Have a look at the PDFs. I guess it is designed to help you rethink the situations in which the software you write will be used, how it will be used and by whom.
It's about building awareness. I read the title and was expecting to see something actionable like Web Content Accessibility Guidelines https://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php which explains and then how to test a product against it. The only guidelines seem to be Universal Windows Platform that seems more about writing for the Windows ecosystem.
I... think it's a set of standards around universal access? Or maybe a new program/initiative for creating more accessible technology in general? A public confirmation that they care about accessibility?
I'm going with the first one after downloading and skimming the inclusive design guidelines pdf listed.
However, I'm still confused. I don't know how much confidence I have in Microsoft being able to design universally accessible interfaces if this marketing vomit of a website does everything within its power to obscure what it's trying to actually say.
Looks like this is not about giving so "do this, do that" kind of guidelines but to guide your thinking process. So you would gather your design team and then go through the exercises listed in the PDF (the "Support cards" are listed at the end of it):
Title is not clear but this is Microsoft saying they are committed to designing for accessibility in mind. I believe they added a new section called the Inclusive Design Toolkit.
Linking to the PDFs or something would be a lot more straightforward than linking to their general design page.
The PDFs make some good points about how designing for accessibility has secondary, wider reaching impact.
It's nice to see at the very least that Microsoft cares enough to make this.
Despite using Windows regularly and doing my development on it, I have serious problem with Microsoft approach.
They literally tried to ignore many people who uses low dpi right now. I know people are going to adopt better monitor in somewhere along the line. But whole world is not just silicone valley and as far as I can see in third world countries (which is where Microsoft rules) 99% uses very low DPI monitors for desktop and laptop. That's because for a long time manufacturers produced and sold low dpi monitor.
Changing your underlying technology ( as far as I know they adopted DirectWrite as replacements for ClearText) with out caring about your users experience (and ironically making it worse that what it was) does not mean anything other than ignoring and don't caring about your user base.
Font rendering in Windows 10 is ridiculous. It is in worst possible shape. (In UWP and modern app).
At the other hand, Ubuntu, Fedora (with freetype tweak) font rendering is fabulous.
I hated that guy, Steve Ballmer. He didn't know basic rule of management. You as manager cannot force people to use something you want. You should provide them better experience overall.
I know there are some technical issues there about ClearText (which was not that good -far from freetype-, but much better than DirectWrite).
We are talking about biggest and most successful software company in history of mankind. There is got to be better way than ignoring your userbase. I am sure they can provide better font rendering for UWP in low DPI monitors.
Let be honest nobody cared about windows modern apps before integrating them into Windows core itself. Right now every time i open settings app my eyes hurt.
P.S. I do realize most people in HN have high DPI monitor, but if you can just try to use UWP app in 14 inch monitor with 1366x768 resolution (which is more than common in third world countries), and compare it to ClearText.
P.S 2. this is not only for third world countries. As far as I know gamers tend to buy large screen but with 1080p resolution. I tested on it, font rendering on anything less than 200 DPI is fucking nightmare. And doesn't matter how much smoother UWPs animation's are. Or how much their design are cool. When text is ridiculously awful, it doesn't worth using.
www.sven.de/dpi
P.S 3 This is one of the saddest experience I had as SE. Microsoft knew they had desktop users locked in, and because of that they didn't care. Imagine a world which Microsoft had serious competitor in desktop/laptop OS space. I am sure they wouldn't dare to mess with user experience in such way. I am really happy with recent increase in Apple's iMac's and MacBook's.
lol I have all sorts of issues on the new high dpi computers at work. One of them being the fonts too small (which they actually have a way to fix via zoom now). One of them being random applications can't handle it. like any transition I think it's a mess. I do like being able to zoom the hell out of and shrink the hell out of text though depending on the time of day. As I get older I definitely mess with the font sizes throughout the day a lot.
I do understand what you saying. But I think there is subtle but important difference here. Microsoft deliberately ruined font rendering experience for users who already was using their platform, and didn't care because they knew they had them locked in.
But small fonts and etc problems in high DPI monitors raised in kind of adoption old apps (Win32 API) in new technologies (high DPI monitors). This is quite ordinary. Every manufacturer or company will experience something similar eventually.
Here I am again to complain about bad focus support. The biggest travesty is people pushing the diversity narrative without... being inclusive.
