Emails concerning Accessibility of Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware, version 1.34

My original email, 3-2-2009:

I'd like to see some accessibility issues in your anti-malware product improved.

I use the JAWS screen reader (www.freedomscientific.com) to access my computer. I'm also a programmer of over 26 years, eight of those blind. Over the past eight years, I've written software only using standard Microsoft controls in Visual Basic 6, and all those applications are 100% accessible, without need for any sort of accessibility kludges.

The specific problems seem to be in the accessibility of some of these ThunderRT6 controls your programmers used. I'm not familiar with that package, because as I said, I've always used standard Microsoft controls... option buttons, list boxes, buttons, list views, etc., not some third-party controls, which always tend to be less accessible, since the screen reader makers don't tend to address them, since most programmers don't use specialized third-party controls.

I don't know what your anti-malware product is written in... what development environment... or if it's a Microsoft development environment, why you didn't use the standard Microsoft controls over third-party ones, but this is what's causing the accessibility problems.

The tabs and list boxes or list views appear to be the main problems. The screen reader simply says nothing when focus is in these controls, nor can one navigate when focus is on these controls, to items within the control... for example, to different tabs, or to different items in a list. While I can access these controls by switching to more of a mouse pointer navigation, that's not accessible. Accessible would be being able to use the controls as easily as I normally use tabs or list views in other software that isn't using specialized third-party controls. A screen reader user would normally navigate a tab control with right and left arrows to change tabs, and a list box, list view or multi-select list with the up and down arrows, selecting or deselecting items with the spacebar.

It escapes me why every vendor of anti-malware or other utility type software can't simply build a 100% accessible user interface on an otherwise good product. Since the user interface is the gateway to everything the software does, a poorly built or cumbersome or troublesome to navigate user interface can land even an otherwise good product in the Recycle Bin.

Malwarebytes owes it to itself and its entire customer base to address this accessibility problem... to make the user interface of this software product 100% accessible, rather than more cumbersome and troublesome for the blind or visually impaired. It sometimes makes me wonder if software companies think the blind or visually impaired simply don't have to worry about viruses or spyware, or other problems sighted users do.

Ignorance isn't really an excuse. Any sighted programmer can go download a free copy of the JAWS screen reader at www.freedomscientific.com, which will run fully functional for 40 minutes. A computer restart is required to get another 40 minutes, but this can be done as many times as desired. Standard Microsoft HTML help is there, to inform of all keystrokes to use the screen reader, and 40 minutes is plenty of time to evaluate how software appears to the blind or visually impaired.

As the product stands now, there's no way I'd pay $24.95 for a piece of software that isn't 100% accessible. To do so's like going to buy a shirt with only one sleeve, a pair of pants with only one leg, or a car with only three tires. Sure, you can probably use it, but it won't be the experience it could and should be.

I'm going to write an accessibility review of the current product for posting on www.accesswatch.info, where it won't receive a very favorable accessibility review, since there's a significant enough amount of cumbersome, unnecessarily troublesome navigation, due to the third-party controls used. I sincerely hope I'll be able to update this review in the relatively near future with a more glowing review, once Malwarebytes addresses these issues.

It's said... one can't fix a problem one isn't aware of. You've been made aware of the problem, and enough information to address it. The ball's in Malwarebytes court now.
-Greg Epley
Thinkzo Systems
Web: http://www.thinkzo.com

Response to above email, 3-3-2009:

Greg,

I appreciate the time you took to bring this to our attention. I recently joined Malwarebytes and for a previous company, Sygate Technologies, I worked very closely with developers of Windows Eyes a very nice screen reading program to enhance accessibility for our program at the time.

http://www.accesswatch.info/reviewdisplay.php?pid=0000000105

As a security program, using "everything Microsoft offers" is not typically a recommended or practical option. That being said, we can always improve our product and I fully agree with your viewpoint. We do need to improve the accessibility of our product to enhance our ability to protect more of the general public.

I cannot speak for other providers of security products, but as for us if you are interested and willing to work with us, I would be happy to put you in touch with a member of our development team.

After some consideration, and due to some more pressing matters I had to take care of, my reply to the above response, 3-6-2009:

Thank you for your reply Marcus.

The only thing I'd be able to help out with would be beta testing future versions for accessibility. I have my own load of work and thus no time to hand-hold your programmers to resolve the accessibility problems. That's why I provided the information on how to get a usable copy of the JAWS screen reader, and explained how that demo worked, so your development team could "hear" what screen reader users are "seeing".

Window Eyes may work better with your software, but I tried Window Eyes back when I was first looking at a screen reader for purchase, in late 2000, and I hated WE's keyboard layout. It just wasn't as logical to me as JAWS, and at the time Window Eyes lacked any scripting capabilities, using set files instead, which made no sense to me as a programmer.

Microsoft makes some of their own security software, and I've generally found the accessibility to be good, so your remark about not using everything Microsoft says or does goes right in one ear and out the other. I fail to grasp how using an accessible option button or other simple, basic controls would impair your product, but I think we have a standoff here on that debate. I'm aware that malicious persons can hook into such things, but if it's happening, it's either got to be happening with all of Microsoft's stuff, or else they're using some third-party controls that are accessible, in which case, your development team needs to touch base directly with Microsoft to find out how or why their security solutions are as accessible as they are. I fail to see why Microsoft wouldn't at least be willing to work with your development team to improve the accessibility of your product. Such knowledge doesn't require delving into their own security code for their own security products.

Freedom Scientific's JAWS development team may be willing to work with you, so your development team should attempt to reach them. They may be aware of some more accessible third-party non-Microsoft controls you could use in your product. The reasoning you offered on the choice of controls explains why I despise 99% of the vast amount of various security products, free or commercial, that are out there. I originally thought the intention was eye candy, but I guess now it's an effort to avoid being hacked by malicious persons. Security products don't need eye candy, if that's part of the reasoning. Security or utility products simply need to do their job and be done with it. If eye candy's required to make one product stand out from another, then all the people desiring such aren't adults, but rather just overgrown toddlers whose attention spans require some psychotherapy.

Again, my final recommendations would be to get in touch with Freedom Scientific's JAWS development team, and also with Microsoft, both of whom would have people just as qualified, if not more so, to address this problem.
-Greg Epley
Thinkzo Systems
Web: http://www.thinkzo.com

Some Final Remarks...

Bottom line, once a company's made aware of the accessibility issues with their product, it's really their responsibility to fix the problem.

Helping to beta test and advising on accessibility's one thing, but I imagine I'm being asked by this company to help them do work their own development team should be doing, only I'd see not one red cent of compensation for my efforts, other than perhaps a free copy of the software, which, I'm sorry, isn't enough.

I have two degrees in computers, and those two degrees and my experience are worth far more than a measly $25 of compensation.

This gets into the reasons why I started my own business, and I don't want to get into all that detail here, but, suffice it to say, people I'm working for, where I'm their employee, seem to enjoy taking advantage of me, squeezing everything they can get out of me, and after all that loyalty and hard work, squashing me under their proverbial heel like a bug when it suits them to later on, or simply taking credit for MY work, which they really had nothing to do with.

Now don't get me wrong here. It's not that I have some problem sharing credit, or with just performing a charitable act. I often barter over other means of payment, just to keep the government happy, so it's not as if I'm greedy. I simply expect from others what they'd expect from me. If they'd expect fair compensation if in my place, then so do I; if they expect some certain amount of credit if in my place, then so do I... and so forth.

Marcus writes, "if you are interested and willing to work with us, I would be happy to put you in touch with a member of our development team". This is vague, and I've learned over the years to be wary of such vague offers. I'm not entirely sure WHY a development team INTELLIGENT enough to create such a software product in the first place would be unable to simply follow the path I laid out in my original email. My guess is, I'm a shortcut... it's easier to trick me into picking my brains, eating up God knows how many hours of my valuable time, probably compensating me by giving me a free copy of the $24.95 software, which I simply don't consider sufficient or fair compensation, in contrast to whatever the members of their development team are pulling down per hour. It's a nice gesture on their part, but if they were in my place, they'd feel the same way about it... they'd feel cheapened, as if they weren't good enough to be compensated as a member of their team, which I'd consider myself to be, if I'm helping them to the degree I think they desire here. My experience I can bring to the table's worth more than a paltry $25. Perhaps they would compensate me in some better way, but, considering how most companies operate these days, this is wishful thinking at best, so I feel I've read the situation correctly, if somewhat harshly. As the old saying goes, "fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on me".

I'm a firm believer in things happening for a reason, and must believe that's the case with why I'm where I am now. I help the people I can with products and services they can afford. The only accessibility service I offer that would be of benefit to Malwarebytes is the service I already offered them... pointing them in the right direction. Beyond that we'd need to get into some greater compensation than a single $25 software product, and, for one thing, I don't have any more hours to spare some other software company being too lazy or ignorant to do their own work. If they're development and corporate teams are too lazy or ignorant to follow the path, that's not my problem, and then it becomes a case of yet more lazy, ignorant people I'm encountering in the world who want Greg Epley to come in and fix everything, so THEY can take all the credit for it, squashing me underfoot and pretending I don't exist afterwards.

You can say I ALLOW this to happen to myself, but as you don't know me, that's just your opinion, and such an opinion means nothing to me, and shouldn't mean anything to anyone else with half a brain. Once you really know me, once you've lived in my shoes... and that would take YEARS to do... then you can have your harsh opinion of me, if you like. But until then, whoever you are, whatever you think you may know about me's just so much fluff. I do try to avoid going around making assumptions about and judging others, giving them the benefit of the doubt, but others often don't treat me likewise. And so a person does become harsh, jaded and highly critical of especially some groups, such as other companies or corporations, and the same old tired dribble that spews from their corporate or group mouths.

In conclusion, I don't expect to see much, if any improvement in the Malwarebytes Anti-Malware product. I hope I'm proven wrong.
-Greg Epley
Thinkzo Systems
Web: http://www.thinkzo.com