A woman sitting with Apple Vision Pro headset on. Image Credits: Apple

Given the focus of my research on inclusion and accessibility, I have long been thinking about who we leave behind in the race towards the Metaverse. Like many people, I have also been impatiently waiting for Apple’s VR platforms. Needless to say that when I watched its release yesterday, what I was thinking about was: Who would this be for? Would I be able to use it and enjoy it in the way that it is advertised?

So, here are my immediate thoughts - as an accessibility and inclusion game researcher - on Apple Vision Pro. By “Immediate”, I mean that these are some of the thoughts I had, while and immediately after watching yesterday’s WWDC release of Vision Pro. I did not try it myself as of date, nor did I see “real life” reviews of it. Take these thoughts with a grain of salt. They work better, not as a “review” of Apple’s Vision Pro, but to raise awareness of why we need to consider people with disabilities and atypical bodies in the development and releases of new technology:

• My first concern was over visual access in Vision Pro. For example, Apple emphasised over and over again that everything can be enlarged to engulf the whole world of the user. But those with vision impairments - like me - know that enlarged and readable are not the same thing. If fonts are not “liquid” enough to get bigger when you enlarge a Safari screen in Vision Pro, then texts and menus in Vision Pro would not be legible to many who do not have perfect eyesight.Contrast is a whole other game with AR overlays. What happens when texts are “too enlarged” in a menu or an application? Would they overlay illegible over pictures? Would they have legible contrast? I would have love to see a demo of how a low vision user would interact with Vision Pro.
• Hand gestures are, “of course” natural means of interaction. I wonder how controllable the spatial computer would be to someone without hands or without full range of hand/finger movement? Hopefully this is what eye tracking and voice control are for and hopefully they act as perfect substitutes for hand gestures. Again, a demo of alternative interaction means would be great!
• Hand gestures also are actually not very intuitive to many users. In our on-going research with older individuals, we have noted that hand gestures in VR are not that natural and controllers are sometimes easier to use. Even to me, hand gestures are not always easy to pick up and require a learning curve. My fear is that we are creating yet another relatively high barrier for older individuals in getting to a new technology.
• I will relatively gloss over the price point that is evidently not affordable. I personally believe a relatively cheaper spatial computer would follow this one soon, although, Vision Pro would most likely remain relatively expensive, that people in low income brackets or in developing countries would likely not have access to it
• The high price point is also another barrier in the face of users with disabilities or atypical bodies. As a technology/game researcher, I would be one of the first people in line to buy this spatial computer. Yet, given my visual impairment and the first concern I just noted, I am especially concerned over spending 3,499 USD on a device, just to find out after 5 minutes of use that this device is not for me, as in, it is not accessible. What happens then? Consumer protection laws in some countries would help here. In some places around the world, it is possible to return electronics after briefly trying them and finding out that they are not what one had thought they were. Steam, for example, offers a possibility to refund a game purchase if it was played for less than 2 hours. I would hope that with such an expensive device, with many potential use barriers, some sort of consumer protection strategies are put in place by Apple especially where they are not there by law. Apple brick and mortar stores exist to try out devices before buying them, but It would be brilliant if apple considered a “loaner” model where consumers can try Vision Pro for a week or so, before committing to the purchase.
• Apple did not directly address any of these concerns in their release. That does not necessarily mean that they were not thought of during Vision Pro’s development, the concerns just simply were not discussed. That raises a larger implicit question: Who are these WWDC and such large event releases for? Whose concerns do they cater for? Everyone? Or those with “mainstream” bodies, skills and abilities? Is there really a mainstream in terms of bodies and abilities? These are discussions beyond my purpose here but I would love that we ask these questions more and more in this 21st century. I would direct the reader to a paper on Technoabelism by Ashley Shew if they want to read more about how technology releases tend to be abelistic.
• On a strategy note**, I appreciate the use of the term “spatial computing”.** In a classic Apple manner, they are doing things on their own terms, re-defining consumer categories rather than leaning in on existing terms like “metaverse”. AR was used perhaps once, and only primarily to walk us towards what they mean with spatial computer. After that, even the AR term was dropped. It is remarkable to observe such a business strategy play out even if it would have been expected from Apple.

Overall, I do sincerely hope that these concerns I have are not real concerns but that they have been thought about by Apple. There probably are more concerns that people, especially neurodivergent users, would raise and it is important to have a conversation over who are technologies developed for. What I look forwards to - in the short term - is Apple sending devices to bloggers and YouTubers with disabilities to review them for these wider consumer segments. I also look forwards to accessibility and inclusivity of devices being a core conversational point in future releases of any technology.

References

• Shew, A. (2020). Ableism, technoableism, and future AI. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 39(1), 40–85.