.
indymike 3y ago
> What happened? It mostly worked.
croes 3y ago
Wasn't it meant to make money for Apple?
major505 3y ago
It got expensive, and limited by software.
dagmx 3y ago
It may not have revolutionized the accessibility market, but it definitely has evolved it. There’s tons of built in accessibility features(https://www.apple.com/ca/accessibility/ https://www.apple.com/ca/accessibility/) and more coming in the new OS (https://www.apple.com/ca/newsroom/2023/05/apple-previews-live-speech-personal-voice-and-more-new-accessibility-features/ https://www.apple.com/ca/newsroom/2023/05/apple-previews-liv...). It’s also simplified a lot of accessibility development for third party providers. So I think anyone expecting a revolution was setting their expectations up for failure. Though I think the title and initial premise of the article are selling the actual issue short. There is definitely a lack of financially accessible and intuitive accessibility software for their daughter's needs and others like her. It’s definitely an area that could see more general solutions appear, and I wish the description of what they need wasn’t buried so far down the page because the actual problem at hand is very interesting.
scosman 3y ago
I’m working on free open source for non speaking people. In the early user testing stage. If anyone is interested in getting involved please reach out. Demo here: https://twitter.com/scosman/status/1608173613340917763 https://twitter.com/scosman/status/1608173613340917763 Top level ideas: - LLMs to reduce typing. Expand single words into complete sentences easily, and predict next sentence without typing. - Voice to text to LLM: listen to ambient conversation, and offer contextual replies with zero typing? - New UI for text input leveraging the dynamic touchscreen of the iPad. No need to move hands, kinda like modern and user friendly Morse code. Source: https://github.com/scosman/voicebox https://github.com/scosman/voicebox
- abecedarius 3y ago
  I was curious about the new UI for text input, but didn't see more about it in the README. Are you familiar with the Dasher design? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasher_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasher_(software)
  - scosman 3y ago
    I haven’t gotten around to documenting it yet. There’s a subdirectory “Morse” with an early version used in user testing, but nothing self explanatory. Plan is a 2-button (or 2 switch) design like Morse code, but without the learning curve and with auto completion. Hadn’t seen Dasher but checking it out now!
  - scosman 3y ago
    Update: Dasher is super neat, but definitely for people with fine motor control. I'm working on the opposite, where people have very limited fine motor control.
draw_down 3y ago
[dead]
chaostheory 3y ago
I’m not sure if the author is aware of the Apple Vision announcement, but that will be a giant leap forward for the disabled since it primarily relies on eye tracking for interaction. To my knowledge, iPad and iOS have been a leap for accessibility. Prior, you’d have to spend thousands on speech setups instead of a few hundred. Its walled garden also affords accessibility given that there’s much less of a chance for adware and malware to infect people’s devices and confuse them due to the much lower complexity compared to linux, Windows and even Max OS
- charcircuit 3y ago
  It uses hand tracking too. And if you are using hand tracking you might as well use a touch screen.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    Actually it has multiple interaction methods for accessibility purposes. https://developer.apple.com/wwdc23/10034 https://developer.apple.com/wwdc23/10034 > The Dwell Control accessibility feature allows people to select and interact with the UI without using their hands. There’s also Pointer Control in that talk which provides alternatives to eye control. Note: I obviously haven’t tried this since it’s just Apple’s own videos on it, nor am I someone who would need to. So I can’t speak to the efficacy of those input models. but just relaying the information.
jrm4 3y ago
This is the easiest answer ever: It's not meaningfully "free/open source." It didn't even have to start out that way; sure, keep that competitive advantage for a few years. But by today, you really should be able to develop an app or whatever for the iPad with ZERO friction and ZERO permission from Apple.
- dagmx 3y ago
  Then why aren’t there solutions that fit their bill on Android or open source platforms like Linux? I think interjecting one’s own ideals into someone else’s problems is a bit uncouth. The article even goes over how prior to the iPad, AAC providers would go to their own hardware solutions. OSS is meaningless to the why. It may be a solution but if it was the reason, then OSS has similarly failed the market even more.
  - jrm4 3y ago
    Because Apple's been a bit too effective in dominating the industry, for reasons other than usability or technical superiority; since growing to the top they can leverage inertia and other factors. I have no idea what you think "ideals" and "being uncouth" have to do with any of this; referring to OSS as e.g. an "ideology" strikes me as a weird misunderstanding of its present role in tech. It's not theory, fam, damn near the entire cloud runs on it today.
    - dagmx 3y ago
      But there have been Android tablets and Linux touchscreens. The article already states that these companies make their own hardware prior to the iPad, and the NovaTouch in the article is based around Android devices. Yet none of them meet the goal here. So clearly the open sourceness of the platforms is not what’s holding things back. The reason I mention ideals is because you came in to the discussion and effectively said “open source would solve this” but it’s such a non sequitur from the problem at hand, especially given the history of the field. You’re interjecting your own belief that the lack of ann open source platform is the reason without actually bothering to understand the problem space involved and the players that exist. Just because the cloud runs on open source doesn’t mean much for this. The cloud also runs on closed source hardware.