The page has javascript, so I know they can put in javascript that targets the keyboard and helps users know where the hell they are focused. The focus outlines on those damn buttons is way too non-obvious.
This is a document to increase awareness about accessibility and provide guidelines, yet the landing page fails to convey the intention of the document.
Accessibility is about lowering barriers to people and making things actually easier, not about making a message difficult to understand with marketing gibberish.
Why can't a landing page, especially one about accessibility, be concise and straight to the point?
Wow, right. When I first saw the link I thought, "Excellent, MS are contributing some good to the world via accessibility tools". By the time I had scanned the page, I had come to the conclusion that it was just marketing blather for their equivalent of material design.
They may be referencing IDEO's Human-Centered Design [1].
I think the danger is that if you don't intentionally use human-centered design processes, you could end up "just getting it done", or "reducing cost", or nothing at all in the center.
Surely you've heard some horror story of engineers spending millions of dollars designing software, but they neglect to include the end users in the design process. What happens in this story? It finally makes it to the users and they deem it unusable.
There was a fun little incident in Canada recently where this was probably part of the issue [2].
Inclusive Design Toolkit (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/design/practice#toolkit) consists of a downloadable manual and activities. The manual is an overview of the inclusive design problem. The activities are more like a guideline to researching possible design solutions.
I didn't find there any ready to use design recipes.
Why not just accept that some people have disabilities and it's everybody's responsibility to help these people out to the best of our abilities? It's the moral thing to do.
Why bend and squish words into different definitions?
Perhaps it helps to think of disability this way to shake the idea that it has to be a permanent state. If I break my leg, but it eventually heals, was I not temporarily disabled?
Such as not enough leg room on a plane, a chair with not enough padding or ventilation -- every possible discomfort, including most trivial ones, even to a fully-abled, mint-condition, picture-of-health human is some mismatch between them and their environment.
(If I wanted to be snide, I'd include "using Windows".)
Using your leg room example, if it's inhibiting your potential range of motion whilst sitting then you are disabled.
To look at it a different way, isn't a person with healthy eyes as equally disabled as a blind person when they're in a completely dark room? The source of the disability is not as important as the outcome.
No. Because you (and WHO) are consistently leaving out the obvious -- all of this is in comparison to "typical" human abilities. According to that definition, everyone living in a northern climate becomes disabled each winter, since none of us can survive outside without special clothing. And if humans could see magnetic lines, we'd all certainly be better matched to our earth environment, so does that mean all humans disabled?
> According to that definition, everyone living in a northern climate becomes disabled each winter
This seems valid to me.
The prefix "dis-" is a negation prefix[1], and "abled" means to have a range of abilities[2], so it is equivalent to not-abled. Not having a range of abilities.
There's nothing in this most basic description that suggests being disabled is an abnormal or permanent state.
In the context of getting to the grocery store in the winter, I am quite literally disabled by the cold temperatures, unless I have some natural occurrence or form of technology that en-ables me–el nino, clothing, vehicles, underground tunnels.
I am disabled from reading this screen if I don't have my glasses on. This is a permanent disability, but I can correct it by either putting on my glasses, or by making the text bigger.
Our set of abilities is not immutable, and technology is just meant to add to this set. Microsoft's document is just about making designers aware that not everyone always has the same set of abilities as the designers themselves. Recognizing this allows us to design technology that helps more people in more situations.
WHO did not change _the_ definition of "disabled", they _corrected their own_ definition to recognize that whether or not a person is disabled is a contextually dependent question.
I think my comment rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, and for that I apologize. Actually, I agree with almost everything the replies argue. My point -- which I did didn't make well -- was that I think using the word "disabled" in the WHO sense is either disingenuous or silly. Silly, because if everyone is disabled at all times, then the word becomes meaningless. Disingenuous in the sense that "not having a range of ability" implicitly really means having an unusually or unexpectedly limited or different (but not strictly larger) range of abilities as compared to some poorly-defined range for a "typical" human, without actually admitting that we are comparing against some standard.
Yes, the standard is vague and poorly defined. And I agree that disability doesn't need to be permanent or easily visible or significant, that it is context dependent, and it obviously isn't binary. I have no qualms with the idea that everyone or nearly everyone is, at some point and in some ways, disabled. And perhaps most importantly, we should disentangle the concept of disability with moral/value judgments.
