Actually, there's an even bigger question along the same lines. If they build in access for blind people, why not for all other groups that constitute persons with disabilities? Shouldn't you be able to have it if you have no arms? What about deaf users? The list goes on. Even if we accept the arguments proposed in this thread, you still have to answer why this minority group and not others. There's a lot to be gained, imho, from making devices more generally usable. I'm not against that today, and I've worked for that goal for many years. But there comes a point when a specialized device just delivers better performance. I think the Owasys screenless phone I'm selling does that, and I think the Icon will do that. But, if you want to stick with the mainstream, that's cool to. Hey, it's a free country. Scott Howell writes: > I only have one question to your statement, why. Wher eis the answer > to the question a vendor will ask. Why should we spend the money on > research and development for such a small group as compared to the > whole. Hey I am not disagreeing with you, but trying to again point > out the very question the manufacturer/vendor will ask. Just because > its the right thing isn't going to be an answer to the shareholders > and those with a financial interest and only are interested in > profits. Isn't that what its all about? Features in any product are a > result of what the masses want, but you can bet that a lot of time > and money went into choosing those features before the product ever > ended up in production.
