> What happened?
It mostly worked.
The iPad was meant to revolutionize accessibility
11–20 of 83 posts
Re: The iPad was meant to revolutionize accessibility
#12The iPad was meant to de-revolutionize general purpose computing. All the rest is just made up fluff.
Both Jef Raskin and Steve Jobs always intended the Mac to be unexpandable (except via serial and parallel ports). Jobs had long wanted devices that the end-user could not upgrade. Well, he got them with the iPhone and iPad.
Jobs never really wanted "general purpose computing". He wanted computing that he controlled from the top down.
Re: The iPad was meant to revolutionize accessibility
#13I 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-visib…
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 proo…
> 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.
Re: The iPad was meant to revolutionize accessibility
#14The iPad was meant to de-revolutionize general purpose computing. All the rest is just made up fluff.
> The iPad was meant to de-revolutionize general purpose computing. What does that mean?
> 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.
Re: The iPad was meant to revolutionize accessibility
#15Wasn't it meant to make money for Apple?
Re: The iPad was meant to revolutionize accessibility
#16Re: The iPad was meant to revolutionize accessibility
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The iPad was meant to de-revolutionize general purpose computing. What does that mean?
> 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…
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.
Re: The iPad was meant to revolutionize accessibility
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The iPad was meant to de-revolutionize general purpose computing. What does that mean?
> 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…
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.
Re: The iPad was meant to revolutionize accessibility
#19I 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-visib…
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 proo…
Hopefully we’ll see home buttons on cases. In theory big speakers and a physical button could be put on the bottom of a case to achieve higher levels of accessibility.
Re: The iPad was meant to revolutionize accessibility
#20The iPad was meant to de-revolutionize general purpose computing. All the rest is just made up fluff.
Both Jef Raskin and Steve Jobs always intended the Mac to be unexpandable (except via serial and parallel ports). Jobs had long wanted devices that the end-user could not upgrade. Well, he got them with the iPhone and iPad. Jobs never really wanted "general purpose computing". He wanted computing that he controlled from the top down.
It's funny though that the Apple Lisa -- the amazing computer that Jobs worked his ass off to copy parts of and then get killed (after they kicked him off the project) -- was actually far more locked down than the Mac, which Jobs was more involved in. The Mac was more of a general purpose computer, though obviously more locked down than the DOS & CP/M type & home computer type machines it was contemporary with.
And the NeXT, Jobs' next project, was actually quite open. For the time, anyways.
I think he was fairly schizo on this topic. Or just deferred to his engineers where it mattered on certain things.