collegeburner 3y ago
as far as i know there have been improvements? not sure what kind of "revolution" the author wanted but having a medium-form-factor portable computer with the power to do stuff like writing recognition (well) and speech synthesis is pretty helpful then again, the hard truth is there's no percentage in accessibility software. not to say no one can make money doing it, but it's basically a bounded market. the driver of improvements will probably be as boomers start aging more: they'll live longer, but at a lower quality of life, so need stuff to help them get by. and it'll be a big enough market to justify serious attention. i think this quote from the guy illustrates his misunderstanding pretty well: "It’s hard to think that non-disabled consumers would be expected to accept the same slow pace of incremental improvement for as essential a human function as speech." see of course it's reasonable to expect that tech for normal people improves faster, it's a massively larger market. "To compensate for the small market size, developers backed into a convoluted business model that required a physician or licensed speech pathologist to formally “prescribe” the device, strategically (and astronomically) priced to subsidize the cost of its development." case in point. stuff made for a small group of people is gonna run pricey, that's to be expected. feels like this guy is mad no one's built a 99 cent app for an ipad so his daughter has that tech easily. i get the frustration, but it's a pretty tiny market so if i'm fred the app builder i'm not about to go out and address that as my first choice. new tech starts off pareto optimal: putting in 20% of the effort to capture 80% of the market. that's also how we iterate faster. i think it's one of those cases where insisting accessibility software be given equal attention at every stage of the technology life cycle would long-term slow things down for everyone, all in the name of some fuzzy principle of equality of outcome.
DuckFeathers 3y ago
[dead]
r_p4rk 3y ago
My Grandmother was hospitalized many times from 2019 through to 2023 and passed in April, one of the standout things that made this a lot easier to go through was 2021 iPad Mini. During the years she suffered from various magnitudes of physical disability, including being almost completely paralyzed. A lot of this was during covid restrictions so we had to get creative with how we kept in touch. Here are a few things that the iPad afforded her with no other easy options: - The tracking webcam let her facetime with us without needing completely steady hands or even the capability to hold the iPad properly. - The huge amount of accessories that let her use a pen (when capable), drop the iPad without risk of breaking, hold the iPad in various ways let us easily customise the ergonomics for her capabilities at various times. - Shortcuts and automation let us ensure volume was always maximised during Facetime calls with us, set the volume lower at night so she didn't disurb the ward, have easy to press buttons to call certain family members, and even reset the volume and screen brightness when nurses changed it. She chose the music to her own funeral, made drawings when she could, played games, and even drafted some pages of a book she left for us after her passing, letting her talk to us one last time. Maybe the author of the link disagrees, but seeing the difference in quality of the calls when she didn't have to worry about getting frustrated about trying to frame her face and everything was night and day.
- eddieroger 3y ago
  My Grabdma passed away ten years ago, and aside from wishing she was still with us, I wish iPads had been more prevalent for her last several years. I had her comfortable on an older Windows laptop, but it always intimidated her some. She would move the laptop around when she wanted to sit in the kitchen or her chair, but it was heavy and clunky, and she preferred an external mouse, which was just _one more thing_. I had an iPad when she died, but couldn’t have dropped the money to get one, but dammit I wish I could have. She felt so isolated in her final years (despite living with my parents), and having a 2lb window to the world would have made such a difference. Especially when I see the improvements coming in iOS 17, I think it really would have been a game changer for her.
sharkjacobs 3y ago
This is an okay article about the state of the augmentative and alternative communication technology and industry which has been dominated by the iPad since its release. I think it has a bad, misrepresentative, headline, but that's almost de rigeur. But the article also reveals a very sad story about the mother of a disabled child who longs for an "implanted brain chip" which will enable her daughter to "transmit [her] thoughts wirelessly" and communicate like other children. > Could a brain chip allow my daughter to verbally express herself with the same minimal effort it takes me to open my mouth and speak? How might she sound, telling me about her day at school? Singing “Happy Birthday” or saying “Mama”? It's part of a bigger trend of parents of disbled children in the AAC world. The fantasy of AAC is that all the cases are like Helen Keller, or Stephen Hawkings, or Roger Ebert, intelligent motivated individuals with mechanical impediments to traditional means of communicating, but they're not, and technology won't change that.
mproud 3y ago
iOS 17 has a feature called “Personal Voice”, which is something that might end up being very helpful. > Personal Voice helps people with speech loss create a voice that sounds like them, and use it with Live Speech to communicate in calls and conversations. https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-17-preview/ https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-17-preview/
sowbug 3y ago
What an odd take that a device constrained to an expensive, closed ecosystem would "revolutionize accessibility," especially when the article appears to base that lofty claim on the sole facts that the iPad had a larger touchscreen with icons.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