Still, I think all of the examples I've seen on this thread are implicitly comparing against a standard but explicitly pretending they are not. You mention that you are disabled from reading your screen. Because many humans would have that ability. You didn't say you were disabled because you don't have the x-ray vision needed to see through walls. Just like nobody would say a person is disabled because their body doesn't produce enough fur or whale blubber to survive a new england winter.
> "And if humans could see magnetic lines, we'd all certainly be better matched to our earth environment, so does that mean all humans disabled?"
In the sense of being fully aware of our environment then yes, all humans are disabled in that regard.
Furthermore, disability is not a binary categorisation where you're either disabled or you're not, it's a scale, but crucially it's a scale based on your abilities to engage in the world around you and inside of you. We only use typical human behavior as a measuring point so that we can categorise people in a binary fashion. In other words, you can look at disability through the lens of human society in order to class a person as disabled, but disability can be thought of in much more general terms, which is where the WHO definition comes in.
That would be true if the environment in which they lived was the natural, outside environment, but it's not. It's indoors, warm, and decidedly not disabling.
In some sense, yes. But more importantly, the problem with designing for a typical human is that they don't exist. So I see accessible design as robust designs -- ones that can handle variation in abilities as easily as we handle variations in browser window sizes.
I apologize. I didn't mean to suggest we should design for a "typical human" (even if such a thing existed or could be well defined), and I agree that we should design for a range of user abilities. I was trying (poorly) to discuss their definition "disabled", which seems unhelpful as it seems to be synonymous with "human".
The definition suggests we should focus on the context that disables people -- the mismatch between abilities and affordances, because as you point out, disability being part of humanity isn't a useful result.
For example, until the mid 20th century, deaf people in Martha's Vineyard might have been atypical (0.7% of population) but because islanders used MVSL, deaf islanders were not disabled. Later conditions changed, sign fell out of use, and deafness became a communication barrier.
Sure, if more people were deaf, Martha's Vineyard would still use sign. But deafness itself is not a sufficient condition to be disabled... rather the direct cause is society.
I think it's useful to ask what the point of this definition is.
If you expect to be pressured into making special considerations for disabled people you will fight to keep the scope of the definition as small as possible, whereas if your goal is to force people to make these changes then you will argue for it to be very broad. If your goal is to prevent people with disabilities from being seen as different then you will try and convince people that the definition should be broad and consider ourselves situationaly disabled.
E.g. If you're not allowed to discriminate against people with disabilities; whether obese people are disabled or not makes a big difference to, say, airlines, who require them to buy two seats. Or if tall people are disabled, then not upgrading them to business class for free could be considered discrimination.
As with many definitions, there are tradeoffs to be made between utility and accuracy. The more limited form of definition has uses as a shortcut to describe a certain subset of people, but if you look at disability more broadly you can get a fuller sense of what disability is.
To give another example, consider the definitions we use to describe sexual preference. This article on sexual fluidity gives some good examples of how the way we describe sexual preferences may be fine for many, but misses the bigger picture:
I found this passage about bisexuality from the article particularly interesting, describing how openness to bisexuality was suppressed because it didn't fit into the more limited but easier to understand narratives that reflected mainstream thinking about sexual preference at the time:
"Robyn Ochs, who came out as bisexual in 1982 and has been campaigning for bisexual rights ever since, remembers some gay marches before the mid-1990s as unwelcoming. “Lesbian women thought that we were sleeping with the enemy,” says Ochs. Dawne Moon, a sociologist at Marquette University, explains that some gay people felt that bisexuals were watering down their message. Any kind of sexual variability outside of homosexuality would threaten the narrative of the gay movement, says Moon. That narrative revolved around same-sex attraction being as authentic and fixed an orientation as heterosexuality.
The scientific practice of the 1960s through the early 1990s reinforced this message. Some researchers blatantly denied the existence of bisexuals. In 1956, the American psychoanalyst Edmund Bergler described bisexuality as “a state that has no existence beyond the word itself” and an “out-and-out fraud.” Other researchers used terms like “true homosexuals” in their studies. It was common for academics to lump bisexuals and homosexuals together.
Even many school and college textbooks did not quite recognize bisexuality as a possible sexual orientation until about a decade ago. Bisexuality was seen to be a phase some people go through before identifying as heterosexual or homosexual. Kenji Yoshino, professor of constitutional law at New York University School of Law famously called this phenomenon “bisexual erasure” in an essay he wrote in the Stanford Law Review in 2000. “It is as if self-identified straights and self-identified gays have concluded that whatever their other disagreements, they will agree that bisexuals do not exist,” Yoshino says."
Why do I bring this up? It's to point out that broader understanding of human variability has its place, even if it makes people who prefer neater definitions uncomfortable. It's the same with disability, it takes on many forms, and although shortcuts/simpler definitions have their place it's worth recognising that variability, even if that makes reasoning about it harder to do.
There is such a thing as a "situational disability"—one that causes you to be unable to be able to interact with things normally due to the current situation. Microsoft's documents on this page go over a few of these: using something that relies on audible feedback in a loud room, for example. Under the WHO's definition, these situational disabilities are included.
They've clearly stepped up their design chops in recent years. For example, I'd argue the Windows Phone UI is very good (the main thing holding it back isn't the OS, but a lack of apps and desirable phones).
Microsoft has a long history of providing accessibility options in their products (long before Apple or Google started taking accessibility seriously).
Microsoft have never been very good with visual and interaction design in their desktop operating system. However, Windows Phone is the exception. It's visually attractive, and has nice, well thought-out interactions. I think it's superior to Android and iOS in many ways. It's obvious that both Apple and Google took some cues from Windows Phone in the updates to their own mobile operating systems. (Undoubtedly, all these companies look at each others products when designing new features).
Why the heck does everything at Microsoft have to involve URLs with GUIDs in it?
2. That PDF is one of the worst documents purportedly on design frameworks I've ever seen. It's not functional, or direct, the text is in a tiny font, there are pages that do nothing with no content.
Ironically in page 20 they specify a minimum size of 12 EP, yet the label on the side is like half this size! Wut?
Microsoft says they're changed but still designs everything for office slavery. Even graphical style emphasises it. Looking at this page first thoughts are: suits, ringing phones, cold calls. They're designing hamster wheels. They sell their software to business executives, not users who will use it.
56 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 19.5 ms ] threadI guess marketing.
As far as I can tell.
I'm going with the first one after downloading and skimming the inclusive design guidelines pdf listed.
However, I'm still confused. I don't know how much confidence I have in Microsoft being able to design universally accessible interfaces if this marketing vomit of a website does everything within its power to obscure what it's trying to actually say.
http://download.microsoft.com/download/B/0/D/B0D4BF87-09CE-4...
Linking to the PDFs or something would be a lot more straightforward than linking to their general design page.
The PDFs make some good points about how designing for accessibility has secondary, wider reaching impact.
It's nice to see at the very least that Microsoft cares enough to make this.
Changing your underlying technology ( as far as I know they adopted DirectWrite as replacements for ClearText) with out caring about your users experience (and ironically making it worse that what it was) does not mean anything other than ignoring and don't caring about your user base.
Font rendering in Windows 10 is ridiculous. It is in worst possible shape. (In UWP and modern app). At the other hand, Ubuntu, Fedora (with freetype tweak) font rendering is fabulous.
I hated that guy, Steve Ballmer. He didn't know basic rule of management. You as manager cannot force people to use something you want. You should provide them better experience overall.
I know there are some technical issues there about ClearText (which was not that good -far from freetype-, but much better than DirectWrite). We are talking about biggest and most successful software company in history of mankind. There is got to be better way than ignoring your userbase. I am sure they can provide better font rendering for UWP in low DPI monitors.
Let be honest nobody cared about windows modern apps before integrating them into Windows core itself. Right now every time i open settings app my eyes hurt.
P.S. I do realize most people in HN have high DPI monitor, but if you can just try to use UWP app in 14 inch monitor with 1366x768 resolution (which is more than common in third world countries), and compare it to ClearText.
P.S 2. this is not only for third world countries. As far as I know gamers tend to buy large screen but with 1080p resolution. I tested on it, font rendering on anything less than 200 DPI is fucking nightmare. And doesn't matter how much smoother UWPs animation's are. Or how much their design are cool. When text is ridiculously awful, it doesn't worth using.
www.sven.de/dpi
P.S 3 This is one of the saddest experience I had as SE. Microsoft knew they had desktop users locked in, and because of that they didn't care. Imagine a world which Microsoft had serious competitor in desktop/laptop OS space. I am sure they wouldn't dare to mess with user experience in such way. I am really happy with recent increase in Apple's iMac's and MacBook's.
