I know a blind guy who uses iPhones exclusively. How he manages to understand speech that fast is beyond me, but dedicating resources to accessibility when it's such a tiny market share is nice of them. But now that I think about it, are they being mandated under ADA? I honestly don't know.
"When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI (...) The company does a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive. We want to leave the world better than we found it."
But at least it was there.
Foreground window untitled notepad Editible text soi soi soi soi soi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Active_Accessibility
It may well be that Apple is special, but in general, large software companies are motivated to care about accessibility primarily by the prospect of lucrative government contracts, for which there are usually mandated (by law) accessibility requirements. The problem for smaller companies is that accessibility doesn't scale down well - you need a lot of upfront investment (education, processes, testing etc) to get anywhere at all at first, but then all that remains useful for many more projects to come.
https://github.com/nvaccess/nvda/issues/5186#issuecomment-20...
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=381888
https://github.com/nvaccess/nvda/pull/9933
I read somewhere that screen readers look for a flashing vertical line, to detect the caret position in systems that don't expose it via the OS's APIs. I can't find a reference for that right now, though.
I'd argue that accessibility helps everyone, and is thus a positive to ROI. You know those low contrast text/background sites everyone here complains about? Yep, those are not accessible, and probably end up with less readers as a result.
Firefox is barely alive because of mismanagement and Google’s dirty tactics. If one could give access to Firefox while blocking Chrome that would be ideal.
But then you've stooped to their level.
There are plenty of Chrome based alternatives that are not spyware of you are bothered by that.
Firefox won from IE. it successfully broke the IE monopoly and gained significant market share. Then, years later, chrome entered the stage and conquered both.
Then came Chrome.
Yes, Firefox usage peaked at about 20%: surely not negligible (didn't know anybody myself using it !). As for geographical distribution, I could only find this: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share#monthly-2009... The data goes back up to 2009, which was quite a peak period for FF...
Sure FF has played an important role in the browsers war, but it hardly broke the monopoly, or at least it did not do it alone (Safari and Opera started to gain a significative share at the same time).
Firefox was growing constantly before Chrome started taking over.
Those people using Firefox weren't a small minority, and they weren't techies only.
You're trying to rewrite history from your small bubble.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Browser_...
Same on macos. Cannot use Firefox, because it does not work with Macpass.app [0] autotype - to my understanding because Firefox does not support (some) macos accessibility settings/features. For me the UX with Firefox is just the worst compared to competition. It's noticeably slower, uses much more CPU - thus makes the laptop hot, fans constantly kick in and drains battery. A lot of (all of it?) non-native GUI components makes the experience not good.
Arguably this could be old information, because my gripes are from many years ago, though I try it every year or so - but the situation is still way behind everyone else.
I support the Firefox's message, even donated to them couple of times, even though don't use their product, but at least on macos - experience is too bad for me to use it.