83 points by thm 3y ago

I really dislike these "X was meant to Y Z. What happened?" stories. Because who "meant it" to? Did they have any influence? Who stated it as a goal? Do you just mean that a bunch of pundits said it and now you want to be a pundit saying they were wrong? In the specific case: did Apple ever say they would "revolutionise" accessibility, outright? Or did they just do what they've been doing since the iPhone: slowly, progressively trying to make accessibility a bit better and a bit more normalised? I'm sure everyone who needs greater accessibility thinks Apple could do more. But I'm pretty sure they think everyone else is even further behind. (I think Apple could do a couple of things much better -- one of those things would be endorsing or supplying a GPIO/I2C/SPI/CAN etc. bridge device with some official API support)

parsimo2010 3y ago
Yes, the article is probably better summarized as the iPad could have revolutionized accessibility, but it didn’t. A small market still has janky solutions to get by. Apple, nor any other major company, is likely to sink major resources into helping non-verbal people communicate unless there is a way to use those improvements in a bigger market. But with that said, the article is well written and worth a read for anyone that comes to the comments before clicking the link.
- asplake 3y ago
  (Edited) I’m aware of some interesting things being done with iPads for hospital patients who suddenly find it difficult to communicate – eg in intensive care or post-operatively. Very domain-specific though, not general purpose. Revolutionary perhaps in care terms but not for accessibility more broadly.

jph 3y ago

I develop iPad accessibility software for people who have dementia, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, MS, etc. The iPad is a godsend. The large screen couples well with easy-grip shock-resistant spill-proof cases and attachments. My wishlist for accessibility: louder speaker (as the article mentions), and accessibility settings for a simplified patient-mode UI/UX versus a full-featured caregiver-mode. For example, zero-visibility interfaces (such as swipe up from bottom) are too complex for many of my users to understand and use. I'm hoping that as SwiftUI matures, adding a simpler UI/UX will become easier.

