Apple to Add Free Screen Reader to Mac OS X

Joe Clark writes "Screen readers for blind Mac users have been nonexistent since 2003 when development was halted on the only one in existence. On Windows they cost up to $1,295. This week, Apple announced the upcoming Spoken Interface for Mac OS X, the long-rumoured Apple screen reader and more, we are told. Apple is looking for beta-testers for this technology preview. Already, a developer muses that IBMs accessible Java software could work with the screen reader. No mention of Braille-display support yet, which many blind and deaf-blind people need and want."

Comments

Macs for the blind

[zackeller]

If Apple wants to get into a new market, this is it. Give out a free screen reader, make it work with major applications like Office and Safari, and you've just cornered the entire blind market.

Unlikely to happen

[Canberra Bob]

Unlikely to happen any time soon

Why?

The same reason documentation is lagging in FOSS, its not "cool". Everyone wants to be in on the latest desktop environment / compiler / kernel because it gets the publicity. A screen reader will not give you the cool factor that submitting a patch for the kernel would.

And unlike commercial software, there is no profit motive.

This is why Linux will struggle for a while to gain mainstream desktop acceptance. Linux offers an excellent mainstream desktop, as long as your requirements arent slightly different. If they are, have fun trying to find something to satisfy your requirements. If people are going to switch, they need that bit extra - something they wont find on a commercial OS. Which is why it is rather annoying that the major desktop environments are trying to follow the Windows methodology rather than finding what Windows doesnt offer, and filling the niche.

Re:Unlikely to happen

[00420]

Unlikely to happen any time soon

It's already happened. Read the other posts in this thread.

The same reason documentation is lagging in FOSS, its not "cool". Everyone wants to be in on the latest desktop environment / compiler / kernel because it gets the publicity. A screen reader will not give you the cool factor that submitting a patch for the kernel would.

If you develop OSS to be "cool" then you must have a very boring life.

And unlike commercial software, there is no profit motive.

That's pretty much true. OSS developers tend to program in order to make useful utilities for themseleves or others. Not just to make a buck. (Although, you can make a buck because OSS is about freedom not free prices).

Not hardly

[iamacat]

Linux configuration (and use) can be mostly done from the command line, which is nicely amendable to a screen reader interface. Windows and OSX configuration on the other hand...

Re:On Windows they cost up to $1,295

[drdink]

Sadly, this is a byproduct of a free market. Less demand means higher prices. There aren't many people buying screenreaders, since there aren't that many blind people compared to other people. However, most blind people can get assistance from organizations and the government for buying this sort of thing.

Re:Forgive me if I sound cynical

[HellsAngel]

So you'd rather that they not make this and let blind people have the "freedom" to choose what thousand dollar screen reader to buy for what platform, instead of having it built in FOR FREE?!? Yup let them spend thousand of dollars just to avoid a "lock-out". I can't believe you.

Re:Forgive me if I sound cynical

[eclectro]

Well if windows had one that wasn't junk (as user drdink noted above) and somebody could code one for open source that really worked apple wouldn't have a monopoly.

In as much it might lock some people into apple's platform, I do not see how that would hinder competition in this market. If there is a better, lower cost solution people will migrate to it.

What is something to be more cynical about are all the webmasters who thoughtlessly don't code well enough so a blind person might navigate their site properly.

At least apple is doing something.

Do you think there will ever be a screen reader for flash??

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like this article is about Apple patenting the "spoken interface" they are using, and they aren't stopping anybody else from doing the same with their products.

What would you prefer? That they don't offer this feature? Or would you seriously expect them to write a free API and closely integrate it into every OS out there?

Re:Forgive me if I sound cynical

[ffsnjb]

Apple produces a product, Mac OSX. Now they're introducing a new product to go along with OSX, which has the possibility to be very helpful, for free.

There exists alternatives to OSX (Windows and the various commercial screenreaders hinted at in the summary), therefore there is no monopoly. Possibly an oligopoly, but that's only due to a limited marketplace and the lack of a need to have many competitors.

Chill, this is a good thing.

Re:FUD.

[zcat_NZ]

There's a big difference between "text to speech" and a screen reader. Blind users need to hear windows titles, error messages, menu text, etc. Try unplugging your monitor and see how far you can get with MS's inbuilt text to speech. It's hard enough even with a proper screen reader, completely impossible with "cut-and-paste" TTS.

BTW; I recommend downloading the trial version of JAWS and seeing how much you can do. It takes a lot of getting used to! Don't cheat, leave the monitor OFF.

Re:Integrated?

[PetWolverine]

Unlike Microsoft, Apple is not a convicted monopolist. The rules change when you break them.

Why? They're only blind.

[glenalec]

Being blind does not automatically exclude you from being tech-literate. You would be amazed at what 'disabled' people can do in the face of narrow-sighted prejudice and stereotyping.

(Why was parent modded insightful? Since when has denegrating the intelectual capabilities of blind people [even in poor jest] been considered insightful?)

Re:Why? They're only blind.

[Llywelyn]

This is exactly why it's much easier for screen-readers to handle a linux environment than a windows/mac one. You can read text. It's rather more difficult to read graphics, images, buttons and the like.

Obviously you've never installed something on a linux box using the command line. If it doesn't work on the first go (for whatever reason) you are going to be doing a lot of prowling through less-than-helpful text, line at a time. When some of it reads along the lines of:

gcc -c -ggdb -O2 -mcpu=7450 -malign-natural -Wno-long-double -fgnu-runtime -fno-strict-aliasing -Wall -Wno-import -Wno-protocol -Wno-long-long -DAPPVERSION=1.0d5 -I/usr/local/swarm2.2p/include ModelSwarm.m /bin/sh /usr/local/swarm2.2p/bin/libtool-swarm --mode link gcc -ggdb -O2 -mcpu=7450 -malign-natural -Wno-long-double -L/usr/local/swarm2.2p/lib -rpath /usr/local/swarm2.2p/lib -o armyants ArmyAnt.o GridCell.o main.o ObserverSwarm.o BatchSwarm.o ModelSwarm.o FoodWorld.o Parameters.o Output.o -lswarm gcc -ggdb -O2 -mcpu=7450 -malign-natural -Wno-long-double -o armyants ArmyAnt.o GridCell.o main.o ObserverSwarm.o BatchSwarm.o ModelSwarm.o FoodWorld.o Parameters.o Output.o -L/usr/local/swarm2.2p/lib /usr/local/swarm2.2p/lib/libswarm.dylib -L/Users/raven/Documents/Swarm/swarm/src/space -L/Users/raven/Documents/Swarm/swarm/src/analysis -L/Users/raven/Documents/Swarm/swarm/src/simtoolsg ui -L/Users/raven/Documents/Swarm/swarm/src/simtools -L/Users/raven/Documents/Swarm/swarm/src/random -L/Users/raven/Documents/Swarm/swarm/src/tkobjc -L/Users/raven/Documents/Swarm/swarm/src/tclobjc -L/Users/raven/Documents/Swarm/swarm/src/objectbas e -L/Users/raven/Documents/Swarm/swarm/src/activity -L/Users/raven/Documents/Swarm/swarm/src/defobj -L/Users/raven/Documents/Swarm/swarm/src/collectio ns -L/Users/raven/Documents/Swarm/swarm/src/misc -L/Users/raven/Documents/Swarm/swarm/libobjc -L/usr/local/hdf5_1.4.5p2/lib -L/usr/local/png_1.2.5/lib -L/usr/lib -L/usr/local/blt2.4z/lib -L/usr/local/tcl8.4.4/lib -L/usr/X11R6/lib -L/usr/local/tk8.4.4/lib -lBLT24 -ltk8.4 -ltcl8.4 -lXpm -lpng /usr/local/hdf5_1.4.5p2/lib/libhdf5.dylib -lpthread -lz -lX11 -lm -ldl ld: warning multiple definitions of symbol _deflate /usr/lib/libz.1.1.3.dylib(deflate.o) definition of _deflate /usr/lib/libz.dylib(deflate.o) definition of _deflate ld: warning multiple definitions of symbol _deflateCopy

Hell, you have to put up with that (x20) on a successful compile, much less an unsuccessful one.

Incidentally, your comment on the mac is pure FUD. Just about everything, with very very few exceptions, can be done through the command line.

Re:Why? They're only blind.

[waynelorentz]

Except, of course, for the fact that you don't have to _install_ OS X. It comes on the computer. All you have to do is start it up and type in your name and a few other minor details that are easily handled by the screen reader. Same story when you upgrade the OS.

When debating which system is easier to install, the one that doesn't have to be installed wins.

Once again, Linux is years behind what's easy to do in OS X.

Re:Why? They're only blind.

[Alan Cox]

Seconded. At least one kernel developer is blind, and I never found this out until we met in person. Sun in particular have done a ton of work on Linux accessibility - screen readers, input alternatives for people with physical impairments. Not currently any accessibility for audio (which isnt that daft an issue - consider a deaf quake player and presenting them with an 'audio radar' HUD)

Also wonderful stuff like dasher, which I'm still not sure isnt really a game disguised as an access tool 8)

Good to see the Mac people will also get these kind of tools - they need to become commodities and cheap for all.

Re:Why? They're only blind.

[waynelorentz]

Then score another one for OS X, and possibly Linux, too.

I used Windows from version 3 to XP Home, and finally made to the Mac last year. I've never had to reinstall the operating system. My wife has had her Mac for a few years and only installs the new operating systems once. She never has to re-install.

My experience with Winders was not so favorable. The best way to speed up a bogged down machine was to re-install. Sometimes I was re-installing every couple of months because of some driver quirk or some Windows setting that would get flipped with no way to go back.

Let's hope for the blind people that Linux is as reliable as OS X, and that they stay away from MS. Since the blind have a heightened sense of smell, that should come naturally.

