Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The iPad was meant to revolutionize accessibility

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 83 posts

Re: The iPad was meant to revolutionize accessibility

#61

Post by smoldesu »

giantrobot wrote: post #55
erosenbe0 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a more fair criticism if Apple charged the game publishers fair fees commensurate with the cost of security audits, bandwidth, availability, and the like. Instead, Apple (and other app stores) tend to demand massive profit sharing.

WTF? Profit sharing? That's just a daft statement. Apple has a surcharge on transactions through the App Store. There's no further requirement from developers. Big devs take issue with Apple's fees because instead of considering the fees the cost of doing business they act as if it's some sort theft. App Store transaction fees amortize the costs of development/operations of not just the store itself but the OS it all…

I mean, Apple also has this software support policy with Macs, which has never had a mandatory payment processing surcharge.

Considering how Apple makes almost 50% hardware margins on every iPhone sold, I think they make plenty enough to continue software support off the initial hardware sale alone.

Re: The iPad was meant to revolutionize accessibility

#62

Post by dagmx »

jrm4 wrote: post #59
dagmx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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.

Re: The iPad was meant to revolutionize accessibility

#63

Post by brookst »

smoldesu wrote: post #44
brookst wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... Or unless you have family members likely to install and pay for scams. I'm ambivalent about the EU regulations. But it'll be interesting to see what happens, and whether consoles are next, and what that means.

If you have family members likely to pay for scams, you probably shouldn't give them access to SMS, phone calls or email, for that matter. If they would fall for these threat vectors, then they could already be exploited with a link to Safari or a social engineering scam on speakerphone.

Ah, the old "any imperfect solution is totally useless" position.

I already have to educate and then console when they fall for email or SMS scams. Are you really saying that means I have to accept a new vector from scam stores that impersonate the Apple app store and just charge $100 for "Free" apps?

This regulation will be good for techies AND good for fraudsters. We don't have to pretend there is no downside.

Re: The iPad was meant to revolutionize accessibility

#64

Post by bemusedthrow75 »

SN76477 wrote: post #36
jph wrote: post #5

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-visib…

Zero-visibility interfaces are a challenge even for me. Often they overlap with other "swipe" features giving unexpected results There is no manual to explain them (that I know of), one must stumble across them which often leads to frustrating results.

Yes. The fact that there are _two_ top-down swipes on the home screen that start within half an inch of each other is nutty.

One of those swipes (notifications) fights with every other top-down swipe in an app _and_ the window-dragging swipe in Stage Manager, which only works on the three dots.

I find these frustrating and I have no co-ordination issues.

Re: The iPad was meant to revolutionize accessibility

#65

Post by maccard »

erosenbe0 wrote: post #39
maccard wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Until publishers decide to launch their own app store and remove games from the app store, forcing me to create accounts and store payment details with them. Then, poeple like me who explicitly purchased apple devices because this is a feature, are forced to have a "choice" between instal…

That would be a more fair criticism if Apple charged the game publishers fair fees commensurate with the cost of security audits, bandwidth, availability, and the like. Instead, Apple (and other app stores) tend to demand massive profit sharing.

That's a very different argument to the app store not allowing side loading though.

Re: The iPad was meant to revolutionize accessibility

#68

Post by goosedragons »

msh wrote: post #47
CobaltFire wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My son is semi-nonverbal and autistic and this is a real pain point for us. We use amazon fire tablets simply because they DO have a kids (simplified) mode. Google has a version for Android on tablets, but they don't support it well. iOS has exactly nothing. iOS also sucks in that trying to load all his favorite shows for when we are out is near impossible (I have them loaded on an SD card on the fire). Ideal, no, bu…

Is it just not a question of the right app? If you install VLC or infuse you can easily side load videos.

Probably more annoying to do that rigamarole with iTunes than just copying videos onto a microSD card? Plus iPad storage is expensive while a 512GB microSD card will run you $30 these days.

Re: The iPad was meant to revolutionize accessibility

#69

Post by smoldesu »

brookst wrote: post #63
smoldesu wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have family members likely to pay for scams, you probably shouldn't give them access to SMS, phone calls or email, for that matter. If they would fall for these threat vectors, then they could already be exploited with a link to Safari or a social engineering scam on speakerphone.

Ah, the old "any imperfect solution is totally useless" position. I already have to educate and then console when they fall for email or SMS scams. Are you really saying that means I have to accept a new vector from scam stores that impersonate the Apple app store and just charge $100 for "Free" apps? This regulation will be good for techies AND good for fraudsters. We don't have to pretend there is no downside.

> Are you really saying that means I have to accept a new vector from scam stores that impersonate the Apple app store and just charge $100 for "Free" apps?

Yes? It's rather important that they know how to distinguish the two. If they aren't honing these skills, what's stopping them from logging into a fake iCloud dialogue on someone's random website, or feeding their SSN to the "IRS" over the phone?

It's not like... a naive request. Talk to aging adults about fraud. They will be subjected to it as long as they have some form of individual agency. It sucks, but it's better than telling ourselves fairytales like "it doesn't exist here, though!"

Re: The iPad was meant to revolutionize accessibility

#70

Post by smoldesu »

maccard wrote: post #65
erosenbe0 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a more fair criticism if Apple charged the game publishers fair fees commensurate with the cost of security audits, bandwidth, availability, and the like. Instead, Apple (and other app stores) tend to demand massive profit sharing.

That's a very different argument to the app store not allowing side loading though.

If they weren't conflicting interests, both managed by one company, I might be inclined to agree. Unfortunately, Apple treats them as a package deal.
Post reply on HN