6 ms·

Whatever library you decide to use, you should definitely look at its accessibility. Even if you're not legally required to implement it now, and even if you d

Whatever library you decide to use, you should definitely look at its accessibility. Even if you're not legally required to implement it now, and even if you don't think this is a basic human right (which you should), there are legal changes coming, and you never know when you will be forced to implement it. If you choose a library with great accessibility support, even though your app might not be accessible initially, fixing this won't be that hard. If you choose a library without one, though, when the time comes, you will either need to completely rewrite your app using a different library, or dig deep into native OS code and figure out how to interface with accessibility APIs, which is not an easy task. This is a risk/reward scenario. The downside of choosing a library that supports accessibility usually isn't that bad, putting personal feelings about Electron aside. However, if you need accessibility someday, however unlikely that might now seem, you really don't want to be forced to drop everything and focus on rewriting that GUI layer fast, before the regulators catch you. It seemed very unlikely that game developers would ever need accessibility, so no one cared. Then, the US government mandated that all chat systems must be accessible, and a lot of games include chat systems. That was not a pleasant experience for anyone. You never know what is coming, and you don't want to shoot yourself in the foot. Now for some pointers. Electron is fine. No, really, Electron, is, fine. There's nothing wrong with it. QT is fine too. GTK works, as long as all your users are on Linux, as accessibility for other platforms is nonexistent. Java works on Windows, not sure about Linux and Mac. Anything that uses native widgets, so WX and native OS frameworks are the best, but not everyone can afford the luxury of choosing those. Game frameworks and small, minimal libraries are a no go.

TheCapeGreek 6y ago
Electron is fine on its own, sure. The main gripes I read with it are excessive RAM use because it's basically Chrome, and it piles up the more Electron apps we use day-to-day. Java on Linux/Mac is fine.
fileeditview 6y ago
While I of course do not oppose accessibility or Electron per se I think this is bad advice. 0) All advice depends a lot on the product. Most general advice is just useless. 1) Preparing for potential changes in legislation is most of the time not a good idea. As you said you never know what is coming and so you should not try to prepare for everything. Also said games you mention could probably disable the chat if implementing accessibility features was to costly. Also these changes don't come over night. 2) I really dislike what people try to cramp into basic human rights.. Do you also expect this from open source software? Do you really think if people spend their free time they are obligated to implement accessibility or whatever else? In my opinion the user of open source is entitled too nothing. 3) Electron, is, not, fine, just, like, that. There are tons of Electron apps out there which have no right to carry hundreds of megabyte with them and consume that many resources. I am pro choosing whatever you want. But please don't advert Electron as "is-always-fine".. If you even want to force accessibility.. what about energy consumption?
- miki123211 6y ago
  > 2) I really dislike what people try to cramp into basic human rights.. Do you also expect this from open source software? Do you really think if people spend their free time they are obligated to implement accessibility or whatever else? In my opinion the user of open source is entitled too nothing. In my opinion, this depends whether the software in question improves the lives of its users or makes the lives of non-users worse. If it's just another media player we don't have to use, accessibility would be cool, but it's not really that important. If it's a chat solution for companies, accessibility is absolutely crucial, open-source or not. Not implementing accessibility means people could lose their jobs if their companies switch to it. Society would be better off if this software never existed in the first place.
  - fileeditview 6y ago
    Would you really create an open-source chat software for companies? In any case.. if a company would adopt such a software and then fire people because the software is not accessible, then a lot is wrong but it is not that software. Protect employees' rights properly by all means but don't come up with stupid legislation that forces open-source software to do anything. This will just result in less open-source software or worse quality. Sometimes I wish we could disable all open-source software for a few days, so people would actually value what others do for free. It seems to me that these days a lot of people think the are entitled to all kinds of things.
    - miki123211 6y ago
      > Would you really create an open-source chat software for companies? Zulip? Jitsi Meet? Matrix and Element? Even GitLab falls into that category. Not strictly chat, but crucial company software nonetheless. > Protect employees' rights properly by all means but don't come up with stupid legislation that forces open-source software to do anything. This will just result in less open-source software or worse quality. So, in essence, forbid companies from using inaccessible software of that kind? That's pretty close to what I'm proposing, instead of banning the creation of that software, ban it's use, which, ultimately, comes down to the same thing. Also whether software is open source, freeware or for-pay does not matter in this discussion. > Sometimes I wish we could disable all open-source software for a few days, so people would actually value what others do for free. It seems to me that these days a lot of people think the are entitled to all kinds of things. Doing the work for free doesn't justify doing work that harms the society. If I gave out poisoned food for free, I would still be as liable as if I sold it. Sure, it means there is less free food given out, but ultimately, it's a net gain.
kingdomcome50 6y ago
I agree that developers should try to make accessible software! I don't have those needs myself, but I have to imagine it sucks when you want to use a piece of software but can't because the developers didn't put in the extra time/effort to make is usable for everyone. That said, what happened to the last couple of generations? When did freedom stop meaning "free" and start meaning "fair" or "the right thing"? How did our culture get things so tangled up that our urge to "not potentially offend anyone" started eroding the very principals we think we are upholding? You must be young. /rant Suggesting accessible software is a human right? You have to know how silly that looks compared to the list of other things that qualify as human rights.
- filleduchaos 6y ago
  > Suggesting accessible software is a human right? You have to know how silly that looks compared to the list of other things that qualify as human rights. I'd argue that what's truly silly is refusing to recognise that software/the web is becoming (if not has already become) as much core global infrastructure as physical equivalents are. We can't push for and actively build an increasingly online world and then plug our ears and pretend that the accessibility of online spaces isn't as important as the accessibility of physical ones.
  - kingdomcome50 6y ago
    Then go ahead and make the argument! I'd love to see how you juxtaposition "the right to not be tortured" or "the right to not be enslaved" next to "the right to be able to use Dreebly Chat"... Don't get me wrong. I agree with the OP in their ideals! Software is an increasingly important part of our lives, and accessibility should be taken seriously for any serious venture. But legislation? Human rights? It's this kind of rhetoric that divides minds and undermines goals. By all means fight for what you think is right! Progress isn't inevitable. But attempting to impose change rather than affect change is the most classic mistake in the book. You must also be young.
    - filleduchaos 6y ago
zelly 6y ago
> Even if you're not legally required to implement it now, and even if you don't think this is a basic human right (which you should), there are legal changes coming, and you never know when you will be forced to implement it. Never have to comply with the law if you never have any users to begin with GTK user tapping head

