> "And no other Free Software toolkit for that matter, because they basically all dont give a shit about accessibility on non-Linux platforms."
Whereas a big majority of proprietary software vendors don't care about users on non-mainstream platforms, whether or not those users have 20/20 vision or are completely blind.
> "If Free Software ever takes over, the blind will be unable to use their computers."
Does not follow from the observation that free software applications and libraries don't quite meet all of their functionality on Windows and haven't made it a priority to support accessibility. (For one thing, as long as we're using Windows, free software hasn't taken over.)
> "While other screen readers seemed to work (NVDA) it is simply not feasable to ask my future users to switch to a different screen reader just for a single program."
A screen reader should handle anything, even a program that implements its own font and pixel-pushes it to a canvas (there is OCR for that).
Anyway, what is this NVDA which can read from text fields in GUI widgets that the 'leading brand' reader doesn't handle?
NVDA is open source software, which means the code is accessible to anyone. This enables translators and developers around the world to continually contribute to its expansion and improvement.
Thus the argument appears to be: "free software libraries don't support accessibility on Windows, other than through the use of a screen reader that is free software, translated into 43 languages, used by people in 120 countries, and a winner of multiple awards. Free software are just hipsters who don't give a damn are in it for self promotion and to just address their own requirements (and none of them are visually impaired)."
Whereas a big majority of proprietary software vendors don't care about users on non-mainstream platforms, whether or not those users have 20/20 vision or are completely blind.
> "If Free Software ever takes over, the blind will be unable to use their computers."
Does not follow from the observation that free software applications and libraries don't quite meet all of their functionality on Windows and haven't made it a priority to support accessibility. (For one thing, as long as we're using Windows, free software hasn't taken over.)
> "While other screen readers seemed to work (NVDA) it is simply not feasable to ask my future users to switch to a different screen reader just for a single program."
A screen reader should handle anything, even a program that implements its own font and pixel-pushes it to a canvas (there is OCR for that).
Anyway, what is this NVDA which can read from text fields in GUI widgets that the 'leading brand' reader doesn't handle?
NVDA is open source software, which means the code is accessible to anyone. This enables translators and developers around the world to continually contribute to its expansion and improvement.
https://www.nvaccess.org/about/our-story/
Thus the argument appears to be: "free software libraries don't support accessibility on Windows, other than through the use of a screen reader that is free software, translated into 43 languages, used by people in 120 countries, and a winner of multiple awards. Free software are just hipsters who don't give a damn are in it for self promotion and to just address their own requirements (and none of them are visually impaired)."