Welcome to the sixty-first episode of Access On, the National Federation of the Blind's Technology podcast.
Episode
Listen to the sixty-first episode of the Access On podcast (Browser).
Or listen on your preferred podcast platform.
Timestamps
On this week's episode of Access On:
- President of the National Federation of the Blind, Mark Riccobono 0:00
- Michael Hansen from AppleVis invites you to participate in the Apple Vision Accessibility Report
- Card 58:41
- While the survey remains open, you can take the survey. Note that you must be signed in with a free Applevis account.
- Closing and contact info 1:20:27
Transcript
Audio:
Live the life you want.
Access On.
Jonathan Mosen:
Welcome to Access On, the technology podcast of the National Federation of the Blind. NFB President Mark Riccobono is here for a comprehensive conversation about recent topics of interest. We'll talk about the Access Technology Affordability Act and what we can all do to get the bill passed.
We'll talk the state of the screen reader industry, the pros and cons of AI, and much more. And we're joined by Michael Hansen of AppleVis because they're seeking your thoughts on the state of Apple products.
Welcome to episode 61 of Access On. It's Jonathan Mosen at the Jernigan Institute at Baltimore, Maryland. And in fact, I'm at the office of the president of the Jernigan Institute for this first part of our podcast.
We have the president of the National Federation of the Blind with us on Access On, Mark Riccobono, and we're going to talk about a range of things that have happened with the Federation in the advocacy department of late.
Having just come out of our Washington Seminar, President Riccobono, it's always good to have you on Access On.
Mark Riccobono:
Well, thank you very much, and happy New Year to the Access On listeners.
Jonathan Mosen:
Washington Seminar has just concluded. One of the many things I love about this organization is its tenacity. This has been a very new experience for me, this amazing weather. I know it isn't for you coming from Wisconsin and all that sort of thing. But I think even the old timers agree, this was quite exceptional, and yet we got the work done.
Mark Riccobono:
Yeah. With a situation like this record-breaking storm, I guess Fern is its official name, we have difficult decisions to make about when to continue and how to continue. And of course, we had a number of people already on the ground in the Baltimore-Washington area because we had various meetings up to and in advance of the Washington Seminar.
So we made the decision. We analyzed everything and decided to go and continue with the hybrid model. And that's really what happened. We had a number of offices who, even though we had people on the ground, still wanted to meet virtually. It's interesting that the variation in the approach of various members of Congress and then, of course, the Senate was still in session. So, we did have a number of in-person meetings.
And what's really important is that we continue to bring our issues forward. I like to say that if we're not talking about our issues with Congress, the average American's not even going to notice if those programs go away. And so, if we're not talking about them, nobody's talking about them.
And so, it's really important that we do show up. And I think the fact that we had... Well, I think we had more blind people on Capitol Hill this week than members of Congress who were present, because we definitely had more than 100, and the House is out. So, I think that makes a true impression on the policymakers.
Sometimes we wonder, "Well, does it really matter?" We had congressional reception where Senator Dan Sullivan from Alaska was our sponsor. We thanked him for not only making sure we got a room in Congress but making sure the weather outside felt like Alaska.
But he definitely noticed that we had a tremendous presence on Capitol Hill, full room for our congressional reception. And it really moved him to even say that he was seriously considering being a lead co-sponsor for one of our bills in the Senate, which he didn't need to say. So, I think he is really considering it. And I think it was really driven by the fact that, A, he met with our Alaska delegation earlier in the day.
They weren't able to make it from Alaska in person. And I think they very much conveyed to him what it meant to them not to be there. And then two, he noticed the number of people in the room, present on the Hill, blind people, really sharing their personal stories. So, it does make a huge difference.
Jonathan Mosen:
I'm mindful that we have quite a diverse listenership to Access On. We have people who very generously give of their time and their talents to the Federation and, in many cases, have done for a long time. And then there are people who've come for the technology and now they're getting curious about this organization that has made so much accessible technology possible through its advocacy. So, for that group in particular, what actually happens at a Washington Seminar? What's it all about?
Mark Riccobono:
Starting at a base level, the National Federation of the Blind, its purpose is to serve as a vehicle for collective action. Advocacy is really at the core of what we do. We get a lot of other benefits out of being in an organization and working together the ideas, the support that we give each other, but it's really bringing that collective action together for outside change. And the Federation has been working to make change at the federal level, really since 1940. That was a principle factor in bringing together a nationwide organization.
And we've had activities in Washington, D.C., with the Congress going back that far in various stages. But in 1973, we decided that we really do need an annual time, focus time when we come to Washington, D.C., and really bring a set of priorities to the members of Congress
. So, we've been doing that now for over 50 years. And it really helps to bolster and set up the advocacy work that we will do with Congress the rest of the year on our legislative priorities, but also in other ways. Blind leaders now can go to meetings, public town halls in local communities, and they're noticed by the members of Congress, by the staffers, because they've made the effort to show up in Washington, D.C.
And when you think about it, a lot of people might attend a town hall for a member of Congress, say, in Nebraska, but they've never stepped into that member of Congress's office in Washington, D.C. So, it helps build a relationship in a different way.
I'll just give you an example. When I was very young in the Federation advocating with the Wisconsin delegation, I knew that a member of Congress we had, you'll appreciate this, Jonathan, this is not why I brought it up, but he was a Beatles fan. I knew that.
Jonathan Mosen:
All right, good.
Mark Riccobono:
And so, I have a number of Beatles ties. And I knew if I was going to go visit Congressman Barrett, who later became the mayor of Milwaukee, I was going to wear my Beatles tie. Why? Well, because it gave us something to talk about, right?
Jonathan Mosen:
Yeah.
Mark Riccobono:
Made me memorable. It created an impression. So, this is a really cool thing to do. It's intimidating to show up at a member of Congress and we're telling them what to do.
But the thing is, it brings our advocacy to scale in a way that we just couldn't do as individuals. But it also really reinforces for us as blind people, all of us as individuals, we know more about blindness than almost any member of Congress. And there's only one or two that know something about blindness from their personal experience.
So, any office that we walk into, we know more about the subject than anybody else in that office. And the beauty of it is, we're not doing it alone. So, if you're not feeling expert on talking about the difference that the Rehabilitation Act makes or what is Randolph-Sheppard anyway, you have a blind colleague sitting next to you and you can double the effort.
And so, we get to tell our own stories on Capitol Hill, and that's really what makes the difference for the advocacy work we do throughout the year. And a lot of these things take many years to get through Congress.
Jonathan Mosen:
What I love about this also is the way that NFB members who might be new to this experience are nurtured and encouraged. So there's no pressure necessarily to say a lot. If it's your first Washington Seminar, you're assigned to meet with various representatives, and you will go in there and maybe say a few words, but there is an expectation that, sure, it's a bit daunting the first time, so you can learn how it's done and say a little more the next year.
Mark Riccobono:
Yeah. And I think everybody on a legislative team brings something different. I remember, just going back to when I was a student, very nervous about Washington Seminar. But also, as a person who was really learning how to travel as a blind person, I thought, "How are we going to travel across, well, these really six congressional office buildings and traverse the Capitol?"
And we had a blind person who led our delegation. He was a blind vendor in the Randolph-Sheppard program, now lives in Idaho. Won't name him beyond that. But he knew these buildings in and out. He'd say, "Yeah, we're going to go up here. And this building is laid out this way. And so, when we're looking for this, we're going to..." And it was great mentoring, right?
Because I don't know if it was intentional, but he was teaching me how these buildings are laid out just by talking it through. And the confidence that, "Oh, yeah, we can just go. And if we need directions, we'll ask for it. But we can do this on our own," really empowering. And we did ask for directions when we needed them. But mostly it was the wisdom of the group to get us where we needed to go.
And as you say, I'm sure that my first meetings, I didn't say very much. I had the opportunity this time to go to a couple of meetings on the Hill, went to a meeting with the Massachusetts delegation. And of course, they turned to me as being the president. And I said, "Look, I'm not a constituent in Massachusetts. The Senator doesn't care about me.
I'm here to support you all. Feel free to tell the Senator's people that they're so important, we brought the president of our organization. But I'm going to say very little because you're the constituents." So, that's what I did. And if they asked me to reinforce something, I did it.
And it's cool to be able to utilize each other in that way. I was there not to run the meeting, but to support the local folks who are truly the experts and the constituents. So, it's a great team-building process, I think, the Washington Seminar.
Jonathan Mosen:
It was a wonderful part of the Great Gathering-In, which always starts Washington Seminar, where we gave an award to a legislator who's been particularly supportive right back to the days of the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. And he dropped a whole bunch of names of Congress from days gone by. And I found myself thinking it's such a different environment now.
It seems like there used to be a lot more bipartisanship, a lot more talking across the aisles to get things done, a lot more consensus. And I think there's a lot of cynicism out there right now. And people might be asking, "Is there really any point in blind people making this great effort to turn up in D.C.? Can we still actually get things done?"
Mark Riccobono:
Yeah. Well, there's a lot of reason to be skeptical. On the other hand, I think part of it is what's being talked about. I think these members of Congress are talking to each other more than they let on. You still need to negotiate and talk to each other to get things through Congress. And I think the problem is that the social media, the environment, it's not cool to say we're talking with each other anymore.
And the public messaging is the chest-thumping about being on brand with your party or with the administration or whatever it is. So, I say that to say, I believe, and the signals that we get is, they are still talking to each other. And they do know that to get a lot of things done, there still has to be work with the other party. It's just not as present and open, I think, as it was. It was celebrated at one time. It's not celebrated anymore to do that. So, that's one thing.
Second thing is, because of the way that we have always framed issues for blind people as being not partisan issues, and I think as Steny Hoyer emphasized, even the Americans with Disabilities Act, signed by a Republican president, great support from both parties, took a lot of effort to get there, though, does show that our work to message the particular issue we're working on in the language that works for the people we're talking to...
If we're talking to a Republican about one of our issues, let's just take Social Security earnings cliff and the impact that has, the messaging is going to be different than talking to a Democratic office that looks at the issue through a different lens.
While we see a lot of fighting in the public amongst members of Congress, while the temperature's very high, we should remember that Congress and people in Congress are still interested in getting things done. And they're still interested, across the board, in making the American dream more possible for more people. And our challenge is not to get drawn into everything else that's happening.
I'm not suggesting we ignore it. But if we let the very complex issues in front of us take us away from the fact that our issues are very important and should receive attention, again, nobody will be talking about our issues, and then it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
There is a lot of reason to be hopeful, though. We know, and our time on the Hill this week proves the principle, people are interested in what we have to say, and they're interested in helping us to find opportunities to get our issues noticed. Last year at our Washington Seminar, 2025, our primary focus was on finding who are going to be the champions for disability programs, disability rights, because we knew what 2025 was going to be like.
And the fact that we did that, we found a lot of people, both sides of the aisle, who said, "Yes, there may be a lot of uncertainty, but we are going to stand firm for these programs." Still a lot of uncertainty, but those people are stepping on the brake in the right place to defend programs that impact blind people and people with disabilities. Not saying there hasn't been harm that's been done, but thank goodness we have found the champions that we have.
Jonathan Mosen:
I imagine this must be something that you have to wrestle with and that you give considerable thought to, but in the kind of politically charged environment that we have... And you see what's happening as we record this in Minnesota, for example, and all of the publicity that that has surrounding it. Blind people are migrants, too. And so these things are affecting blind people.
How do you determine as president when we react to something that is in the public arena like that, that is just all-consuming in the news, and when we should sit it out? And how do you make that call?
Mark Riccobono:
Yeah. Well, in this case, immigration issues, obviously, not new, have been a very hot topic over the last couple decades. Our role in the world, and we only have limited resources, is to make sure that whatever priorities are taking place aren't further disadvantaging blind people.
And so, we want to do two things in this regard. One is, continue to acknowledge and support people who are blind who also have these intersecting characteristics where they may be affected by the broader things that were happening. So, making sure that our chapter meetings continue to be a welcoming and safe place for all blind people.
We don't want to start creating an environment where we're asking people for their citizenship papers when they show up to a chapter meeting. We're here to support blind people. We're not here to be the police for people's immigration status. So, we would want to continue to message to our members that that's the case and not get involved in that.
We do have the interesting situation with Minneapolis right now. What should our chapter do if ICE shows up? And we've tried to give some guidance on that. At the end of the day, very difficult because we can't predict everything that might happen.
The second aspect I would offer is that we know that in a lot of situations, blind people are still at a disadvantage because of accessibility. And that is an important place for us to apply our expertise and focus. So we know that the immigration process itself continues to have accessibility barriers. And so we try to focus there because we can make a unique difference there.
We also remain concerned about what is happening at detention facilities where blind people might end up. This also intersects, I think, with some of the work that we've done in prisons where we know that disability is just another layer that really gets completely ignored and accommodations completely ignored.
And so we want to focus our energy and expertise on trying to help blind people who do get into those facilities, make sure that they can continue to maintain some degree of independence, that they can use their cane, things like that.
