Oh wow. That was great. What I meant though by 360 degree angle though is that the application I'm trying to do I am hoping wil have three modules to it, a web module to integrate into the CMS, an Outlook add-in, and then a desktop interface to it as well.
-----Original Message----- From: Tom Kingston [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 3:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: an idea, but how to go about it when I get there? A 360 degree angle? Heck, that one's easy. All you need is a global construct. Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;) Tom On 12/11/2011 2:22 PM, Katherine Moss wrote: > That is kind of pretty. The question is whether my goals will be possible to > integrate from the 360 degree angle I want to have. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Kingston [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 2:18 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: an idea, but how to go about it when I get there? > > Well, then there's your goal, already defined; getting the functionality you > need so you can get the job done. So I vote for an elegant yet clean and > intuitive interface. Personally? I like a deep rich blue on an ivory > background. It's classy looking. smile. > > Good luck, > Tom > > > On 12/11/2011 1:59 PM, Katherine Moss wrote: >> My priority right now is getting enough C# knowledge to write an internal >> application used by myself and my other administrators for our web site to >> help with integration and stuff. (we are just a community who could use >> some streamlining, and we aren't business focused). >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tom Kingston [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 1:45 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: an idea, but how to go about it when I get there? >> >> Of course, that's true. I didn't mean to paint it in a pure black and white >> picture. Nothing is that simple. But how pretty the interface is is heavily >> dependent on the applications purpose and its market demographics, i.e. if >> you're going to write a graphics design program than sure, looks is what the >> user of such a program is all about. So it stands to reason that they think >> it should be a work of art. And I don't blame them. And sure, if you want to >> be the next IPad everything better be, as my kids used to say, super sool. >> I've heard very few, if any, complaints, from people, about how pretty a >> program was. But people complain all the time about things not being >> intuitive, too much junk cluttering the screen, everything is hard to find, >> and so on. Sometimes less is more. >> >> And regarding reviews? Well, again, it depends on the product, its target >> market, and the reviewer's need to feel like they're giving you something >> worth while. But that's a two way street. I've heard reviewer's say how >> refreshing such a nice clean and simple interface is. >> I guess the bottom line is to define your market, do the required research, >> and find out what's more important to them; eye-candy or functionality. Of >> course, this is true with everything. Some folks want the best looking >> things while others want the best functioning things. >> It's an age old split between companies whose top priority is sales and >> those whose top priority is quality. But this is really getting beyond >> designing an interface. I'm going a bit overboard here. But I was just >> reminded of it recently so it popped into my head. So I guess that's enough >> of corporate morals for today. grin. >> >> Regards, >> Tom >> >> >> On 12/11/2011 11:40 AM, Katherine Moss wrote: >>> I just always thought it mattered because people tell me that it does. I >>> watch youtube videos of reviews of products, and if the interface isn't >>> pretty, the reviewer usually has something to say about itit. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Tom Kingston [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 2:56 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: an idea, but how to go about it when I get there? >>> >>> Regarding custom controls? Slow down for a minute and think about what a >>> screen reader is and what a custom control is. How is any screen-reader >>> supposed to figure out what kind of control that you and every other >>> programmer on the planet decides to put together? And believe me, I've been >>> at this for years. Many IDEs on steroids like Visual Studio create custom >>> controls by default and the programmer isn't even aware of it. >>> It's part of the, don't worry about it, I'll do lots of the work for you >>> philosophy of these rapid development cycle machines and why you pay so >>> much for them. >>> >>> And lastly, out of curiosity, several years ago I created a few windows, >>> particularly dialogs, with all kinds of controls to mimic an inaccessible >>> one in a program, after I figured out what they were. I used standard >>> controls and simply matched the colors. So Window-Eyes recognized >>> everything in those windows. Then I asked my sighted wife to compare the >>> two and tell me what was so custom and flashy about the inaccessible ones I >>> had mimicked. She was very hard pressed to see much of a difference at all. >>> I mean she was literally just guessing and saying something like, eh, well, >>> I guess that one's a little kind of sort of different. But it really just >>> looks like the same thing to me. >>> This is because a lot of these IDEs alter standard controls just enough to >>> give it their own look and they're the only ones who know the difference. >>> It's part of the crazy world of Windows; they're going against one of the >>> core concepts of what Windows was supposed to be. And Microsoft has long >>> been one of the biggest offenders; they write the standards and then ignore >>> their own standards. So 90% of the time these custom controls have no >>> impact. Ask your sighted friends how many of them visually audition a >>> program before purchasing it, and how many times it has been the deciding >>> factor on which program they purchased. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Tom >>> >>> >>> On 12/10/2011 10:41 PM, Katherine Moss wrote: >>> > I'm confused. Aren't MSAA and UIA two completely different >>> frameworks? >>> > And the limit of only supporting standard controls is indeed >>> something> interesting since I'm getting towards GUI programming, and >>> what if I> want to use other controls that I learn to create myself? I >>> mean, many> of the books which I have for .net programming in C#, have >>> sections for> creating custom controls, so am I going to have to skip an >>> entire> section of a book or two just because screen readers are behind? >>> That> seems quite nonproductive. And the way I found that transcript >>> was> through a search on the main GW micro site for Visual Studio 2010. >>> > >>> > *From:*Chip Orange [mailto:[email protected]]> *Sent:* >>> Saturday, December 10, 2011 7:56 PM> *To:* [email protected]> >>> *Subject:* RE: an idea, but how to go about it when I get there? >>> > >>> > I would be interested in reading the transcript if you could point >>> me at it? >>> > >>> > This is why I said I was guessing, for all I know it does work. If >>> it> doesn't work entirely though, it might be because of the >>> introduction of> new control types (which produce UIA information, but >>> which need> additional code to take advantage of this), or because of >>> bugs in the MS> implementation of UIA (which is brand new). If the >>> "they" in your> message means MS, they may indeed think this means it's >>> working, and not> know of the bugs, or not take into consideration the >>> additional work> needed to be done by screen readers to support new >>> controls or other new> features. >>> > >>> > I know it will eventually work (if it's not now), and this is >>> indeed> what SMAs pay for. >>> > >>> > Chip >>> > >>> > *From:*Katherine Moss [mailto:[email protected]] >>> > <mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> >>> > *Sent:* Saturday, December 10, 2011 7:03 PM >>> > *To:* [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>> > *Subject:* RE: an idea, but how to go about it when I get >>> there? >>> > >>> > The strange thing though is that they have a podcast over >>> there (I >>> > was reading the transcript of it), that shows this very thing. >>> I >>> > don't get it then because if they showed it working properly, >>> then >>> > doesn't that mean that it is supported fully? And if so, then >>> why >>> > are we having so much trouble with it? (it would be nice if WE >>> was >>> > closer with the .net framework than with com since .net is >>> newer >>> > than Com, you know?) >>> > >>> > *From:*Chip Orange [mailto:[email protected]] >>> > <mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> >>> > *Sent:* Saturday, December 10, 2011 6:44 PM >>> > *To:* [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>> > *Subject:* RE: an idea, but how to go about it when I get >>> there? >>> > >>> > I wish I knew; I was hoping to get an answer from GW on this >>> when >>> > you first asked the question. >>> > >>> > I suspect it "sort of" works, but not in every case; not with >>> every >>> > control type (just guessing from my experience with Office >>> 2010, >>> > which I suspect was written using WPF). >>> > >>> > Chip >>> > >>> > >>> > *From:*Katherine Moss [mailto:[email protected]] >>> > <mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> >>> > *Sent:* Friday, December 09, 2011 4:54 PM >>> > *To:* >>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>> > *Subject:* RE: an idea, but how to go about it when I get >>> there? >>> > >>> > Yeah especially when things that should be implemented in >>> simple >>> > listboxes don't give any feedback. Though SharpDevelop is >>> > completely reliant on WPF. How worth it is it to try and >>> > investigate making WPF more accessible with WE? Is that >>> already >>> > happening where MSAA is being swapped for UIA? >>> > >>> > *From:*Chip Orange [mailto:[email protected]] >>> > <mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> >>> > *Sent:* Friday, December 09, 2011 4:50 PM >>> > *To:* >>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>> > *Subject:* RE: an idea, but how to go about it when I get >>> there? >>> > >>> > Katherine, >>> > >>> > Also, have a look at the TreeView app from GW; it gives >>> you a >>> > detailed structure of all the controls and other elements >>> of an >>> > application, along with their MSAA information, and their >>> > hierarchical relationships. All of these can give you >>> clues as >>> > to what each control is really doing. Still, there's no >>> real >>> > straight forward answer to this question; it's as much an >>> art as >>> > a science when trying to figure out how a program's UI >>> works. >>> > >>> > Chip >>> > >>> > *From:*Katherine Moss >>> [mailto:[email protected]] >>> > <mailto:[mailto:[email protected]]> >>> > *Sent:* Friday, December 09, 2011 11:12 AM >>> > *To:* [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> > *Subject:* an idea, but how to go about it when I get >>> there? >>> > >>> > Hello all, >>> > >>> > I'm curious. I was just comparing the accessibility of >>> the >>> > SharpDevelop IDE with JAWS with that of WE and I find >>> that >>> > neither one makes any difference. Both of them have >>> > accessibility problems in all of the dialogs and >>> beyond. The >>> > obvious thing would be to script it once my programming >>> > skills get better, right? I would say so, but how does >>> one >>> > go about doing that when they don't know what the >>> controls >>> > and stuff are supposed to say anyway? This is driving >>> me >>> > nuts because SharpDevelop might be a fantastic option >>> for >>> > those programmers who want a professional grade IDE but >>> > can't afford the likes of the professional version of >>> Visual >>> > Studio. The biggest problem I see is that lists are >>> not read >>> > and radio buttons have spoken state, but their content >>> is >>> > not labeled. Have any of you smart scripters figured >>> out a >>> > way to get to stuff like that without the help of a >>> sighted >>> > individual at all? (I despise the prospect of having >>> to ask >>> > a sighted person anything that has to do with that >>> because >>> > it means that they must stop what they are doing.) >>> > >>> > Katherine Moss, >>> > >>> > Administrator of the AccessCop Network, previously >>> > Raeder24.org. Visit us on the web at >>> http://raeder24.org >>> > <http://raeder24.org/> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > >
