There’s so much wrong with your post:

- Blind users and other disabled people are often professionals.

- Apple is very much a personal computer company. They make iMovie, Photos, Apple TV, Pages, etc for personal end users. If you’ve used some of Apple’s pro apps like Final Cut or Logic, you’d know they can design for pro users - but macOS as a whole is the opposite, getting more simplistic over time as they cater more to consumers. The Mac is a good pro computer IN SPITE of it being designed for consumers.

- many people in the blind community are dishonest? Wtf. This just sounds like discrimination to me.

> Blind users and other disabled people are often professionals.

I don't think they will listen to a recommendation if they are professionals.

- Apple is very much a personal computer company. They make iMovie, Photos, Apple TV, Pages, etc for personal end users.

Maybe

- many people in the blind community are dishonest? This just sounds like discrimination to me.

So many dishonest in that community. Calling a dishonest person dishonest isn't a discrimination.

"Most of the blind community are dishonest" is a wrong interpretation of my statement.

There are a lot of dishonest people in Istanbul. 34857345 peoples live in Istanbul. 435 are dishonest. It doesn't mean People living in Istanbul are dishonest.

I may be wrong. However as a professional in the IT industry, my recommendation to the my colleagues, don't fall for someone if they say they have a disability and demand something. It's not our concern.

> as a professional in the IT industry, my recommendation to the my colleagues, don't fall for someone if they say they have a disability and demand something. It's not our concern.

Supplying your end users the tools they need to do their work is absolutely your job. What do you even mean?

Providing a solution for people with disabilities is not a developer's job. If a group need something special because of their disabilities, probably they already have a medical report for that, and a solution recommended by their health institution. The health organization may want to employ me (I would not accept though) and develop a solution for them, this would not be a direct relationship between me and the person with a disability.

Accessibility is concern of a developer, however accessibility is for everyone, not only for the people who have disabilities. People with disabilities may benefit of accessibility features.

Im going to pile on here and implore you as best I can to check your priors here. You are coming across as incredibly rude and unhinged. I’m sorry that a blind person…hurt you at some point? I don’t even know. But your behaviour is frankly unacceptable.

I didn't get hurt, however they have a ratio of disability. Dishonesty starts at that point. Some see 10%, some 20%, etc. Anyone in that community will need to weigh their morality whether they really see or not, this is why I don't recommend my collages to spend their time and being emotionally vulnerable in that topic.

Apple is the best brand accessibility wise, unless we are talking about some insignificant niche products

This is correct. Apple is first when it comes to accessibility. However accessibility isn't invented for the blind.

Accessibility isn't a homogenous, fungible quantity. Calling something 'the best brand accessibility wise' is barely even meaningful, let alone useful.

Accessibility is a qualitative issue, and disabled people's needs are varied enough that many accessibility tools are only helpful or usable to a subset of them.

Please take a stroll through Apple's accessibility options and you will see the sheer quantity and variety of them tackling many disabilities. If you actually have any Apple devices, that is

So the blind users commenting here saying Apple is not the best are, what, lying? Or maybe you are not the target for those features and could instead listen to both sides of this argument and stay on the sidelines? Apple is not the clear winner (if a winner at all) in the eyes of the people commenting here that use the features discussed. Several are pro Apple but at least as many write long comments about how Linux and Windows are better for them.

I think we should listen to these commenters and not just tell others to go away and look at a list of features, with no background to tell if it is good or bad.

I'm visually impaired but still have a lot of vision left, and I can tell you from firsthand experience that this is an area where Apple's approach to accessibility falls down for my use cases because Apple's approach to scaling means that

  - their maximum font sizes for UIs are small
  - UI scaling breaks more apps than on other operating systems because Apple emphasizes pixel alignment more than reflowing
  - the unified menu bar means that app menus swallow up menu bar icons if you scale the UI up at all

My mother, who also still has some vision but is already legally blind, is in the process of switching to an iPhone after many years of low-vision Android use, can confirm that iOS has much the same problems, including small maximum font sizes and worse reflowing/cutoff behavior than she saw on Android. She's enjoying the transition overall because she's relying more on TTS than she used to, and also because the person who is training her on phone accessibility features knows iOS better than he knows Android.

But for me and my sister, who have the same disease as my mother but whose cases are not as advanced, Apple devices are a worse fit due to their inflexibility with respect to font sizes and reflowing, which makes taking advantage of our remaining vision more cumbersome for us, even though doing so is generally more efficient for us at this point.

Apple devices don't have moar accessibility than other devices. They have different accessibility than other devices. Whether they work well will vary for different disabilities, including different presentations or stages of the same condition. And the usability of those accessibility features is also mediated socially by things like what apps or kinds of apps a person needs to use, as well as what training and support happen to be available to them where they live and work.

This kind of feature checklist thinking you're doing is (a) childish and naive and (b) a profoundly impractical way of thinking about accessibility needs— one afforded only to people who don't currently have any to speak of.

I'm confused as to your statement. So you're saying blind computer users shouldn't be recommending what they feel works for them to fellow blind computer users? Only people who are getting paid to review should recommend experience?

Also, are you saying that blind computer users can't use a wide assortment of computers? I have a buddy who is blind and is a developer and they happen to have a top end MacBook Pro and uses it quite well. I don't think that calling them a -low- user makes any sense at all.

end user = low user. I may be wrong in this definition. Feel free to interpret my statements in any way you'd like. I observed a lot. There are so much inconsistency their behaviors, plus dishonesty.

I feel happy for your blind fellow and respect.

this is an incredibly bizarre prejudice to hold