My two cents: Vortico’s decision not to implement an official dark mode was predicated on two points:
- Dark mode has near-zero actual benefit
- It could lead to a blemish on commercial plugins which do not put in the significant work to support dark mode
It is understandable for VCV not to chance making commercial partners look bad, and risk losing purchases.
It’s been mentioned a few times in this thread that for some, and particularly for the visually impaired, having official dark mode support is a significant usability concern. I think this contradicts Vortico’s first point, and therefore changes the calculation regarding the second point. From this perspective, maybe he will reconsider his rejection of the proposal.
I agree that creating an official dark mode would create two classes of haves and have-nots in the Library. It’s possible this could dis-incentivize some commercial module purchases, though I’m not sure by how much really. As for those who need dark mode, they were likely never prospective customers in the first place.
When it comes to accessibility, I think it’s worth providing developers with clear avenues, and perhaps more importantly, incentives to cater toward minority users. At the risk of going out on a limb with my reasoning here, I’ll say that I personally think it would be a good idea to build JAWS/NVDA support into the Rack API in order to make it easy for module developers to cater to blind users effectively, and modules which pass a test for soundness of their implementation of this hypothetical API ought to get a badge of honor displayed next to them in the Rack Library.
In the long run, it seems like it wouldn’t be particularly difficult for VCV to get good optics by branding and marketing this sort of effort to reward developers for accessible modules, and as a purely business-oriented calculation maybe it would end up as a net positive for the bottom line?