maxxam 3y ago
I think Assistive Access in iOS 17 would fit the bill for the simplified patient UI. https://medium.com/the-useful-tech/apples-new-accessibility-features-are-simply-mind-blowing-ios-17-5ecfedf286b3 https://medium.com/the-useful-tech/apples-new-accessibility-...
- prime17569 3y ago
  This. Apps can declare support for Assistive Access by adding UISupportsFullScreenInAssistiveAccess = YES to their Info.plist: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/information_property_list/uisupportsfullscreeninassistiveaccess https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/in... There isn't any other way to further integrate into the feature though.
hnbear 3y ago
My father is 84 with cognitive degeneration. He’s used an iPhone for years but is stuck on an old one with the home button purely because we don’t think he’ll transition to swiping up. His short term memory is shot, learning new behaviors is tough, and his fine motor skills aren’t great. Some of the adaptive settings help, but the home button is so easy. Could someone not build the case you mention (shock, spill proof, easy hold) with a big speaker in it?
- nordsieck 3y ago
  > He’s used an iPhone for years but is stuck on an old one with the home button purely because we don’t think he’ll transition to swiping up. Not sure if you know this, but the latest iPhone SE still uses the iPhone 8 body complete with home button. Depending on which phone he's on, it might be a good idea to upgrade; all of the rumors that I've heard are that Apple will make the next SE on a different body.

amelius 3y ago

The iPad was meant to de-revolutionize general purpose computing. All the rest is just made up fluff.

meepmorp 3y ago
> The iPad was meant to de-revolutionize general purpose computing. What does that mean?
- nordsieck 3y ago
  > What does that mean? I assume it's a complaint about how iOS devices are computing appliances - they're much less open than the PCs that they've come after. From my point of view, I'm extremely glad that they're computing appliances and mostly locked down. The younger people here probably have never had the "pleasure" of removing 568 "helpful" toolbars from IE6. For people who just want to use a few applications, a locked down device is simply superior to a more open computer.
  - dataveg 3y ago
    Exactly. For the last few years of my Mother’s life she had her iPad with her everywhere. Given her failing eyesight and arthritis it was the only thing she could use and she loved it. She only did Facebook, scrabble and email but that kept her connected. And I was delighted when she ditched the PC so I no longer had to worry about what virus it was going to get next. I agree with others that much more could be done about accessibility, but picking on what for many is the best solution yet is a bit weird. And anyone who has had to be ‘informal IT’ for a non-tech savvy user will know the appeal of an appliance.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    Again, these ideals don't have to be mutually exclusive. Apple has made successful and secure platforms before with both an App Store and an external packaging system - they just don't bring that philosophy to the iPhone for profitability reasons. Once the EU enforces their external app store policy, you won't be forced into using non-Apple software. You can still continue using your iPhone exactly the way you do today, with the option of letting it do more if you ever wanted. It is truly a win-win situation unless your main source of income is Apple stocks.

faeriechangling 3y ago

It sort of worked? I know there's plenty of AAC software available for iPads. iPad has been great for accessibility.

indymike 3y ago

> What happened? It mostly worked.

croes 3y ago

Wasn't it meant to make money for Apple?

major505 3y ago

It got expensive, and limited by software.

dagmx 3y ago

It may not have revolutionized the accessibility market, but it definitely has evolved it. There’s tons of built in accessibility features(https://www.apple.com/ca/accessibility/ https://www.apple.com/ca/accessibility/) and more coming in the new OS (https://www.apple.com/ca/newsroom/2023/05/apple-previews-live-speech-personal-voice-and-more-new-accessibility-features/ https://www.apple.com/ca/newsroom/2023/05/apple-previews-liv...). It’s also simplified a lot of accessibility development for third party providers. So I think anyone expecting a revolution was setting their expectations up for failure. Though I think the title and initial premise of the article are selling the actual issue short. There is definitely a lack of financially accessible and intuitive accessibility software for their daughter's needs and others like her. It’s definitely an area that could see more general solutions appear, and I wish the description of what they need wasn’t buried so far down the page because the actual problem at hand is very interesting.

