Katherine Moss wrote:
Hello guys,
I was just wondering how many of you agree with this. I, who's desire it is to become an open source .NET Framework programmer, look at all of the both open source, and not to mention, Microsoft-provided products, and I can't tell you how much lazy programming I see out there. I'm not calling you lazy programmers, so please, please don't take it that way. I'm just saying, that for the masses, and especially for the many blind and visually impaired users like me who rely on everything being labeled so that screen readers, or software that converts text on screen to speech, can understand and provide the right information. Half of the time, I will download a piece of software whether open source or otherwise, and I will never be able to utilize it due to nothing being labeled, or some things being labeled and others not, giving only half the experience to someone hard of seeing like me. Now, what I am proposing is strong and provocative, but I think that it could potentially be a good thing if implemented correctly. I think that it would be a good idea for Visual Studio to have a compilation requirement that all elements are labeled, and all UIA properties exposable by a control are implemented. Microsoft themselves are lazy when it comes to that; a lot of their new interface for Windows server 2012 for instance, has so much mislabeled and missing UIA content that either screen readers don't read at all, or they read spurious content, as if they are reading .NET classes, instead of application-generated, administrator-friendly messages. My friend thinks that this would only work if Microsoft themselves built this in, and he may be right. But I definitely think that it should be required on most open source projects and open source frameworks that all elements be labled and exposed that way people of all abilities and disabilities alike can benefit. I don't see how it would work in the commercial sector unless Microsoft implemented it. Tell me what you guys think.
Hi Katherine,
While I see where you are coming from, I'd personally be against any
hard rule in the development process which forces any display standards.
Why?
- A lot of apps I write are single purpose (ETL, test apps, automation
of tasks which I need to do every x days/weeks/whatever. I (or team
members) are the only ones that ever see/use the software, so jumping
though extra hoops would not only be somewhat pointless but also hurtful
to time/money/etc. I wouldn't want to have to raise the price on a
product I am making for a non-profit (or any organisation) because I
need to spend more time on throw-away apps.
- Open sourcing code is tough. Any code I release publicly or
semi-publicly I already feel like I need to make it "not as crappy".
There is already a lot of stuff which I have that is useful which I'd
like to release, but simply haven't done so as it's needs some work to
make it more friendly. Having to then do extra work to cater for special
needs creates another hurdle for people who are trying to give things
away for free. Even if it is a noble hurdle, I think that something not
ideal is better than nothing, and too much good information in the world
is already hidden. I'd much prefer to get the stuff out there, and
improve as necessary.
- Even if you were able to force a rule, from a practicable point of
view, when developing complex interfaces, labels might not fit well, nor
be appropriate. I've written some complex data input interfaces which
allow users to make a lot of decisions very quickly. It's already a
nightmare trying to make the screen real-estate fit/work in displaying
the data and allowing useful input/error handling/etc. The improved
efficiency is certainly at the cost of interface simplicity and I'm not
sure how it would be possible to make use of said interfaces without
good eye-sight. Of course, other interfaces could be provided, but would
lack the overall speed/information function.
Some things which I'd support being done:
- Some type of analysis tool which can show you what you need to fix up.
If it's small, most people would do it. (could possibly already be one!?)
- It might already exist (I have no idea personally), but a
common/market standard to which you could say "this app is friendly for
X use" that people could conform with if they choose.
- Microsoft/Google/Whoever could use their market ability to give
discounts/extra incentives to apps in their stores which are X
compatible/friendly. (Although, there is no "free" lunch as such here,
so it naturally penalises those who do not conform)
My lists above aren't exhaustive, but just mostly unfiltered thought off
the top of my head, and if I sat down and thought about this for a
little longer, maybe I'd have different thoughts/considerations.
I'll admit that I'm near totally ignorant on the issues that affect
people with different abilities accessing technology. Raising awareness
(which your email does) is something that there is a need for, and I
honestly believe that people do want to help their fellow human either
by voluntarily making their software easier to use, or by supporting
businesses/companies that make an effort to do so.
I welcome any further discussion, and any chance for to be better
educated on this.
Thanks :)
--
Les Hughes
l...@datarev.com.au