So, that is only a partial answer to your question. The consciousness of everything that's happening and having a great desire to want to do more, but also recognize that we only have so much time, energy, money, imagination. So if we focus our energy in the areas that really impact blind people rather than jumping into the mainstream... It's not to ignore those issues. Very clearly, not to ignore those issues. But again, if we're not focusing on the specific impact on blind people, nobody's focusing on that. And I feel that my charge as an elected leader, but our organization, that's what we've been asked to do. And so that's how I tackle it.
My answer may have made it sound easy. It's not easy. And it's heartbreaking to watch what's happening in communities like Minneapolis. And even where we have blind people who, through their own consciousness, are going out to protest, then want to know how we can help when they get into difficult situations.
And we have to parse out, "Well, is it because they were treated differently because they're a blind person or because they were treated unjustly because the laws aren't actually being enforced?" Difficult conversations and really difficult things to balance.
Jonathan Mosen:
I appreciate that answer because, obviously, it's something that's on many people's minds right now. So I'm glad we had the opportunity to address that.
Let's circle back to some tech things and talk about the Access Technology Affordability Act. Could you give us a précis of that for those who aren't familiar with what its provisions are?
Mark Riccobono:
Yeah. So, one of the things that has been clear is that unless you're working with some other government program, the Rehabilitation Act, or you're a student in school, it can be difficult financially to keep up to date with access technology in the home environment. And that has a particularly powerful impact on your ability to keep up, your ability to seek employment, your ability to manage all of the affairs of your household, which is a very important job in and of itself.
We wanted to find a way to put more control in the hands of blind people to get the technology that they need to compete in all the areas of life. We also recognized that, especially during the first Trump administration, tax reform was going to be a big topic.
So, we developed the Access Technology Affordability Act as a door opener to allow blind people, especially at the lower income levels or no income levels, to purchase access technology, but then recoup those funds through a refundable tax credit. The benefit of a refundable tax credit is, even if you don't have any income, you could file your tax documents and get those funds back because you've already spent them.
We focused on this after doing some deep analysis about the balance of where are the needs, number one, but also what is Congress going to buy and what would they be interested in and what could we sell. So, we're presenting the Access Technology Affordability Act as a refundable tax credit that would have a sunset provision, so it would go away eventually.
But we believe quite strongly that once it's in place and once it gets used by blind people, there'll be enough data to show that it has value. So, the idea of this refundable tax credit is that you could spend up to 2,000 dollars during a three-year period. You don't have to spend it all at once. Could be over some number of years. And you would be able to get those funds back.
This also, by putting these parameters on it, also allows us to put a score on it that makes it attractive to Congress. If you make it too bold and beautiful, it's going to look like it just costs too much.
We got Mathematica to do an evaluation of this legislation, and they've decided, through their own work, that it would have significant, hundreds of millions of dollars of benefit to the government, which is great because it's an independent scoring, and it also allows us to show that there's a benefit to the government.
So, this would really help blind people who are not employed, who are underemployed, who are out of the workforce, who are at the lower end of the economic scale, which is where we feel this need is the most.
And my hope is, too, that if this is passed, at least if it was me running any of the access technology companies, I would get creative with how I help people finance their access technology, knowing that they'll be able to get this money back. So I'm hoping that the tech companies will also see this and utilize it as a way to get more technology into the hands of blind people.
Jonathan Mosen:
What constitutes access technology in this case? So, for example, if I wanted to use that credit for a MacBook, which has VoiceOver built in, or the Ray-Ban Meta glasses, which are a mainstream product, but have significant accessibility benefits, is that fair game?
Mark Riccobono:
Well, we have written a definition, as you have to with a bill like this. We think that that can be interpreted quite broadly, and we would advocate for that. So, I think we could make a good case for that, especially for those built-in technologies. And this is something, if we get the law passed, that we would definitely, as we do in the Federation, start giving guidance on the definition and how it can be interpreted.
One important element here is that so far, blind people, we have tried to stay out of being reliant on the insurance industry and viewing blindness purely as a medical condition. If we had to rely on, say, submitting things to insurance, we would also have to be going regularly back to an ophthalmologist to say, "Yeah, you're still blind," in order to make some of these things happen. So, this important part of this bill is it's not relying on the medical model. It keeps us really in control of these things.
So, there will be some things that probably we would want to count as access technology that may or may not fit the definition. We think we've written a broad enough definition. But that's where, once this gets rolled out, we'll be able to influence what happens in the future. Maybe we'll decide... When this gets passed, the technology will be changing, as it is every day, right?
And we may decide three years from now, "We really should have thought to write this in." That's where our advocacy continues to become important. "We should go and change it." And that's what we will do because we know the technology... I mean, AI was something five years ago that not many people were talking about. Now everybody's talking... You can't turn around without AI being mentioned.
Jonathan Mosen:
This bill has been around in some form or other for a wee while now. And I remember reading in the Monitor how much excitement there was that for a while, it looked like it was going to become part of that big, omnibus Build Back Better bill, and then that got taken out. The problem seems to be getting it out of committee, right? Do you have optimism that that's going to happen?
Mark Riccobono:
The biggest barrier right now is all the stars aligning for our bill to get attached to something else. We have great champions heading up our bills, both in the House and the Senate. And it really comes down to the right opportunity to attach this bill to something else. Great bipartisan support.
The more co-sponsors we get in both the House and the Senate, the more likely it is that when the right opportunity comes up, whether it's an appropriations bill or tax bill, to get this attached to it, the more support it has. And obviously, if we can get majority support in both the House and the Senate, it makes it just a question of when.
So, this is why we continue to push for co-sponsors with all these things. It's about continuing to encourage our champions, our lead sponsors to look for those opportunities. They continue to do that. And yes, a number of times now over the last number of years, we've come basically within a whisper of getting this attached to something.
So, if we can get enough co-sponsors, it just becomes inevitable that it's going to happen. And that's why we continue to focus on the advocacy and continue to focus on the folks who haven't supported it.
In fact, at the Washington Seminar, I mentioned Dan Sullivan earlier. He was in a meeting last November with our members from Alaska, and they presented this bill, and he said, "Well, I must be already supporting that, right?" And he was shocked. He was shocked that he wasn't a co-sponsor and I think within hours got his staff to list him.
So, it's sometimes one of those things, too, where members of Congress have heard the pitch. They think it's a great idea. And for whatever reason, all the loops didn't get closed. So this is where follow-up is key. We've been close so many times. I hate to predict why it's happened, but this is the way legislation is these days. You just have to be persistent and continue to track the data and make sure that we're in the game when those opportunities come up.
Jonathan Mosen:
What practically can an individual do to help this along?