scosman 3y ago

I’m working on free open source for non speaking people. In the early user testing stage. If anyone is interested in getting involved please reach out. Demo here: https://twitter.com/scosman/status/1608173613340917763 https://twitter.com/scosman/status/1608173613340917763 Top level ideas: - LLMs to reduce typing. Expand single words into complete sentences easily, and predict next sentence without typing. - Voice to text to LLM: listen to ambient conversation, and offer contextual replies with zero typing? - New UI for text input leveraging the dynamic touchscreen of the iPad. No need to move hands, kinda like modern and user friendly Morse code. Source: https://github.com/scosman/voicebox https://github.com/scosman/voicebox

abecedarius 3y ago
I was curious about the new UI for text input, but didn't see more about it in the README. Are you familiar with the Dasher design? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasher_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasher_(software)
- scosman 3y ago
  I haven’t gotten around to documenting it yet. There’s a subdirectory “Morse” with an early version used in user testing, but nothing self explanatory. Plan is a 2-button (or 2 switch) design like Morse code, but without the learning curve and with auto completion. Hadn’t seen Dasher but checking it out now!
- scosman 3y ago
  Update: Dasher is super neat, but definitely for people with fine motor control. I'm working on the opposite, where people have very limited fine motor control.

draw_down 3y ago

[dead]

chaostheory 3y ago

I’m not sure if the author is aware of the Apple Vision announcement, but that will be a giant leap forward for the disabled since it primarily relies on eye tracking for interaction. To my knowledge, iPad and iOS have been a leap for accessibility. Prior, you’d have to spend thousands on speech setups instead of a few hundred. Its walled garden also affords accessibility given that there’s much less of a chance for adware and malware to infect people’s devices and confuse them due to the much lower complexity compared to linux, Windows and even Max OS

charcircuit 3y ago
It uses hand tracking too. And if you are using hand tracking you might as well use a touch screen.
- dagmx 3y ago
  Actually it has multiple interaction methods for accessibility purposes. https://developer.apple.com/wwdc23/10034 https://developer.apple.com/wwdc23/10034 > The Dwell Control accessibility feature allows people to select and interact with the UI without using their hands. There’s also Pointer Control in that talk which provides alternatives to eye control. Note: I obviously haven’t tried this since it’s just Apple’s own videos on it, nor am I someone who would need to. So I can’t speak to the efficacy of those input models. but just relaying the information.

jrm4 3y ago

This is the easiest answer ever: It's not meaningfully "free/open source." It didn't even have to start out that way; sure, keep that competitive advantage for a few years. But by today, you really should be able to develop an app or whatever for the iPad with ZERO friction and ZERO permission from Apple.

dagmx 3y ago
Then why aren’t there solutions that fit their bill on Android or open source platforms like Linux? I think interjecting one’s own ideals into someone else’s problems is a bit uncouth. The article even goes over how prior to the iPad, AAC providers would go to their own hardware solutions. OSS is meaningless to the why. It may be a solution but if it was the reason, then OSS has similarly failed the market even more.
- jrm4 3y ago
  Because Apple's been a bit too effective in dominating the industry, for reasons other than usability or technical superiority; since growing to the top they can leverage inertia and other factors. I have no idea what you think "ideals" and "being uncouth" have to do with any of this; referring to OSS as e.g. an "ideology" strikes me as a weird misunderstanding of its present role in tech. It's not theory, fam, damn near the entire cloud runs on it today.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    But there have been Android tablets and Linux touchscreens. The article already states that these companies make their own hardware prior to the iPad, and the NovaTouch in the article is based around Android devices. Yet none of them meet the goal here. So clearly the open sourceness of the platforms is not what’s holding things back. The reason I mention ideals is because you came in to the discussion and effectively said “open source would solve this” but it’s such a non sequitur from the problem at hand, especially given the history of the field. You’re interjecting your own belief that the lack of ann open source platform is the reason without actually bothering to understand the problem space involved and the players that exist. Just because the cloud runs on open source doesn’t mean much for this. The cloud also runs on closed source hardware.

