W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: More scripting thoughts Pt. 2 (was RE: Accessible road maps)

From: Mike Barta <mikba@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 14:55:17 -0700
Message-ID: <7DF35A0B5F67E84B9095C21C8A976418024EF56B@RED-MSG-33.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <sdale@stevendale.com>
Cc: <jim@e-media.co.uk>, <foliot@wats.ca>, <accessys@smart.net>, <Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Oh but it does :)  there isn't much difference between quickbooks et al.
and what one can do in a 'page'.  There are hybrid releases out already
that have equivalent clients in binary ( 'rich client' ) and web client.
E.g. Outlook express and WebNews are siblings sharing the same data
system for their NNTP metadata, while there are UI difference they are
market and not technology differences.
:
The IM example is, imho, a red herring as the single insurmountable
difference is the listener socket :)  there is precious little that one
cannot do in the UI that is distinguishable from a web based UI.  {
OpenGL, VML, DHTML, GDI religious war omitted for brevity ;) }

But I think we are actually in agreement here, quoting your last:
"I think we need to make the Web accessible as a document or interface
medium"

Which is precisely what I, and I believe Matt, are saying.  I'm seeing
no difference between a doc or an interface that sits on a URI.  As such
we should be gearing toward accessibility recommendations that provide
guidance for both paradigms.

/m

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Dale [mailto:sdale@stevendale.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 2:40 PM
To: Mike Barta
Cc: sdale@stevendale.com; jim@e-media.co.uk; foliot@wats.ca;
accessys@smart.net; Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: More scripting thoughts Pt. 2 (was RE: Accessible road
maps)

Well, sort of.  I am thinking more of independant processing on the
client side.  For example, Instant Messaging runs on the client system
and sends information to another client system.  The Instant Messaging
software does processing on the clients system.  Whereas, displaying a
form on a browser window and sending the data to the server is not
*really* doing any processing of the data.  The form is there for
collection, what processing that is being done is done solely to send
the data, maybe correct data if verified on client, to the server.

-Steve

Mike Barta said:
>
> It sounds like you are drawing a distinction of statefullness as the 
> criterion of a 'program'.  Yes?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf Of Steven Dale ...
> Ok what exactly is a webapp?  What program would you write using
> javascript+html?  All I hear from this list is that we need it to do 
> javascript+fancy
> rollovers and dynamic menuing,  Partial page updates, form validation.
> Are these webapps?  I dont think so.
>
> Ok to firm up my point.  Have you used Instant Messaging?  That's a 
> networked program, not a web app.  Sure there are some web interfaces 
> to IM but they are interfaces not programs either.
>
> -Steve
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2004 17:55:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:32 UTC