Mark Riccobono:
First of all, I'd encourage you to be familiar with the details of the legislation and what it does. And the best way to do that is to find our fact sheet on it at nfb.org/washington-seminar. You'll find our current legislative priorities. And that's just for our Washington Seminar. We have a number of other bills we're working on. So ATAA is there. You can read the fact sheet.
And then, the next thing is just reaching out to your members of Congress, asking them to support the bill in the House, which is 1529, H.R.1529. And in the Senate, it's S.1918. It's a cool number, 1918. And if they're already supporting the bill, thank them for supporting it and ask them if they can help encourage their colleagues in Congress to get on as co-sponsors also.
The other thing that I would say is coordinating with the National Federation of the Blind leadership in your state. They'll know best what the current status is for members of Congress. They'll know where pressure points are needed.
You may live in a district that the only hesitation of a member of Congress is, "Well, we haven't heard from anybody who actually lives in our district that they care about this." So, coordinating with the local leadership, they can give you some guidance and advice about where the pressure points need to be.
And then, lastly, depending on what needs to be done, potentially showing up at a public forum to bring up this legislation and other issues related to the specific problems and barriers that we're facing as blind people.
Jonathan Mosen:
Do you have any concerns that this might create an inflationary effect? Some of the access technology companies might think, "Oh, goody, free money here." And so, the price might go up accordingly.
Mark Riccobono:
Certainly a concern. But what I would say is, my experience is, we're pretty good watchdogs as blind people, and we don't generally allow the companies to get away with nonsense. So, we already know that the access technology companies hear plenty from blind people about the problems with the prices being too high.
And we continue to work to hold them honest to that. Even when we think about products like the Monarch, which is a very complex product and a leader in the industry, but also very expensive because of the nature of it, we continue to hold these companies honest to, "Really, is this the best you can do?"
Fact of the matter is, with these low-volume items, the prices are going to be high. I would hope that as a community, we're able to hold these manufacturers accountable for if we're seeing the price go up, "Why is the price going up?" If they can't articulate that to us, then I think we should put pressure on them.
Since I mentioned the Monarch, HumanWare, APH have always been very open and transparent with the community about the price, the effort to bring the price down, but also the realities of what goes into building a product like that.
I think that's the responsible thing to do, and for blind people, the responsible thing for us to ask. And I think we know who the good actors are and who the bad actors are, and we'll see that quite quickly. And if I know our community, we'll hold them accountable if they're bad actors.
Jonathan Mosen:
And it was pleasing to note APH's acknowledgement of our advocacy when they mentioned to us that they were putting the price of the Monarch down because now that they're producing more of them, these Braille cells do scale quite well. So the more units that come out, actually, the cheaper it is to produce those Braille arrays. So, we are seeing progress in the right direction.
Mark Riccobono:
Yeah, I believe that. And I think the other thing I would say is an advocacy community, and this is where our accessibility work at the National Federation of the Blind is really important. The access technology still has to provide value.
And if any company is just raising the price because they feel they can squeeze more out, but we're not finding any new value in the product or any real justification, that means that as blind people, we're going to turn to alternatives. And I think the beauty of this legislation at this time is, alternatives are popping up every day, right? And so the mainstream tech companies, we've put a lot of pressure on to start building in more.
So, there's a very delicate balance right now between the mainstream technology companies and our efforts to push them to be accessible. The important niche that access technologies play and the prominent role that blind-centered advocacy plays in this community, I think it just makes it the right time for this kind of legislation to come forward.
Jonathan Mosen:
Still to come, President Riccobono discusses the state of the screen reader industry, particularly in light of changes at Vispero. We'll talk artificial intelligence and more when Access On continues after the break.
Audio:
Here's a simple yet powerful way to celebrate while giving back. Your birthday is right around the corner, and instead of just receiving well wishes and gifts, you have the opportunity to make a difference by starting a birthday fundraiser for the National Federation of the Blind on Facebook. It's easy. When your special day approaches, Facebook will nudge you to kick off a birthday fundraiser.
All you have to do is select the National Federation of the Blind as the beneficiary and set your fundraising goal. Then, it's time to spread the word. Post a status update explaining why the National Federation of the Blind is close to your heart and how your friends and family can join in making a difference.
By using your birthday as a platform for giving, you're not just celebrating another year older, you're using your special day to support a cause that truly matters. So, when your birthday rolls around, don't forget to start a Facebook birthday fundraiser for the National Federation of the Blind. Together, let's make every birthday count.
Jonathan Mosen:
Access technology companies have come and gone, of course, and you and I will remember when the industry was much fuller. There are sort of smaller mom-and-pop companies that have fallen by the wayside. But I think it's true to say that those that have survived have done so primarily because they engaged with the blind consumer movement and took advantage of the advice that we've been able to offer for decades on what it is that blind people need.
And that segues me nicely to the current concerns around Vispero. When we read the letter that you wrote to the chief executive of Vispero, I don't think we have had a greater reaction to anything that we have run on Access On than that. There is a lot of concern out there.
And I wonder if you could comment on the way that you are thinking about balancing the fact that, obviously, any company can hire or fire whoever it wants, they can take the decisions that are in the best interests of the business, according to them, but there are, obviously, some real concerns here because it feels like that partnership is deteriorating and that quality may deteriorate as a result.
Mark Riccobono:
I think that's a very accurate way to present it. Well, I'll just speak for myself as serving in the office of the president for the National Federation of the Blind for now almost 12 years. During almost all of that time at the executive level, we've had a very strong relationship with the executive at Vispero. It's been better at some points than others.
But over the last decade, we've really worked to see if we can strengthen that relationship. And that's one of the things we try to do, is, if we're successful, we're able to build relationships at all of the levels of the company. I'm not the person that's going to talk about all of the technical details with the folks at Vispero, but my role is to work with the executive to make sure that there's a real understanding of the community and what the priorities are.
And sometimes we can do that better from the Federation than the people inside the company in terms of articulating what's happening in the community and what the concerns are of blind people.
What's concerning right now and with the correspondence is that the signal is a real change from the executive level at Vispero about how important the community is in this conversation. I won't offer an opinion about whether that's intentional or not. I have no idea.
But it is a signal. And I still have not had an in-person meeting with the new executive at Vispero. I don't know if that means something or not, but it feels like it means something, especially because the relationship that we've had with the company, especially with the last three CEOs there, has taken on a much different tone this time.
And it's coming at, I would say, a critical point in screen reading technology. It's a mature technology, but also one that is deeply embedded in every blind person's life that changes to that technology, how it's delivered and what it's delivering, can have a dramatically positive or negative impact.
So the community engagement is almost more important today than it was maybe in 1995 when a lot of people weren't sure there was ever going to be a role for a screen reader again with a graphical user interface.
