4 ms·
In a very real way, Windows XP was more accessible than anything made since, due to it being more friendly to hacks. There's a reason you see so many disabled p
by mouse_ 1y ago
In a very real way, Windows XP was more accessible than anything made since, due to it being more friendly to hacks. There's a reason you see so many disabled people who refuse to abandon their ancient setups.
Smaller, simpler, more hackable software is inherently more accessible.
- jchw 1y agoOkay. But in practice you do still need basic keyboard control and screen reader support. If Windows XP didn't have robust support for that I suspect it would be a very different story, but it did. Edit: Of all the comments to disagree with, I am blown away that this is today's. You guys desperately need to explain what you're disagreeing with here. Seriously, leave a reply.
- snozolli 1y agoand screen reader support If you look at how classic Win32 applications are constructed, I don't think you need anywhere near the support for screen reader software that you do with modern applications. All of the elements of a dialog box, for example, are constructed from a standard set of controls, and can be interrogated programmatically for their text. I don't know anything about the internals of BeOS software, but I would bet that it's closer to Win32 in this regard than it is to more modern UI systems.
- jchw 1y agoJust to be completely clear I'm not suggesting the BeOS APIs are insufficient to implement robust screen reader support, just that Windows XP actually did implement it, from the ground up, and integrated it into Win32. I would love it if Cosmoe (and in general, more niche toolkits) would do this, too. It's non-trivial work so it's not like I expect it, but it makes using this toolkit for real programs intended for a general audience much more reasonable.