I think my argument only diverts from your view and Nicks in that I never said a blind person can't do it. I have done it on my own as far back as 1992 in school. My point is that even with Homer I am slower than a sighted person who can layout an entire applications GUI's in less than 30 minutes. So sure if you're not in a job where your competing against another sighted coder who can get the job done in exponintionally faster time than you your fine. I still feel if you are writing large applications with a time component to release you really need a graphics arts person to do it. And they are a dime a dozen. This doesn't mean you can't create your own code and release it on either IPhone or Android markets, that or sell your own software to the public without a sighted person involved. It just means that in certain jobs you can forget doing GUI's because you are just too slow. In those same jobs though I have found that doing the back end code I can focus much more on algorithms under the hood when I have a sighted person building the GUI Ken -----Original Message----- From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jamal Mazrui Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 7:20 AM To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Is GUI Programming Worth While for Visually Impaired Coders? My view on this is probably closest to Nick's. I think we can write functional, visually acceptable GUIs. In general, we should seek sighted assistance to ensure that the layout is visually acceptable, since it is easy for something to look odd that we did not realize. If we understand the principles of visual layout, however, including general spacing and alignment guidelines, then a form can usually be tweaked without much effort to get the rest of the way to visually acceptable. I agree that fancy GUIs are probably not a good use of our time. Yet, these, are over rated. As opposed to web pages that are often presenting a corporate image, marketing products, etc., software applications tend to be used more directly to achieve functional outcomes. There are exceptions, but most people use an application to get things done, not to browse competing offerings that try to grab one's attention and suck one in for spending money. Applications that overdo visual effects can be overwhelming, distracting, or at least less functional than those that concentrate on widgets for achieving a particula task in a straightforward and convenient manner. Guido van Rossum, the architect of the Python language, has referred to GUIs built with Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) as "eye candy." That is from an immensely talented sighted developer who has probably seen it all. In the organization where I work, I have found sighted users to be generally satisfied with the GUIs of custom apps that I write internally, which include GUIs. I suppose they might be polite if they know the programmer behind the GUI is blind, but I do use a bit of reader time before sharing a GUI to tweak it if necessary, and they come back for more programs. Much more important to them seems to be what the program lets them accomplish than how fancy it looks. I agree that embedded software or speech-based interfaces are often alternative areas to pursue rather then GUI-based apps. Another interface is command-line, console mode interfaces, which have had some resurgence in recent years, as people have realized that a GUI is sometimes less efficient for tasks than a command-line utility. Of course, this has been known in the Unix world for a long time. There is no reason why a blind programmer cannot develop such an interface as well as his or her sighted counterpart. I think graphical form designers are inherently difficult for us to use well, even with scripts. We tend to be better off using layout wizards and containers with intelligent logic for positioning and sizing controls, based on algorithms developed from usability research. With dialog or text-oriented layout tools, however, I think we can build a GUI as efficiently as sighted peers. Moreover,such a GUI will be easier to modify and evolve because it does not hard code pixel positions nearly as much. They will also tend to work better in cross-platform projects because the layout containers automatically adapt to characteristics and conventions of the target platform. If anyone knows of an easier way to build a visually acceptable and highly functional form or Multiple Document Interface (MDI) as the Layout by Code techniques I developed in the Homer application Framework, HomerAPP, http://EmpowermentZone.com/appsetup.exe I would like to know about it. One can create each control with a single method call on one line, without specifying specific coordinates. I'm sure it's not perfect, but it is the result of years of study, programming, and debugging I did in this area. If I can get that far with such tools as a single developer, I am sure they or other tools could be made even better if more people got involved in creating them. Given the complex and amazing things that software can do these days, implementing auto-layout algorithms for GUIs is hardly considered to be a sophisticated challenge in computer science. Although WPF makes eye candy easy to create in apps, it is also the case that mobile devices are emphasizing more functional GUIs because of their constrained displays. There is an exploding market, and blind people should be able to write acceptable GUIs on such platforms. Mobile apps tend to be task oriented rather than visually fancy. Jamal __________ View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind __________ View the list's information and change your settings at //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind