4 ms·

Inclusive Design at Microsoft

56 points by kawera 9y ago

bobbobby 9y ago
This scares the hell out of me. Why would a company like MS, who owes everything to science, let these anti-science zealots have any kind of influence on their decision making?
- pcunite 9y ago
  There is some ambiguity that concerns me. However, I think if you click through the videos shown, that they are making the case to make software behave better in different situations. For example, someone might be holding a baby and thus the idea of temporally having only one hand ... but someone people only ever have one hand because of an accident. The word inclusive is a politicalized word, so I'd like to see that go. Browsing around the site I did not see politics (not really sure how software could be political actually). Microsoft is a special company in that they effect a lot of people. They need to be thinking about these types of things. They have an incredible responsibility.
  - pcurve 9y ago
    "The word inclusive is a politicalized word, so I'd like to see that go" I agree 100%. Not only is it politicized, it can come across as patronizing. I would like to see companies adopt 'universal design', which is more accurate description.
  - Kequc 9y ago
    > (not really sure how software could be political actually) Marketing. Which is all this page is.
- TokenDiversity 9y ago
  Are you watching too much CNN? What's anti-science here?
pcunite 9y ago
There is some really good stuff here. Keep politics out of this train of thought, Microsoft … and you'll go far to help the human experience. About 14 years ago, I created a software company that produces software that just feels right from truths in kinesthetic learning. I target the Microsoft platform, because that was where I got my start. The way I helped to make the world a better place is very tiny droplet in the grand scheme of things. But it felt rewarding to do something. Since Microsoft is a big company, they make a lot of mistakes. This is to be expected, and a natural thing. The Microsoft platform effects millions of people who can at times get disillusioned and frustrated by the design choices made by the old Microsoft - not the new one shown here today. Those of us in this industry forget, or maybe never knew, that there are people who have to use technology for their work, for their life. They are not geeks like you and me who like to toy with technology. They are people who expect things to work and help them to be efficient, and to follow their train of thought, not ours. So, good on you Microsoft for thinking about this. This is a beautiful presentation and I would love to see the software that will come out of this. It's time for technology gate-keepers to have the skills and empathy of product designers. Programmers can make the code beautiful - they always did. Graphical designers can make it sparkle - they always did - now let's make sure the software experience is beautiful too and based on what users need, not what we need. The best software in the world feels wonderful to use, its a beautiful experience, it's an extension of what your mind saw and a tool that helped you do something.
- michaelmrose 9y ago
  They were/are run by bad people who did bad things this isn't acceptable and it's not to be expected except by apologists and lackeys. I don't appreciate you minimizing wrongdoing.
  - pcunite 9y ago
    This is a complex feeling you've shared, and one I understand. Some persons I've communicated with are angry at Microsoft's choices. The anguish they feel is acute. It is important to note that Microsoft has been around for a long time. They employ a lot of people and many of those people have great desires to be honest, caring, and good craftsmen. It is to those people I speak, not to the soulless logo or image of a company. A company can not hear us, only the people within can. So, Microsoft is not a person, although it has a temperament, a behavior, and a way it carries itself. When it does well, I think its important to recognize that. When it does poorly, as it most certainly has, we must be honest with ourselves, and see the mirror image of the many things we done wrong too. At those times, we could destroy the energy of the brand, or encourage it to do better.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
gcb0 9y ago
they should put their money where their mouth is. site fails spectacularly using Firefox mobile.
- pcurve 9y ago
  Also, the colossal 21MB PDF for a 32 page manual with solid black color runs counter to technological constraints inclusiveness. They could have easily made it into 20 page 2MB, or just make a web version.
cjcenizal 9y ago
I love the manual [1] they've published. I recently used it as part of a presentation at work about the importance of web accessibility. There's a great chart on page 41 that breaks out disabilities into "permanent", "temporary", and "situational". When I saw this, it opened my eyes up to the reality that everyone can and will experience a sub-optimal, disabled experience when trying to use a product. One example from that chart is that you can suffer a permanent sight disability by losing your sight, a temporary one by dealing with a cataract (pre-surgery), and a situational one when you're in an environment with a lot of distractions or poor lighting conditions. This all underlines the spirit behind "inclusive design": improving a product's accessibility for one person does more than benefit that one person -- it will provide benefits for everyone. In essence, accessible UX is good UX. If anyone's interested in these ideas, I strongly recommend watching Rob Dodson's fantastic presentation on the topic [2]! [1] https://download.microsoft.com/download/B/0/D/B0D4BF87-09CE-4417-8F28-D60703D672ED/INCLUSIVE_TOOLKIT_MANUAL_FINAL.pdf https://download.microsoft.com/download/B/0/D/B0D4BF87-09CE-... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qjgxH384Nc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qjgxH384Nc

56 points by kawera 9y ago

This scares the hell out of me. Why would a company like MS, who owes everything to science, let these anti-science zealots have any kind of influence on their decision making?

pcunite 9y ago
There is some ambiguity that concerns me. However, I think if you click through the videos shown, that they are making the case to make software behave better in different situations. For example, someone might be holding a baby and thus the idea of temporally having only one hand ... but someone people only ever have one hand because of an accident. The word inclusive is a politicalized word, so I'd like to see that go. Browsing around the site I did not see politics (not really sure how software could be political actually). Microsoft is a special company in that they effect a lot of people. They need to be thinking about these types of things. They have an incredible responsibility.
- pcurve 9y ago
  "The word inclusive is a politicalized word, so I'd like to see that go" I agree 100%. Not only is it politicized, it can come across as patronizing. I would like to see companies adopt 'universal design', which is more accurate description.
- Kequc 9y ago
  > (not really sure how software could be political actually) Marketing. Which is all this page is.
TokenDiversity 9y ago
Are you watching too much CNN? What's anti-science here?

pcunite 9y ago

There is some really good stuff here. Keep politics out of this train of thought, Microsoft … and you'll go far to help the human experience. About 14 years ago, I created a software company that produces software that just feels right from truths in kinesthetic learning. I target the Microsoft platform, because that was where I got my start. The way I helped to make the world a better place is very tiny droplet in the grand scheme of things. But it felt rewarding to do something. Since Microsoft is a big company, they make a lot of mistakes. This is to be expected, and a natural thing. The Microsoft platform effects millions of people who can at times get disillusioned and frustrated by the design choices made by the old Microsoft - not the new one shown here today. Those of us in this industry forget, or maybe never knew, that there are people who have to use technology for their work, for their life. They are not geeks like you and me who like to toy with technology. They are people who expect things to work and help them to be efficient, and to follow their train of thought, not ours. So, good on you Microsoft for thinking about this. This is a beautiful presentation and I would love to see the software that will come out of this. It's time for technology gate-keepers to have the skills and empathy of product designers. Programmers can make the code beautiful - they always did. Graphical designers can make it sparkle - they always did - now let's make sure the software experience is beautiful too and based on what users need, not what we need. The best software in the world feels wonderful to use, its a beautiful experience, it's an extension of what your mind saw and a tool that helped you do something.

michaelmrose 9y ago
They were/are run by bad people who did bad things this isn't acceptable and it's not to be expected except by apologists and lackeys. I don't appreciate you minimizing wrongdoing.
- pcunite 9y ago
  This is a complex feeling you've shared, and one I understand. Some persons I've communicated with are angry at Microsoft's choices. The anguish they feel is acute. It is important to note that Microsoft has been around for a long time. They employ a lot of people and many of those people have great desires to be honest, caring, and good craftsmen. It is to those people I speak, not to the soulless logo or image of a company. A company can not hear us, only the people within can. So, Microsoft is not a person, although it has a temperament, a behavior, and a way it carries itself. When it does well, I think its important to recognize that. When it does poorly, as it most certainly has, we must be honest with ourselves, and see the mirror image of the many things we done wrong too. At those times, we could destroy the energy of the brand, or encourage it to do better.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

gcb0 9y ago

they should put their money where their mouth is. site fails spectacularly using Firefox mobile.

pcurve 9y ago
Also, the colossal 21MB PDF for a 32 page manual with solid black color runs counter to technological constraints inclusiveness. They could have easily made it into 20 page 2MB, or just make a web version.

cjcenizal 9y ago

I love the manual [1] they've published. I recently used it as part of a presentation at work about the importance of web accessibility. There's a great chart on page 41 that breaks out disabilities into "permanent", "temporary", and "situational". When I saw this, it opened my eyes up to the reality that everyone can and will experience a sub-optimal, disabled experience when trying to use a product. One example from that chart is that you can suffer a permanent sight disability by losing your sight, a temporary one by dealing with a cataract (pre-surgery), and a situational one when you're in an environment with a lot of distractions or poor lighting conditions. This all underlines the spirit behind "inclusive design": improving a product's accessibility for one person does more than benefit that one person -- it will provide benefits for everyone. In essence, accessible UX is good UX. If anyone's interested in these ideas, I strongly recommend watching Rob Dodson's fantastic presentation on the topic [2]! [1] https://download.microsoft.com/download/B/0/D/B0D4BF87-09CE-4417-8F28-D60703D672ED/INCLUSIVE_TOOLKIT_MANUAL_FINAL.pdf https://download.microsoft.com/download/B/0/D/B0D4BF87-09CE-... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qjgxH384Nc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qjgxH384Nc