TheCapeGreek 6y ago

Electron is fine on its own, sure. The main gripes I read with it are excessive RAM use because it's basically Chrome, and it piles up the more Electron apps we use day-to-day. Java on Linux/Mac is fine.

fileeditview 6y ago

While I of course do not oppose accessibility or Electron per se I think this is bad advice. 0) All advice depends a lot on the product. Most general advice is just useless. 1) Preparing for potential changes in legislation is most of the time not a good idea. As you said you never know what is coming and so you should not try to prepare for everything. Also said games you mention could probably disable the chat if implementing accessibility features was to costly. Also these changes don't come over night. 2) I really dislike what people try to cramp into basic human rights.. Do you also expect this from open source software? Do you really think if people spend their free time they are obligated to implement accessibility or whatever else? In my opinion the user of open source is entitled too nothing. 3) Electron, is, not, fine, just, like, that. There are tons of Electron apps out there which have no right to carry hundreds of megabyte with them and consume that many resources. I am pro choosing whatever you want. But please don't advert Electron as "is-always-fine".. If you even want to force accessibility.. what about energy consumption?

miki123211 6y ago
> 2) I really dislike what people try to cramp into basic human rights.. Do you also expect this from open source software? Do you really think if people spend their free time they are obligated to implement accessibility or whatever else? In my opinion the user of open source is entitled too nothing. In my opinion, this depends whether the software in question improves the lives of its users or makes the lives of non-users worse. If it's just another media player we don't have to use, accessibility would be cool, but it's not really that important. If it's a chat solution for companies, accessibility is absolutely crucial, open-source or not. Not implementing accessibility means people could lose their jobs if their companies switch to it. Society would be better off if this software never existed in the first place.
- fileeditview 6y ago
  Would you really create an open-source chat software for companies? In any case.. if a company would adopt such a software and then fire people because the software is not accessible, then a lot is wrong but it is not that software. Protect employees' rights properly by all means but don't come up with stupid legislation that forces open-source software to do anything. This will just result in less open-source software or worse quality. Sometimes I wish we could disable all open-source software for a few days, so people would actually value what others do for free. It seems to me that these days a lot of people think the are entitled to all kinds of things.
  - miki123211 6y ago
    > Would you really create an open-source chat software for companies? Zulip? Jitsi Meet? Matrix and Element? Even GitLab falls into that category. Not strictly chat, but crucial company software nonetheless. > Protect employees' rights properly by all means but don't come up with stupid legislation that forces open-source software to do anything. This will just result in less open-source software or worse quality. So, in essence, forbid companies from using inaccessible software of that kind? That's pretty close to what I'm proposing, instead of banning the creation of that software, ban it's use, which, ultimately, comes down to the same thing. Also whether software is open source, freeware or for-pay does not matter in this discussion. > Sometimes I wish we could disable all open-source software for a few days, so people would actually value what others do for free. It seems to me that these days a lot of people think the are entitled to all kinds of things. Doing the work for free doesn't justify doing work that harms the society. If I gave out poisoned food for free, I would still be as liable as if I sold it. Sure, it means there is less free food given out, but ultimately, it's a net gain.

kingdomcome50 6y ago

I agree that developers should try to make accessible software! I don't have those needs myself, but I have to imagine it sucks when you want to use a piece of software but can't because the developers didn't put in the extra time/effort to make is usable for everyone. That said, what happened to the last couple of generations? When did freedom stop meaning "free" and start meaning "fair" or "the right thing"? How did our culture get things so tangled up that our urge to "not potentially offend anyone" started eroding the very principals we think we are upholding? You must be young. /rant Suggesting accessible software is a human right? You have to know how silly that looks compared to the list of other things that qualify as human rights.

filleduchaos 6y ago
> Suggesting accessible software is a human right? You have to know how silly that looks compared to the list of other things that qualify as human rights. I'd argue that what's truly silly is refusing to recognise that software/the web is becoming (if not has already become) as much core global infrastructure as physical equivalents are. We can't push for and actively build an increasingly online world and then plug our ears and pretend that the accessibility of online spaces isn't as important as the accessibility of physical ones.
- kingdomcome50 6y ago
  Then go ahead and make the argument! I'd love to see how you juxtaposition "the right to not be tortured" or "the right to not be enslaved" next to "the right to be able to use Dreebly Chat"... Don't get me wrong. I agree with the OP in their ideals! Software is an increasingly important part of our lives, and accessibility should be taken seriously for any serious venture. But legislation? Human rights? It's this kind of rhetoric that divides minds and undermines goals. By all means fight for what you think is right! Progress isn't inevitable. But attempting to impose change rather than affect change is the most classic mistake in the book. You must also be young.
  - filleduchaos 6y ago

zelly 6y ago

> Even if you're not legally required to implement it now, and even if you don't think this is a basic human right (which you should), there are legal changes coming, and you never know when you will be forced to implement it. Never have to comply with the law if you never have any users to begin with GTK user tapping head