GUIs (was Re: A comment on Slashdot)

cpt.kirk at cpt.kirk at
Tue Apr 11 21:32:12 EDT 2000


I agree that M$ should provide the offscreen model. This is especially
true since you are not supposed to decompile the software and all. Now I
won't go into software lisince isssues and what is really legal. But if
one were to abide by the letter of the lisence, then I doubt that a screen
reader could be written.

I am also quite familiar with the broken Active Accessibility. I believe
that M$ wants to appear responsible, but they are not willing to put up
the ante. I know for instance that MSAA was broken and they knew it ahead
of time. There was no surprise when IE4 released. It was known and the
decision made to go ahead.

But I think that when a company decides to close their code off from view
they should shoulder 100% of the load in making the code workable to all
who have a need to interface to it. The truth is, that they can and should
do better. They could make keyboard access a requirement. (For that
matter, they could probably make it so that keyboard access just happens
for all things.) They could also make it so that every peice of textual
data is always available. But they have chosen not too.

Part of the problem is that it has been years since there was a true
coordinated development effort in Windows. The project has grown to the
point where it is no longer coordinated. And in case your wondering, no
there is no documentation on the registry that comes anywhere close to
complete. There are branches that developers impliment because they need
to store settings and the programmer is the only one to know what is being
used for what. In some of those cases the programmer has left the company.

I used to be a staunch supporter if M$. I will not spend any of my money
on a product again if given a choice. In fact, I would ask for a refund
for any bundled apps that came on a computer.

Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk at

Why can't you be a non-conformist, like everybody else?

More information about the Speakup mailing list