W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 1998

RE: behavior reuse

From: Charles (Chuck) Oppermann <chuckop@MICROSOFT.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 13:05:46 -0800
Message-ID: <BB61526CDE70D2119D0F00805FBECA2F556F34@RED-MSG-55>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
You are correct that either the user agent or the aid can do the work, or
both.  It's much harder to motivate our developers to do work that they feel
can be better done by 3rd party aids however.  That would be the downside.

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Dardailler [mailto:danield@w3.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 1998 12:07 AM
To: Charles (Chuck) Oppermann
Cc: Al Gilman; w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Subject: Re: behavior reuse 



Nothing precludes the aid to do a better job at Table linearization
when the UA does a poor job at it.

It's not a either/or UA/Aid situation, so I see no disadvantage for
the end-user in having the UA giving it a try in the first place.

Is there a down side ?
(like promoting poor linearization done by UA ?)

> I think you are misunderstanding my position.  We don't want tables
> linearized - we expose the structure of tables and allow accessibility
aids
> to decide for themselves how to represent the table to the user.  The
> advantage is that each aid can optimize the presentation to their
particular
> users.  The disadvantage is that the accessibility aid has to implement
the
> feature.

> Finally, the user agent itself can unroll the table, using an internal
> script or other code or by merely changing the rules by which is displays
> tables.  The advantage of this method is that accessibility's aids have to
> do no work.  The disadvantage is that each user agent could do it
> differently and that the display is not optimized to a particular set of
> users.
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 1998 16:05:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:48:38 GMT