I'm not saying that it's just about the visually impaired because it's not. All of the books that I have ever learn from in the past and am currently learning from, they all teach you that labeling your fields, buttons, and other elements is good practice, and every demo from those books which one can build has everything labeled. And like I said, I can understand on the commercial front why it's less of a priority, though honestly, I'm not sure how developer's time translates to money in that world for I have no interest in using what I learn in programming to make money where I set the price. The only time I'd be doing that is with the Windows store, where Microsoft chooses how money is made to make it easier. I'm more interested in the open source world and providing free and high-quality products for the community, for my focus is on intrinsic rewards, and not extrinsic ones. Like I've heard that some developers join the open source world rather than the the commercial one because it's enough of a reward to them to provide good quality software for the masses, and that's me. And I don't necessarily care about other companies, but I'll say that I choose to label my fields and properties to comply with best practices. If my books tell me to do it, I don't see why I shouldn't. And not to mention the usability enhancements that having everything labeled helps the sighted population as well; so that's why I'm trying to mention the benefits for people of normal sight as well.
-----Original Message----- free and open source alternatives to commercial products so that there is more choice in the world. From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Les Hus Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:02 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: field/button/control labeling enforcement in Visual Studio sometime: who agrees with this proposal? 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