But small fonts and etc problems in high DPI monitors raised in kind of adoption old apps (Win32 API) in new technologies (high DPI monitors). This is quite ordinary. Every manufacturer or company will experience something similar eventually.
The page has javascript, so I know they can put in javascript that targets the keyboard and helps users know where the hell they are focused. The focus outlines on those damn buttons is way too non-obvious.
Accessibility is about lowering barriers to people and making things actually easier, not about making a message difficult to understand with marketing gibberish.
Why can't a landing page, especially one about accessibility, be concise and straight to the point?
Maybe they're testing AI-generated content?
What does this sentence even mean? Who else would be at the center? Cats?
I think the danger is that if you don't intentionally use human-centered design processes, you could end up "just getting it done", or "reducing cost", or nothing at all in the center.
Surely you've heard some horror story of engineers spending millions of dollars designing software, but they neglect to include the end users in the design process. What happens in this story? It finally makes it to the users and they deem it unusable.
There was a fun little incident in Canada recently where this was probably part of the issue [2].
[1] http://www.designkit.org/human-centered-design
[2] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/psac-pro...
I didn't find there any ready to use design recipes.
Disability equals Mismatched Human Interactions - really?
http://download.microsoft.com/download/B/0/D/B0D4BF87-09CE-4...
Why not just accept that some people have disabilities and it's everybody's responsibility to help these people out to the best of our abilities? It's the moral thing to do.
Why bend and squish words into different definitions?
It's not bending definitions, the World Health Organisation's definition of disability is a generic description of what a disability is.
To be clear, the definition given was...
“a mismatch in interaction between the features of a person’s body and the features of the environment in which they live.”
In what way does that not line up with what a disability is?
Perhaps it helps to think of disability this way to shake the idea that it has to be a permanent state. If I break my leg, but it eventually heals, was I not temporarily disabled?
(If I wanted to be snide, I'd include "using Windows".)
To look at it a different way, isn't a person with healthy eyes as equally disabled as a blind person when they're in a completely dark room? The source of the disability is not as important as the outcome.
This seems valid to me.
The prefix "dis-" is a negation prefix[1], and "abled" means to have a range of abilities[2], so it is equivalent to not-abled. Not having a range of abilities.
There's nothing in this most basic description that suggests being disabled is an abnormal or permanent state.
In the context of getting to the grocery store in the winter, I am quite literally disabled by the cold temperatures, unless I have some natural occurrence or form of technology that en-ables me–el nino, clothing, vehicles, underground tunnels.
I am disabled from reading this screen if I don't have my glasses on. This is a permanent disability, but I can correct it by either putting on my glasses, or by making the text bigger.
Our set of abilities is not immutable, and technology is just meant to add to this set. Microsoft's document is just about making designers aware that not everyone always has the same set of abilities as the designers themselves. Recognizing this allows us to design technology that helps more people in more situations.
WHO did not change _the_ definition of "disabled", they _corrected their own_ definition to recognize that whether or not a person is disabled is a contextually dependent question.
[1] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dis- [2] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/abled
Yes, the standard is vague and poorly defined. And I agree that disability doesn't need to be permanent or easily visible or significant, that it is context dependent, and it obviously isn't binary. I have no qualms with the idea that everyone or nearly everyone is, at some point and in some ways, disabled. And perhaps most importantly, we should disentangle the concept of disability with moral/value judgments.
Still, I think all of the examples I've seen on this thread are implicitly comparing against a standard but explicitly pretending they are not. You mention that you are disabled from reading your screen. Because many humans would have that ability. You didn't say you were disabled because you don't have the x-ray vision needed to see through walls. Just like nobody would say a person is disabled because their body doesn't produce enough fur or whale blubber to survive a new england winter.
In the sense of being fully aware of our environment then yes, all humans are disabled in that regard.
Furthermore, disability is not a binary categorisation where you're either disabled or you're not, it's a scale, but crucially it's a scale based on your abilities to engage in the world around you and inside of you. We only use typical human behavior as a measuring point so that we can categorise people in a binary fashion. In other words, you can look at disability through the lens of human society in order to class a person as disabled, but disability can be thought of in much more general terms, which is where the WHO definition comes in.
