Janina, I agree that M$ should provide the offscreen model. This is especially true since you are not supposed to decompile the software and all. Now I won't go into software lisince isssues and what is really legal. But if one were to abide by the letter of the lisence, then I doubt that a screen reader could be written. I am also quite familiar with the broken Active Accessibility. I believe that M$ wants to appear responsible, but they are not willing to put up the ante. I know for instance that MSAA was broken and they knew it ahead of time. There was no surprise when IE4 released. It was known and the decision made to go ahead. But I think that when a company decides to close their code off from view they should shoulder 100% of the load in making the code workable to all who have a need to interface to it. The truth is, that they can and should do better. They could make keyboard access a requirement. (For that matter, they could probably make it so that keyboard access just happens for all things.) They could also make it so that every peice of textual data is always available. But they have chosen not too. Part of the problem is that it has been years since there was a true coordinated development effort in Windows. The project has grown to the point where it is no longer coordinated. And in case your wondering, no there is no documentation on the registry that comes anywhere close to complete. There are branches that developers impliment because they need to store settings and the programmer is the only one to know what is being used for what. In some of those cases the programmer has left the company. I used to be a staunch supporter if M$. I will not spend any of my money on a product again if given a choice. In fact, I would ask for a refund for any bundled apps that came on a computer. Kirk Wood Cpt.Kirk at 1tree.net ------------------ Why can't you be a non-conformist, like everybody else?