And then you put on top of that a lot of talk about AI, but a lot of uncertainty about where artificial intelligence should play in delivering a screen reading experience and what the bridge is between what most of us, the average user, is comfortable with and introducing new features which could be really beneficial.
So, very concerning. And I'm hopeful that Vispero is simply really regrouping and reanalyzing its approach. I'm hoping that the signals aren't really indicative of what might be coming from that company.
I will say that it's been sad for me to watch what has happened there because a lot of people who have been, I would say, the thought engine for what has happened there in terms of engagement with the community have either been asked to leave or have decided to leave. And that is quite scary for me.
There are still a lot of great individuals at the company who do have history, who are also blind people, who are doing their part to steward the product and let the community know that it still plays an important role. I don't have a great deal of confidence in what I've seen so far from the executive there.
But again, in fairness, I would say that that relationship simply hasn't been built. So, I'm hopeful that it will be. But on the other hand, this is not the first month. We're now almost six months into this, and that has me extremely nervous.
Jonathan Mosen:
Obviously, JAWS has a strong place in educational institutions, in the corporate world. There's strong technical support. And it is a very robust, feature-rich product. But some people have said, "Well, this is actually an opportunity for people to examine what alternatives are out there."
We did a feature on Access On a little while ago that demonstrates that Microsoft's built-in screen reader, Narrator, is becoming a lot more capable than it once was. It's no longer just the product that you run when you need to get something done on someone else's computer quickly. And of course, there's NVDA.
And I guess there's an argument that says NVDA actually very much mirrors the values of the Federation because it's largely about blind people solving their own technological needs and contributing to this and collectively, through collective action, building a free screen reader that anybody can use. You have had some dialogue with the NVDA team.
Mark Riccobono:
Yeah. So, it's interesting how these things tend to align all at the same time. So, we always have taken the approach as an organization that we have to be honest brokers and open to all these things. We tell everybody what we like, what we don't like, and we try to let blind people make their own choices and also give them the best information.
Even as Vispero has been making changes, we're always looking at our relationships with others. So I had the opportunity to meet with some of the team and leadership at NV Access during the World Blind Union in Brazil.
And this is one of the things that I've conveyed to them, too, that we would like to work with them on helping blind people, especially in the United States, know about and take another look at NVDA because it's not very prominent in this country for a variety of reasons. And one of them is that in the past, it hasn't always been the most viable for the average everyday blind person.
And one of the things that we're trying to do with our organization and our Accessibility Excellence initiative is figure out ways to increase the training, especially for those folks that they've aged out of getting support from the rehabilitation system.
I mean, just take myself as an example. It's a lot of work to keep up with technology when you have a demanding day-to-day job schedule. If you are someone who loves technology, plays with it in your sleep, fine. But the average blind person, they may read the release notes of what's new with JAWS, but likely they're still using the same keyboard commands they always have, because they have more important things to focus on.
So, when you say to them, "Let's take a look at NVDA or Narrator as a potential alternative," a lot of people are like, "Okay, but I have to cook dinner for my kids." So, I think we have an important role to play here in helping blind people not only discover the value in these products, but one of the things we've been talking to these companies about... Narrator's a good example.
We've been talking to Narrator about quality training on the Narrator product for a long time. NV Access will be the same. I think we can play an important role there. And it's a crucial time, as we found, with what's happening with JAWS to give people the best information.
And speaking very personally, I'm interested in this at a very personal level. I've been a JAWS user now for 30 years, as long as it's been around, and very demanding day-to-day schedule, but I recognize that I need to be playing with these tools also. I turn Narrator on once in a while, but I never spend enough time with it to really know its capabilities. So, wanting our organization to be the thought leader here, that's my commitment.
So, I would say to any Access On user, for 2026, this should be an important priority for all of us to look at these tools. And we want to build some better training and help the average person know what to use at what time. And maybe, Jonathan, maybe we need an annual scorecard for how all of these screen readers really stack up against each other so that we can really track this progress year to year. Like, from the consumer point of view, what are you getting for the money that's being put into your license?
Or what is Microsoft really delivering out of the box with Narrator that you can't get elsewhere or that you should be getting? So, that's something probably for us to think about, is, "How do we give the average person an idea of how these things stack up against each other, regardless of training?"
Jonathan Mosen:
And NVDA is a free download, so you don't have anything to lose by installing it. NVDA and JAWS coexist just fine, as long as you keep one running at a time. And I think what people will find is that there are things that NVA takes a different approach to. It's not necessarily an inferior way, it's just a different way. And I think there still are some things, some features that JAWS has that NVDA at the moment can't duplicate.
But what's interesting is that there's a very dedicated group of NVDA enthusiasts who can write what are called add-ons, kind of like little apps, for NVDA, where that can be achieved. And I think if we can promote a dialogue between perhaps diehard JAWS users who find that they are missing something in NVDA, somebody will create it.
Mark Riccobono:
Well, thank you for reminding me that I need to follow up with my conversation with NV Access. And the timing's good. We just spent some time talking with our affiliated Federation training centers about technology training, and this is one of the topics that's definitely on top of mind for them.
So, I think the timing here is good for us to continue to build this relationship. We have a long history of encouraging the work that's happening with NVDA. They received a Bolotin Award now many years ago, I think 10 years ago, maybe a little more than that.
So, I think it's... Just thinking about our national convention, which will be coming up. We haven't had a main stage presentation on NVDA in a while. Maybe we should put together a battle of the screen readers panel or something, do something fun.
But I think it's important, especially considering what's happening around us, that we really deliver some up-to-date information for all blind people in this country about what's happening. In a lot of other countries, of course, NVDA gets a lot more attention because it is the best option economically. And I think, unfortunately, in our country, maybe the stigma of being free has prevented a lot of blind people from taking a close enough look at this technology.
Jonathan Mosen:
I could talk for hours about all sorts of things, but I'll limit myself to one more topic. I think it's really important. And this relates to AI and something that we've been talking about with a number of members of the team here at the Federation on the legal side, on the technical side. And this is really the way that artificial intelligence depicts blind people, because, essentially, it has inherited a lot of the prejudices and stereotypes and incorrect information.
And we have made great progress. If you look back at some of the original AI models from three years ago, they used to repeatedly apologize to blind people when you pointed out that you were a blind person. They said, "I'm so sorry to hear that you're blind." I haven't seen that for a long time. Some of the more egregious things are gone.
But then we still hear at least anecdotal evidence of people who have become disadvantaged by recruiting tools, for example. And we have a concern that people are being put into the discard pile when applying for jobs because there's an AI algorithm that is thinking, "Oh, it's not worth pursuing interviewing a blind applicant."
What can people do to assist with the Federation's work on this critical issue?
Mark Riccobono:
So, this is one of the emerging issues that no one has all the answers to, and that really is going to take our entire community to be engaged with, both with providing feedback and intelligence about the experience that people are having, but also helping us be thought leaders in terms of knowing who to go to to influence these things.
So, AI is being put into so many places, it's hard sometimes to even tell when AI has been used. So, the first thing that blind people can do is share experiences with us. This is where the Access On community and giving intelligence to our Center of Excellence about what you're experiencing related to AI and the details about it. Which platform were you using? What was the experience? That way, we can use those as real examples when engaging with these companies about their AI tools.
The second piece is, definitely, if you're encountering, especially employment application processes where AI has been employed and it's clear you're getting thrown out because you don't have a driver's license, even though the job clearly doesn't require a driver's license, things like that. It's a little hard to suss those things out. So the more data we can get from blind people, their real experiences, the better.
And then the third area would be, especially for those folks that love to play with the technology, what are the things that you're thinking about with AI and what would you like AI to do or to stop doing, as you point out, Jonathan. And sharing those experiences. We all have them. And the more we can share with each other, the better.
There are a lot of interesting things for us to consider, too, about how much we rely or over-rely on the AI to do things we want to do. I was trying to sort some things the other day, and I used ChatGPT. And after a while, it just kept telling me that things were the same color, even though clearly they weren't. It was a set of things that should have been five different colors.
But I guess because I showed them two that were the same color, it started telling me, "Oh, yeah, that's the same." And I have a keen suspicion, so I pushed it a little harder. But I worry about people over-relying on the technology and then getting themselves into a situation that is wrong or embarrassing or something else. So, I think this is important for our community. We don't claim to have all the answers, right, Jonathan, about AI, but-
Jonathan Mosen:
Absolutely.
Mark Riccobono:
... the goal here is that we're building a community of practice to talk about it. And I think because the AI tools are so big, so diffuse in so many places now, we're also going to run into trouble of knowing who to talk to about some of these things. So, we need people's ideas about the best pressure points here, too.
Jonathan Mosen:
So, people can join the Federation if they're not a part of the organization already just by heading over to nfb.org/join, and there's information there. There's a place for everybody here, right? And there is so much work that needs doing.
Mark Riccobono:
Yes. And I like to say is, the more voices we have in our organization as members, the stronger we all are. We have to come together around some priorities and principles, but the wisdom of the community and having more people in the community and just going back to technology training.
I love technology, I've done a lot with technology, but I'm not the one that spends the most time playing with it. But when I can say to a blind colleague, "Well, you can do that by using this keystroke," and they say, "What? I didn't know that."
The fact of the matter is, technology is complicated, right? It's hard for any of us to know all of the little tips and tricks. I learned a lot more from blind people who are keyboard users every day, all day, about how to be more effective, just from conversations. And sometimes that happens at a chapter meeting or that sort of thing.
So, we need everybody engaged in this community, especially related to technology. We need more people engaged in the conversation about where we should go, how we should get there. And just going back to screen readers, the more people involved in this discussion, the better, because if anything is going to make sure that blind people don't get into a situation where we're left with no good options on the screen reader choice list, it's blind people themselves.
Jonathan Mosen:
It's always good to catch up, and we'll have to do this more often. I really appreciate you giving us some of your time. And we will definitely look forward to future discussions.
Mark Riccobono:
I look forward to it. And I look forward to continuing to listen to Access On to up my own technology game.
Jonathan Mosen:
Well, there's still more to come on Access On as we talk about the state of Apple accessibility and how you can have your say.
Audio:
If your local government uses PDFs, there's a good chance they're already out of compliance. Here's a quick reality check. Download a random document from your city, county, or state website. Try reading it with a screen reader. If it doesn't work, that agency is already behind on ADA Title II compliance. April 2026 is closer than most agencies realize. Accessibility backlogs measured in thousands of documents cannot be solved one file at a time.
To understand what compliance really means, visit www.title2.info. This message is brought to you by Pneuma Solutions. We provide large-scale document remediation aligned with WCAG 2 AA guidelines, delivering accessible output in hours, not years, using technology built by blind engineers who rely on the results themselves. Accessibility isn't a privilege, it's a right.
Jonathan Mosen:
For years, AppleVis has been a valued resource for blind people who use Apple products. It's a place to discuss issues, learn about how to use Apple products with VoiceOver, and find out whether an app is accessible.
Now, some have criticized AppleVis in the past for being too much of a fan site and not confronting the sometimes critical bugs that prevent blind people from using the technology they paid for as easily as non-blind people. So those with that perspective, therefore, welcomed a fairly recent initiative called the Apple Vision Accessibility Report Card.
AppleVis is now asking you to participate in the 2025 report card. This is the community's chance to grade Apple on their performance over the last year, from the highs of new AI features to the lows of persistent macOS regressions. So, joining me to explain what's involved in participation and why you might consider doing so is the director of AppleVis, Michael Hansen.
Hi, Michael. Good to talk to you.
Michael Hansen:
Hello, Jonathan. And hello, listeners. Thank you so much for having me on the podcast. It's an honor.
Jonathan Mosen:
For those who haven't seen this before, give us a rundown of what this report card is. What do you hope to achieve with it?
Michael Hansen:
The Apple Vision Accessibility Report Card is a community-driven report that will give a public record and a public accounting of how blind, deaf, blind, and low-vision people feel Apple has done in meeting their needs over the past year. It was started in 2023 for the 2022 year, and it's based off of the Six Colors annual Apple report card.
Now, Six Colors, for those who don't know, it is a mainstream tech publication, although they do have an accessibility leader on there. Shout out to Shelly Brisbin, who people may know from the iOS Access book and her other work.
But it's a mainstream tech publication. And every year, they publish the Six Colors annual Apple report card. And this grades Apple on their performance in a number of different categories. And the way that they determine their ratings is they send out a survey, it looks like, to people in their network. And we thought, "You know what? What can AppleVis do to move the needle forward on accessibility?"
Accessibility is like building a house. You got to have a good foundation and good materials and good workmanship, but you also have to keep maintaining it and taking care of it and ongoing. And as you make modifications to everything else, you have to modify and care for that, too. And so, accessibility is a ongoing, living, breathing thing.
And we have, for years, wanted to always come up with initiatives. What can we do to, number one, give the community a voice and help people who... Maybe it's a little bit intimidating. Or maybe you feel like, "You know what? I can't really make a difference because what's going to happen? I send an email to [email protected] and they send me a response and then like, 'Okay, what happens now?'"