Re:Forgive me if I sound cynical

[fr0dicus]

And that is a monopoly.

A monopoly is when a market is unbreachable due to the cost of entry being higher than is affordable due to the major player enjoying massive economies of scale, and being able to set the prices accordingly in order to maximise profits or keep competition at bay.

There will be absolutely no barrier to entry for Microsoft, KDE, Gnome, IBM, or whomever else care to develop a screen reader interface for the 97% of desktops out there that are not OS X compatible. There will also be no barrier to a skilled developer releasing a version for the Mac that is superior to Apple's own implementation. There are plenty of examples of non-free or more expensive solutions being preferred by consumers on the Mac: Appleworks is not exactly superfluous for example.

Did you ever consider that the monopolists here are the companies charging $1200 for their software? Maybe this will bring some competition into the market? Maybe you'll learn something, anything, about economics?

As for your final paragraph of trolling (and yes, this is almost the definition of trolling, passing off your opinion as some kind of truth), Apple systems may not be to your tastes but they are most certainly to mine, and many people I know. I'm forced to use Windows XP at work, along with the Solaris and AIX systems I develop. I also keep a Linux machine running KDE 3.2 on my desk with the excuse that it's easier to administer the systems that I have to support. All of these system pale in comparison to the flexibility and ease of use of Mac OS X, and the quality of the hardware (OK maybe not the IBM p670 in the corner ;-), which is why I flogged all of my x86 kit and bought three Macs for my home last year, and haven't looked back once.

Do you not think it a little contrary to accuse Apple of a monoplistic attitude in one sentence and then complain of their existence in the next? The REAL monopoly here is with Microsoft, who could EASILY implement a real screen reader interface for a fraction of a percent of their development budget and bundle it free with their OS to reach a userbase orders of magnitudes larger than Apple will (realistically) ever hope to reach.

Keep you pathetic trolling to yourself.

My Mother

[captnitro]

My mother is blind. She had failed cataract surgery in 1996, and unfortunately, her and my brother have had a combined total of 13 surgeries. (Whereas I got off easy with one detached retina in 1989.)

We can muse all we want about how Linux needs a screenreader, but I don't care if Microsoft and SCO made a screenreader made out of DRM'd GPL source dipped in goatblood.

My mother needs something better than Zoomtext. She needs a screenreader. And all politics aside, I'll buy her a fucking iMac if she gets a free screenreader because of it. I love her more than politics.

Open source is not just about free-as-in-beer, it's not just about free-as-in-speech, it's about free-as-in-people. Too often as open source developers we think, "this is what's good for the GPL" or "this is what's good for a feature list," not "this is what's good for some guy's mother."

Thar's what opensource is about; not feature lists, not the efficiency of inetd, it's about users. We are their servants. May we serve them honorably, so they may have sight -- may we give them gifts, that we may be invisible.

Re:My Mother

[Wateshay]

The problem is that by and large things tailored for the disabled are more expensive to design and manufacture than mass market items. There are also fewer people with disabilities than without. These two things unfortunately combine to mean that the things your girlfriend needs are going to be more expensive.

Think of it this way, if a product takes 10 developers (making $40K / year) six months to develop, then I have to make $400,000 before I can even think about making a profit. If 20,000 people want my product, that's $20 per unit minimum. Now, what if the product actually takes those developers a year to make, and there are only 2000 people who need the added features (and thus want to buy the product). By my calculations, that's $400 per unit to just break even, let alone make a profit. Although my numbers are of course scaled down, I think they illustrate the point well. I seriously doubt the manufacturers of your girlfriend's phone (or any of the other tools that help make her life easier) are making an abnormal profit just because they're marketing to the disabled.

As for the computer game, as nice as it would be for them to be able to add the features you would like, it may not be feasible. Just because the feature may seem like it would be simple, depending on the architecture of their code, it may in fact require a major overhaul. Also, what makes deafness special? Should they also add features to make the game easier to play for the blind? How about those with reduced motor skills? If they had to accomodate every need of every person who might potentially play their game, they'd probably end up bankrupt and nobody would get to play the game. I seriously doubt there is any malintent on their part. There may even be developers of the game who have deaf friends and relatives who they'd like to be able to play the game. That doesn't mean they have the resources to accomodate those desires.

Sorry if I sound a little bit ranting, but I have a small company, and we're just about to release a software product. All of us at the company would love it if that product accomodated the needs of disabled people who would like to use it. Unfortunately, it doesn't yet have those features. If we waited until we could implement them, the company would almost certainly not survive.

Re:FUD.

[buckminster]

Actually, it's windows that is catching up. Mac has had text to speech services for quite a while.

Also, there's a huge difference between a text-to-speech service and a screen reading application. A screen reader allows a sight impared user to actually navigate around the OS and use a variety of applications. Text-to-speech is not that comprehensive. Just try closing your eyes and actually doing anything constructive with your Windows speech service.

Text-to-speech is actually of more value for users with dyslexia or poor literacy.