collegeburner 3y ago

as far as i know there have been improvements? not sure what kind of "revolution" the author wanted but having a medium-form-factor portable computer with the power to do stuff like writing recognition (well) and speech synthesis is pretty helpful then again, the hard truth is there's no percentage in accessibility software. not to say no one can make money doing it, but it's basically a bounded market. the driver of improvements will probably be as boomers start aging more: they'll live longer, but at a lower quality of life, so need stuff to help them get by. and it'll be a big enough market to justify serious attention. i think this quote from the guy illustrates his misunderstanding pretty well: "It’s hard to think that non-disabled consumers would be expected to accept the same slow pace of incremental improvement for as essential a human function as speech." see of course it's reasonable to expect that tech for normal people improves faster, it's a massively larger market. "To compensate for the small market size, developers backed into a convoluted business model that required a physician or licensed speech pathologist to formally “prescribe” the device, strategically (and astronomically) priced to subsidize the cost of its development." case in point. stuff made for a small group of people is gonna run pricey, that's to be expected. feels like this guy is mad no one's built a 99 cent app for an ipad so his daughter has that tech easily. i get the frustration, but it's a pretty tiny market so if i'm fred the app builder i'm not about to go out and address that as my first choice. new tech starts off pareto optimal: putting in 20% of the effort to capture 80% of the market. that's also how we iterate faster. i think it's one of those cases where insisting accessibility software be given equal attention at every stage of the technology life cycle would long-term slow things down for everyone, all in the name of some fuzzy principle of equality of outcome.

DuckFeathers 3y ago

[dead]

r_p4rk 3y ago

My Grandmother was hospitalized many times from 2019 through to 2023 and passed in April, one of the standout things that made this a lot easier to go through was 2021 iPad Mini. During the years she suffered from various magnitudes of physical disability, including being almost completely paralyzed. A lot of this was during covid restrictions so we had to get creative with how we kept in touch. Here are a few things that the iPad afforded her with no other easy options: - The tracking webcam let her facetime with us without needing completely steady hands or even the capability to hold the iPad properly. - The huge amount of accessories that let her use a pen (when capable), drop the iPad without risk of breaking, hold the iPad in various ways let us easily customise the ergonomics for her capabilities at various times. - Shortcuts and automation let us ensure volume was always maximised during Facetime calls with us, set the volume lower at night so she didn't disurb the ward, have easy to press buttons to call certain family members, and even reset the volume and screen brightness when nurses changed it. She chose the music to her own funeral, made drawings when she could, played games, and even drafted some pages of a book she left for us after her passing, letting her talk to us one last time. Maybe the author of the link disagrees, but seeing the difference in quality of the calls when she didn't have to worry about getting frustrated about trying to frame her face and everything was night and day.

eddieroger 3y ago
My Grabdma passed away ten years ago, and aside from wishing she was still with us, I wish iPads had been more prevalent for her last several years. I had her comfortable on an older Windows laptop, but it always intimidated her some. She would move the laptop around when she wanted to sit in the kitchen or her chair, but it was heavy and clunky, and she preferred an external mouse, which was just _one more thing_. I had an iPad when she died, but couldn’t have dropped the money to get one, but dammit I wish I could have. She felt so isolated in her final years (despite living with my parents), and having a 2lb window to the world would have made such a difference. Especially when I see the improvements coming in iOS 17, I think it really would have been a game changer for her.

sharkjacobs 3y ago

This is an okay article about the state of the augmentative and alternative communication technology and industry which has been dominated by the iPad since its release. I think it has a bad, misrepresentative, headline, but that's almost de rigeur. But the article also reveals a very sad story about the mother of a disabled child who longs for an "implanted brain chip" which will enable her daughter to "transmit [her] thoughts wirelessly" and communicate like other children. > Could a brain chip allow my daughter to verbally express herself with the same minimal effort it takes me to open my mouth and speak? How might she sound, telling me about her day at school? Singing “Happy Birthday” or saying “Mama”? It's part of a bigger trend of parents of disbled children in the AAC world. The fantasy of AAC is that all the cases are like Helen Keller, or Stephen Hawkings, or Roger Ebert, intelligent motivated individuals with mechanical impediments to traditional means of communicating, but they're not, and technology won't change that.

mproud 3y ago

iOS 17 has a feature called “Personal Voice”, which is something that might end up being very helpful. > Personal Voice helps people with speech loss create a voice that sounds like them, and use it with Live Speech to communicate in calls and conversations. https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-17-preview/ https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-17-preview/

sowbug 3y ago

What an odd take that a device constrained to an expensive, closed ecosystem would "revolutionize accessibility," especially when the article appears to base that lofty claim on the sole facts that the iPad had a larger touchscreen with icons.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]