But not just give the community a voice, what we've also wanted to do is, what can we do to let Apple know that this is how it's going, this is how blind, deaf, blind, and low-vision people think you're doing, and this is where you need to improve. There's strength in numbers. And that is why we really, really, really want people to participate in the survey.
Because the more people who take the survey, the more statistical confidence that we're going to have in the results, and the more we're going to be able to identify what's going well, what's going not, and where Apple needs to prioritize in 2026 and beyond.
Jonathan Mosen:
For those who haven't done this before, walk us through the process. Is it a web-based survey? Do you have to have an AppleVis account to participate? How does it work?
Michael Hansen:
When the survey is open, it will be at the top of our homepage under the recent updates heading. There'll be a link to take the survey. And it will be a blog post. And below that blog post will be a questionnaire. Now, for security reasons, mainly to keep the AI bots from flooding us, we do ask that people sign up for a free AppleVis account if you don't already have one. We don't ask for much. All we want is your name, your email address, your display name. You can fill out some optional fields if you wish.
Once you get signed up or once you get logged in and you go to that page, right below the main post will be the actual survey. And the survey is kind of separated into three distinct types of questions. The first set of questions is a rating scale of 1 to 5, and it asks you to rate your satisfaction with the VoiceOver experience, the Braille experience, and the low-vision experience, or whichever platform or whichever you are most familiar with and have experience using, on iOS, iPadOS, macOS, tvOS, and watchOS.
So, for me, I'm totally blind, and I really only know about the iPhone and the Mac to an extent and the Apple Watch. So, for me, I would be going in and answering the questions relating to iOS, macOS, and watchOS.
If you're a low-vision user, which, just as a quick aside, if you do have low vision and you do use any of the zoom and any of these, the non-talking, the non-VoiceOver type of vision accessibility stuff, we really want to hear from you because low vision, we feel like, is a really underrepresented group.
So, if you know of anybody, even if you aren't, if you know somebody, please, please, please invite them to take that because we really, really need that feedback.
So, getting back to the survey itself. So, the survey will ask, "How satisfied are you with the features?" And it will also ask you, "How satisfied are you with the user experience?"
The second types of questions it's going to ask you for are, "How satisfied are you with the new accessibility features that Apple has introduced in 2025? How satisfied are you with Apple's performance and addressing bugs in 2025?"
And then the third component of the survey, and probably the part that people know it best for, is the user commentary. After each set of questions, you have the opportunity to provide written text-based comments on your answer. And people do. We love the comments. The ratings are cool. The ratings will give us a snapshot of how it's doing over time.
But the user comments, I think, is the understated act of the show. And what we do then is we will go through and curate all those user comments that people submit, and we will include as many as we possibly can in the final report card.
Finally, the last part of it is we ask you a couple questions. We ask you to, by submitting the survey and particularly by submitting comments, you do give us permission to publish any of your commentary. We do not make any edits or anything like that. So, no grammar, no spelling, no anything like that. The only thing that we do is we will lightly format it to make sure that it presents consistently.
So bulleted lists, we want to make sure those look the same. Each comment is one paragraph, stuff like that. But we don't make any changes to any words used, spelling, or anything like that. We want to make sure that voices are authentic.
So, the question will ask, "How do you want to be attributed if we include your comments?" which, it's our intention to include as many of the comments as possible. People can either choose to be attributed by their AppleVis display name or they can choose to be anonymous. So, whichever you are most comfortable with or whichever you prefer, you can choose that.
And then the second question that we ask is just that... we just ask that you certify that you are blind, deaf, blind, or low vision and have used an Apple product or service in 2025. We ask this because we want to make sure that the results are from 2025 and reflecting people's experiences from 2025, because these things can change in either direction from year to year.
Jonathan Mosen:
How many people do you typically have participating in this?
Michael Hansen:
Well, as survey response rates go, we think that, when you look at how many people tend to respond to a marketing survey or anything like that, we get a pretty good response rate when you compare it to the number of active user accounts we have on the site.
But the thing that I kind of come back to and that we always come back to is we always want more. We always, always, always want more people because we have more people, more lived experiences, more commentary. And the more people who participate, the more statistical confidence you're going to have that your result is a representative sample.
So, why this matters? So, let's say that... We don't include the Apple Vision Pro currently in the survey because it's a product with really, really low uptake. It's a cool product, from everything that I've heard, yet everything we've seen is that there really isn't much uptake. It's way out of range for most people in terms of pricing. But another reason that we don't include it, and kind of with that, is that we want to make sure that whatever we include, we have the statistical confidence to back it up.
Let's say, out of all the people who take the survey, we have only one or two people, and they rate the Vision Pro highly, the results are going to come out that, "Oh, all of the Vision Pro gets a super high rating," and when in reality, it's two people said that the Vision Pro was great and everybody else was not in the budget. So, we really want to be sure, and that's really why we need as many people as possible.
But to get back to your original question, when you look at how many people typically respond to an outreach or how many people typically respond to a survey, our response rates are pretty on par with the industry.
Jonathan Mosen:
That was a pretty clever way of answering the question without giving me a number. So I'll give you that one.
So, let me ask you this, then. There are people who say, and I've heard this said a lot, that we should be grateful, and that if we're too critical, if we whine and complain too much, then Apple might just walk away. Is that something that you contend with in this process?
Michael Hansen:
Yeah. I mean, we contend with it on the site every day on AppleVis. And AppleVis is a community. It started as app reviews. And probably our biggest, most highest profile thing is the forum. And people talk. And yeah, we get a lot of people who... Really, anytime there's criticism of Apple, you tend to have two sets of extremes. You have people who say that Apple is just the best and Apple can do no wrong. And you have people who say that the sky is falling and Apple stinks on ice and they've really weed whacked it.
And there's nothing that you can do to change their mind on that. And so there's always this tension between the two groups of people. We don't see it too much, I don't think, in the survey, but I do think that generally I do see that as a theme, especially when we talk about big bugs. People go, "Well, we should be grateful." And I think it's possible to be grateful and gratefully critical. We pay for these products.
And my experience with Apple has been that they are a dedicated group of people, and that they're doing really, really good work. But I also think that it is okay to say when something isn't working. If you have cell phone service and it doesn't work, that's a problem.
If you have a washing machine and your washer doesn't work, you don't say, "Well, I'm just grateful I have the washing machine. Even though it doesn't work, I'm still grateful to have it." No. You say, "No, we got to get this fixed." And I think it's the same thing.
You made an interesting point when you said that if we complain too much, Apple will just take the accessibility away. I don't think that's going to happen. I don't see it. I know that in the world in which we live right now, that there's so many uncertainties and just things that you thought would never be happening are happening.
