I was recently involved in a conversation about what was wrong with the current version of the Windows Logo Program. The general consensus was that while it, in and of it self, was a good thing to have and promote, too many of the ISVs (Independent Software Vendors), especially the smaller ones who focus on specific niche markets, simply can’t afford certification, either due to the actual price of the evaluation (especially for server applications) or due to the resource and time cost to upgrade their older stuff to .NET.
One of the participants in the discussion argued that a major problem with the program is that, for a lot of ISV’s the question isn’t "HOW can we get the Logo?" but "WHY should we bother to get the Logo?"
· MSFT doesn't even certify all its own apps, so why should they?
· Getting the Logo will always have a cost – financially for the evaluation, time and resources for the necessary development – however having the Logo doesn’t provide an obvious competitive advantage for the ISV:
· Few businesses make the Windows Logo a requirement for purchasing decisions.
· People who do buy software are more interested in the functionality it provides than what it’s Logo status is/
Even when an ISV really wants to get the Logo:
· Meeting all the Logo criteria may be too costly in time and effort given what is available currently available.
· Meeting all the Logo criteria may actually be impossible given the nature of the application.
· How many computer action-oriented games can you think of that would be meaningful to someone who was blind even if it was text reader enabled? Or that would actually be engaging to someone with a mobility impairment that required it to be severely slowed? There are also machine level applications, such as anti-virus or disk partition software which simply won't work without administrative privileges. Since they won't be able to run under LUA (Least-privileged User Account) credentials they won't meet the bar for the current Logo program.
· The software will not get a Logo if it is unable to meet all the Logo criteria.
· If the software won't be able to get a logo because of one thing, what incentive do they have to spend any time worrying about their conformance to any Logo criteria when the time and effort that would cost could be "better" spent on further developing features and functionality.
If I could change things, what I'd like to see is a system where related sections of the Windows Logo criteria effectively represent individual Windows Logo certifications (much like the separation between Client and Server certification that already exists).
If the Logo program was re-implemented this way, it shouldn't be less expensive in all contexts (time, money or resources) for software to qualify for certification in the "basics" for Server or Client and would encourage ISVs to work towards full certification one small step at a time.
As an example, I would create separate Logo certifications under the following categories:
· Basics – Client
Minimum requirements for all applications that run on client
E.G., installation/setup, data manipulation and storage, stability, security &c.
· Basics – Server
Minimum requirements for all applications that run on client
· Administrative
Requirements for applications that should legitimately run with elevated Privileges.
· Accessible
Meets requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act
· Global
Requirements dealing with Unicode data entry, Supporting for RTL languages, complying with user's locale settings, &c.
· Gaming
Requirements dealing with standard gaming features such as graphics acceleration, 3D display, audio support, &c.
Whenever an application has been certified for one or more category, the Windows Logo mark would always include a small checklist of all relevant Logo categories and the ISV can place check marks or dots or whatever next to those categories their software qualifies for. The list would only include "Relevant" categories since some combinations may not make sense. For example, there is no need to show "Basics – Gaming" on an Knowledge worker application.
By splitting up the Logo certification in this way it would also makes it easier for MSFT to start getting stricter about which apps meet the bar in each area. Any company that doesn't meet the bar in one area (other than "Basics") could still obtain the logo but only for areas where it does meet the bar. Hopefully, this would lead consumers to start using the checkboxes as a mark of quality - the more check marks, the higher the relative quality. Especially if MSFT takes the time to evangelize that Logo'd software equals Low TCO!
MSFT could then take a real stand and start enforcing a policy that NOTHING ships without at least meeting one or both "Basics" categories. Also, applications that fall into certain niches couldn't ship without also meeting certain other Windows Logo categories (e.g., a knowledge worker app, such as Outlook, must also qualify for the Accessible and Global categories while a desktop computer game must qualify for the Gaming category.)
So, what do you think?
· Is the current Windows Logo program useful or useless?
· Do you ever pay attention to whether some 3rd- party application is Logo'd?
· If you are developing and testing an application, you have all the necessary resources available to you, would you actually bother to get your application certified or not? Why?
· Do you think that splitting up the Logo certification into thinner slices would make the program better, worse or no difference?
[NOTE]
I am aware the current Logo program does have "Optimized For..." options (e.g. "Optimized for Accessibility", "Optimized for Games", and such), but it doesn't really feel to me like its the same as what I'm trying to suggest. It certainly doesn't separate out all Logo criteria, categorize them into one or more areas thereby making it easier for smaller companies to avoid being "road blocked" for lack of resources, and thereby removing some of the excuses used to simply avoid the topic of Windows Logo Certification altogether.
