W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 1999

RE: RESOLUTION: Table access checkpoints for Desktop Graphical User Agents

From: Charles Oppermann <chuckop@MICROSOFT.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 14:57:09 -0800
Message-ID: <BB61526CDE70D2119D0F00805FBECA2F054EA43E@RED-MSG-55>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
I'm not asking the WG or the W3C to endorse any vendor specific technology.
Likewise, the WG shouldn't just say

"Priority 1:  Implement DOM Level 1"

Okay - let's say we did exactly that.  Would it help accessibility?
Currently not.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Gunderson [mailto:jongund@staff.uiuc.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 9:06 AM
To: Charles Oppermann; w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Subject: RE: RESOLUTION: Table access checkpoints for Desktop Graphical
User Agents


Thanks for your comments chuck,
DOM is the W3C recommendation for providing plateform independent access to
document element information.  For the guidelines not to include this as
the primary mechanism for assistive technology to access document element
information there would need to be strong arguements on how other
techniques which are also cross plateform could acheive the same results
more efficently or with better representations of the information.

Remember these guidelines must be approved by the W3C member companies and
checkpoints that are not plateform independent or refer to proprietary
technologies when other W3C exist may have difficulty getting their approal.
Jon


At 04:36 PM 1/27/99 -0800, Charles Oppermann wrote:
>FYI - I'm evaluating the feasibility of making the DOM (or more
>specifically, Microsoft Dynamic HTML Object Model) a public interface.
>
>As I said in the previous teleconference, current methods of accessing the
>internal object model are unsupported.
>
>I'm worried about this proposal since it would 
>(a) force browser manufactures to follow DOM
>(b) force browser manufactures to expose DOM directly.  Currently Internet
>Explorer supports Active Accessibility, which provides some DOM-like
>information, tailored to the needs or accessibility aids.
>
>As soon I have more information, I'll pass it on.
>
>Charles Oppermann
>Program Manager, Accessibility and Disabilities Group, Microsoft
Corporation
>mailto:chuckop@microsoft.com  http://www.microsoft.com/enable/
>"A computer on every desk and in every home, usable by everyone!"
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jon Gunderson [mailto:jongund@staff.uiuc.edu]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 1999 3:12 PM
>To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
>Subject: RESOLUTION: Table access checkpoints for Desktop Graphical User
>Agents
>
>
>Tables Issue Resolution for Desktop Graphical User Agents
>The solution strategy for Desktop Graphical User Agents for making tables
>more
>accessible is for user agents to implement the Document Object Model (DOM)
>and
>provide an interface for assistive technology to access DOM.  Assistive
>technology therefore would have direct access to table information for
>alternaive rendering in speech, Braille or enlarged text.
>
>Advantages to DOM approach
>1. Assistive technology has direct access to element information and is not
>dependent on any filtering of information that occurs during graphical
>rendering of information.
>2. W3C recommendations exist for specifying implementation and conformance 
>
>Potential Disadvantage of DOM approach
>1. Technique needs to gain acceptance by assistive technology developers.
>So
>far this has not been a problem since Henter-Joyce, Productivity Works and
>Alva
>participants are either already using DOM or are interested in its
>capabilities.
>
>Primary checkpoints for Desktop Graphical User Agents to implement
>1. Implement DOM level 1
>2. Expose DOM level 1 to assistive technologies
>
>Checkpoint under consideration and refinement
>1. Provide a means for the user to add accessibility functionality or
change
>the rendering of a document using the scripting capabilities of the user
>agent
>
>Issues related to this checkpoint
>1. Intent is provide some way for user to adjust rendering or add
>functionality
>for legacy assistive technology by using scripting tools already available
>in
>many desktop graphical user agent technologies.
>2. This is not a good checkpoint since it is too specific, but could be a
>technique for a more general checkpoint.
>3. This may be a good checkpoint if it was more general, but if it was more
>general it could probably be defined as an asssitive technology.  It
>therefore
>would not need to exist.
>4. There is a DOM2 working group defining user side scripting capability,
>need
>to coordinate with that group and see how this issue relates to the work of
>that group.  
>
>Checkpoints related to native table linearization by desktop graphical user
>agents have been rejected based on the following information.
>
>Potetential Advantage of Linearization Approach
>1. Current screen reader users would have somewhat better access to table
>information, but it is not a complete solution.  Users would still need to
>wait
>for it to be implemented before they could benefit from the feature.
>
>Problems with linearization approach
>1. Linearization is only one of many techniques in solving the table access
>problem, it doesn't meet the requirement for checkpoints stating a general
>user
>problem. It could be included as a technique in the technique document. 
>2. It doesn't provide a path for innovation in solving table access issues
>and
>will become outdated as technology improves.
>3. Navigation and rendering are needed for a complete solution, which
>complicates the desktop graphical browser issue.
>4. None of the assistive technology vendors currently involved in the group
>have requested the inclusion of this feature.  Their interest seems to be
>more
>in the area of DOM or accessibility APIs for access to tables.
>5. Mainstream browser developers have indicated that this feature is
>technically difficult to implement.  It would take a long time for user
>agent
>developers to implement and therefore maybe obsolete before users would be
>able
>to benefit from the technique.
>
>If you have additional information that would change or extend this
>resoution
>please send it to the list as soon as possible for consideration by the
>group.
>
>Jon
>Chair UA working group
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
>Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
>Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
>University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
>1207 S. Oak Street
>Champaign, IL 61820
>
>Voice: 217-244-5870
>Fax: 217-333-0248
>E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
>WWW:	http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
>	http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess
> 
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street
Champaign, IL 61820

Voice: 217-244-5870
Fax: 217-333-0248
E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
WWW:	http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
	http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess
Received on Thursday, 28 January 1999 17:57:41 GMT

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