But I can't perceive of a situation where if we push and we critique and we ask for more and we ask for the quality to be raised and all of these things, I don't see a situation where Apple would just up and turn around and say, "Well, you know what, Michael?
You complain too much, so we're going to cut VoiceOver out." I appreciate the concern and the feelings that are based on that and come that kind of lead to that, but I don't think it's personally something that people need to worry about.
Jonathan Mosen:
I often tell people that it's your true friends who have the difficult conversations with you.
Michael Hansen:
Yep. Yep. Yep. It is your true friends. You may not want to hear it, but the people who are invested in you will give you that feedback and they'll talk to you. And I think that Apple does great work. I think that their work is not beyond reproach. I can think of several areas where it is not going well. But as companies go, I think Apple is much more likely to be an ally than some of the other major companies in this space right now.
Jonathan Mosen:
In the 2024 and 2025 reports, which were obviously for the previous year, respectively, macOS consistently trailed behind iOS. Often it got stuck in the C range. On the other hand, the iPhone was hovering at around about an A or a B.
Based on anecdotal evidence, there is a feeling that the Mac is being neglected. That perception doesn't seem to be changing. So, given the previous report cards made that point loud and clear, how confident are you that these report can't actually turn into any kind of positive, tangible change?
Michael Hansen:
Apple is a company that, love it or hate it, they are super secretive. And so, it's kind of hard to know what is going on. I can say with confidence that our reports are delivered to the people who need to read them at Apple. I can say that we put our heart and our soul into making sure that we represent people's voices, particularly the criticism.
And I wish that Apple was a little more open about how they take and receive feedback. Because right now, it's kind of hard to know, "How much of an impact is this making? And where is it going? And are my priorities," and when I say my, I'm thinking the end user, "Are the end user priorities ending up as the company priorities?"
But even though I'm not quite sure what happens after we deliver the report card, and maybe we have that conversation, and hopefully, we have that conversation, what I can say is that if we don't deliver the report card, they aren't going to know. We're going to continue to do everything we can to make sure that people have a voice.
We're going to do everything we can to make sure that the information is comprehensive and conclusive. We're going to do everything we can to get the word out about it, to make sure that people see it. And hopefully, by presenting the information, we can make sure that, hopefully, Apple will be seeing it and will be acting on it. But with that said, I really, really wish they would engage a little bit more. I love them, but yeah.
Jonathan Mosen:
They should know already, right? Because Apple has its own feedback tools and email address. You mentioned [email protected] already. Why is the report card necessary, then? If people are being really methodical and careful, and I know people who are affected so significantly by a bug that they really take the time to write detailed step-by-steps to reproduce, they attach logs as requested, they file all these amazing bugs, and then it feels like they go into the void. Are you essentially doing Apple's job for them by having to do this report card? Because, for whatever reason, a lot of these bugs just don't seem to gain traction internally.
Michael Hansen:
I think that you hit on something that is certainly a theme in the comments over and over again, was just people feel like their reports are not being heard. "I file it, and yet, here we are again, same issues. They're not being fixed." It's especially true on the Mac. We see it on the Mac. I saw it in the report cards. I see it on the site almost every day.
I view the report card a little bit differently rather than doing a service to Apple, is, I see it more of a news publication. As we are out here providing the information, it's not just for Apple, although we would love for it to make a huge impact and all of these things. But the other reason that we do it is to provide the news and to provide a comprehensive report to the community and to other stakeholders so people can kind of know what's going on.
Like you have the... I think it's the WebAIM, the Screen Reader Survey they do every couple years that talks about the screen reader market. This is kind of a similar thing. It's not just a give-Apple-feedback type of thing, but it's a news type of thing to inform the community about, "This is what is going on," in the hopes that it will spark some conversation and help people. But what, I guess, it really comes back to is that we want it to spark conversation. We want to let people know. But what we really want is to spark that change internally at Apple.
Jonathan Mosen:
So, now that you have all this data, or you soon will have, what happens? Do you email it in a report form to Apple? Do they sit down with you? What's the outcomes look like?
Michael Hansen:
So, what we will do, the first step is we will analyze all the data, and the numeric scores we will average out, and those will be the numeric scores. We'll compile the grades and assign the grades based on the numbers that we get. There's a grading scale that we developed for the 2024 one. Then, probably the longest process is reviewing and going through the user comments and adding and making sure that those are in the document.
After that, we do send a copy of the report to Apple. We're going to release it to the community. We're going to make sure that people know that it's out there. I would love to have a meeting with Apple to talk about it. I would love to sit down with Apple executives and talk about it. But as of right now, our strategy is, we put it all together.
We're going to email it. Any of the comments that we can send, if they request it, we would send it anonymized. So, again, no-names-included version of... If they wanted the complete comments, we'd be willing to send that, again, with absolutely no names included. But I think we would love to have as much conversation about it and as much dialogue about it as Apple would, and the ball is in their court.
Jonathan Mosen:
People will find it at the top of the page at applevis.com. Anything else that you wanted to tell us about this process?
Michael Hansen:
The most important thing is that no matter what your experience is or what your opinion is or how much time you have to contribute to it, we would so value your input. There is strength in numbers. The more people who take it, the more people, the more statistical confidence that we're going to be able to say, "This represents blind users. And this represents part of Apple's market, and Apple needs to listen."
So, if you want, you can just do the ratings. If you want to provide the comments, go for it. However you want to participate, you are very, very welcome. If you're listening to this podcast and you go to the site after and it's no longer up, that just means that the survey has been closed. We're going to leave it open for a short period of time, little over a week, once we go live with it.
But regardless, we hope that this survey and the resulting report card will be a driving force for change and contribute to constructive discussion. And I can't wait to see what the community's going to say. I have suspicions, but I can't wait to see what people are going to say. And please go out there and make your voices heard.
Jonathan Mosen:
That's Michael Hansen, director of AppleVis. And if you would like to participate in this survey, you have until Monday morning, February the 16th, to get your answers in at applevis.com.
That concludes this episode of Access On, the technology podcast of the National Federation of the Blind. To send in a contribution for a future episode, email us, attach an audio clip or just write it down and send it to [email protected]. That's [email protected].
To keep up to date with Access On, follow us on Mastodon, [email protected]. That's [email protected] on Mastodon. To subscribe to an announcements-only email list about upcoming episodes, send a blank message to [email protected]. That's [email protected].
To learn more about the National Federation of the Blind, visit our website, nfb.org, or phone us, 410-659-9314. That's 410-659-9314. And be sure to check out the Nation's Blind Podcast right from where you heard this podcast.