For example, until the mid 20th century, deaf people in Martha's Vineyard might have been atypical (0.7% of population) but because islanders used MVSL, deaf islanders were not disabled. Later conditions changed, sign fell out of use, and deafness became a communication barrier.
Sure, if more people were deaf, Martha's Vineyard would still use sign. But deafness itself is not a sufficient condition to be disabled... rather the direct cause is society.
If you expect to be pressured into making special considerations for disabled people you will fight to keep the scope of the definition as small as possible, whereas if your goal is to force people to make these changes then you will argue for it to be very broad. If your goal is to prevent people with disabilities from being seen as different then you will try and convince people that the definition should be broad and consider ourselves situationaly disabled.
E.g. If you're not allowed to discriminate against people with disabilities; whether obese people are disabled or not makes a big difference to, say, airlines, who require them to buy two seats. Or if tall people are disabled, then not upgrading them to business class for free could be considered discrimination.
To give another example, consider the definitions we use to describe sexual preference. This article on sexual fluidity gives some good examples of how the way we describe sexual preferences may be fine for many, but misses the bigger picture:
http://nautil.us/issue/41/selection/beyond-sexual-orientatio...
I found this passage about bisexuality from the article particularly interesting, describing how openness to bisexuality was suppressed because it didn't fit into the more limited but easier to understand narratives that reflected mainstream thinking about sexual preference at the time:
"Robyn Ochs, who came out as bisexual in 1982 and has been campaigning for bisexual rights ever since, remembers some gay marches before the mid-1990s as unwelcoming. “Lesbian women thought that we were sleeping with the enemy,” says Ochs. Dawne Moon, a sociologist at Marquette University, explains that some gay people felt that bisexuals were watering down their message. Any kind of sexual variability outside of homosexuality would threaten the narrative of the gay movement, says Moon. That narrative revolved around same-sex attraction being as authentic and fixed an orientation as heterosexuality.
The scientific practice of the 1960s through the early 1990s reinforced this message. Some researchers blatantly denied the existence of bisexuals. In 1956, the American psychoanalyst Edmund Bergler described bisexuality as “a state that has no existence beyond the word itself” and an “out-and-out fraud.” Other researchers used terms like “true homosexuals” in their studies. It was common for academics to lump bisexuals and homosexuals together.
Even many school and college textbooks did not quite recognize bisexuality as a possible sexual orientation until about a decade ago. Bisexuality was seen to be a phase some people go through before identifying as heterosexual or homosexual. Kenji Yoshino, professor of constitutional law at New York University School of Law famously called this phenomenon “bisexual erasure” in an essay he wrote in the Stanford Law Review in 2000. “It is as if self-identified straights and self-identified gays have concluded that whatever their other disagreements, they will agree that bisexuals do not exist,” Yoshino says."
Why do I bring this up? It's to point out that broader understanding of human variability has its place, even if it makes people who prefer neater definitions uncomfortable. It's the same with disability, it takes on many forms, and although shortcuts/simpler definitions have their place it's worth recognising that variability, even if that makes reasoning about it harder to do.
1) https://i.imgur.com/VAwaroi.jpg
2) https://i.imgur.com/mSGwDsg.jpg
3) https://i.imgur.com/ZuOKBmF.jpg
4) https://i.imgur.com/IRTqmZL.jpg
Microsoft have never been very good with visual and interaction design in their desktop operating system. However, Windows Phone is the exception. It's visually attractive, and has nice, well thought-out interactions. I think it's superior to Android and iOS in many ways. It's obvious that both Apple and Google took some cues from Windows Phone in the updates to their own mobile operating systems. (Undoubtedly, all these companies look at each others products when designing new features).
(Double speak, meaningless sentences abound - that if you were to strip them from the article no meaning would be lost.)
1. The URL is http://download.microsoft.com/download/F/2/C/F2C19EC6-03E2-4...
Why the heck does everything at Microsoft have to involve URLs with GUIDs in it?
2. That PDF is one of the worst documents purportedly on design frameworks I've ever seen. It's not functional, or direct, the text is in a tiny font, there are pages that do nothing with no content.
Ironically in page 20 they specify a minimum size of 12 EP, yet the label on the side is like half this size! Wut?