RE: accessibility calls, but some questions from the mods of the forum in which they are being made

  • From: "Katherine moss" <plymouthroamer285@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:05:37 -0400

Thanks.  MBAM is definitely both free and paid depending on which features
you want.  I have the free version currently, and I'm thinking about
upgrading.  It's a great piece of software, but I just think that they could
work on their controls a little bit, but I also understand if they don't
want automation of their product.  

-----Original Message-----
From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alex Midence
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 12:03 AM
To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: accessibility calls, but some questions from the mods of the
forum in which they are being made

The software in question is free right?  Not open source, of course
else this would be a moot point.  If the software is free as in beer,
there's not a whole lot you can say other than that the likelihood of
the software being used by government institutions is going to be
smaller in proportion to its accessibility.  You could always have a
bunch of people full up the mod's inbox with complaints on the subject
so he doesn't think that it's something only a few people care about.
If this software is not free, however, here is what I've done in the
past:

1.  Point out that the more people the software can reach the more
people are likely to buy it.
2.  Really sell the government and federal contract idea.  If they
ever want to land any big contract, their product will have to be
accessible.
3.  You could also let them know about the costs in time and money of
having to scramble to rework a product and make it accessible after
the fact if they find they need to do it later because a competitor
has stolen a march on them in this respect.  Better to get it done
right from the beginning.


They still may not listen to you.  Some people just don't care.  It's
a sad truth but that's the way it is.  They figure that they are not
going to get anyone else interested in using that feature so, why
bother implementing it whe the vast majority of people won't need it.
If this is the case, you can always be as rude as you have always
wanted to be and walk out.  Just kidding.  Walking out is still an
option but you don't want to be needlessly rude and turn quiet
bystanders against you and the cause of accessibility by exhibiting
poor behavior.  But, hey, none of what I'm saying is new.  Good luck.

Alex M

On 8/29/10, Littlefield, Tyler <tyler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It makes sense, though poking at the messages isn't to hard to do.
> Either they will or they won't make them more accessible--trouble's
comment
> (what I could pick out of the grammar issues) sort of makes sense, though
> I'd think it's more the automation that's the issue currently.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Katherine moss" <plymouthroamer285@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 8:54 PM
> Subject: RE: accessibility calls, but some questions from the mods of the
> forum in which they are being made
>
>
>> So now what can I say to get them to listen to me?  Somebody else on here
>> had the theory that MBAM is keeping their controls custom so that the
>> program can't be automated by scripting languages like AutoIt and
>> VBScript.
>> Even my friend thought that mod was a little nuts.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Trouble
>> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 10:49 AM
>> To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: accessibility calls, but some questions from the mods of the
>> forum in which they are being made
>>
>> it only means that some of there custom controls wouldn't look so
>> pretty behind the scenes, and may make some above board look a bit
>> different. But as far as making the code easier to break for malware?
>> not at all.
>> Some coders out there think of the standard code as plane Jane code
>> or boring code. The more complicated they make the cooler they think
>> others think of them. Kind of like a guru of code or something like that.
>> Sure using basic code here and there ain't pretty under the hood, but
>> it still works just as fine and is easy to read when need too.
>>
>> At 10:23 PM 8/28/2010, you wrote:
>>>Hey folks,
>>>I am currently discussing the topic of accessibility with the
>>>moderators of the Bleeping Computer forum.  I made the coment that I
>>>don't find MalwareBites anti-Malware as accessible as it could be
>>>and suggesting that they talk to the developers about it and ask
>>>them to possibly think about making the controls more
>>>standardized.  One particular mod had the question of whether using
>>>standard windows controls versus custom ones would cause the staff
>>>at MBAM to have to do extra work to protect the program from
>>>malware.  Does using windows controls equal a malware attack
>>>vector?  I'm currently learning to program in C#, and the book I'm
>>>reading says nothing about that.  Some input, explanation?  Many thanks,
>>>
>>>Katherine
>>>
>>>
>>>__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>>>signature database 5405 (20100828) __________
>>>
>>>The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>
>>><http://www.eset.com>http://www.eset.com
>>
>> Tim
>> trouble
>> Verizon FIOS support tech
>> "Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance."
>> --Sam Brown
>>
>> Blindeudora list owner.
>> To subscribe or info: //www.freelists.org/webpage/blindeudora
>>
>> __________
>> View the list's information and change your settings at
>> //www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> signature
>> database 5407 (20100829) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>> signature
>> database 5407 (20100829) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>> __________
>> 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
>
>
__________
View the list's information and change your settings at 
//www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind

 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5408 (20100830) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
 
 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5408 (20100830) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
 

__________
View the list's information and change your settings at 
//www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. programmingblind
  3. Archive
  4. 08-2010