Comment on: StepGrab

Two things, both aimed at the asks in your comment rather than the launch.On vague descriptions for unlabelled toolbar icons: you're trying to name the control, and OCR can't. You might not need the name. You already capture the frame after the click, and an unlabelled icon almost always announces itself by what it opens. A panel appears with a title, a sidebar toggles. Describing the step by its effect ("open the Inspector panel") is more useful to a reader than the label would have been anyway, and it needs nothing from the Accessibility API. The cases where the effect is invisible are rarer than the cases where the label is missing.On drift, you may already have the thing that detects it, without adding a monitoring feature. Every guide you've made is a stored sequence of screens with OCR text attached. Every new recording anyone makes in the same app is a fresh sample of those screens. Fingerprint screens at record time and you can flag old guides containing a screen whose text no longer matches anything you've seen recently. It falls out of ordinary use instead of being a background job you'd have to justify. It'll be noisy, and it won't catch a button that moved without changing text, but "three of your guides touch a screen that has changed" beats nothing.The reason I'd push on that one: a stale guide isn't neutral. A missing guide sends someone to ask you. A confidently wrong one sends them down a path that doesn't exist, and they burn twenty minutes before they start doubting the document. I keep a set of written procedures for my own build and release work, and the only one that ever really cost me was the one that stayed authoritative after the thing it described had moved. Nothing warned me. The reader trusts the artifact more than the author does.