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

Re: [w3c-wai-ua] <none>

From: mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 09:38:56 -0500
Message-Id: <v01540b05b423a8446d62@[128.104.23.196]>
To: schwer@us.ibm.com, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
At 10:24 PM 10/7/99, schwer@us.ibm.com wrote:
>>>6.7 Support plug-in and virtual machine system conventions for loading and
>>>running an assistive technology. For example, the Sun Java virtual machine
>>>supports loading and running of assistive technologies. (priority 1)
>>
>>MN:  I have half an idea what is meant by this, in terms of UAs, but would
>>surely like to see this reworded prior to inclusion such that the UA
>>portion is
>more
>>clear, esp. before going with P1.
>
>OK. Is this clearer:
>
>6.7 Support assistive technology accessibility standards defined for
>plug-in and
>virtual machine systems used by your browser. [priority 1]
>
>   For example, Sun defines a mechanism for loading and running and running a
>assistive technology in its Java virtual machine. If the user agent supports
>Java applets and provides a Java Virtual Machine to run it, the user agent
>should support the proper loading and operation of a Java native assistive
>technology.  This assistive technology can now be used to provide access to the
>applet as defined by Sun's Java accessibility standards. It may be that
>plug-ins, such as Adobe Acrobat Reader, may define similar accessibility
>conventions in the future.
>
>Note: the techniques document supplies example code for loading assistive
>technologies in Java.
>
>Rich

MN:  we are getting there.  I guess my first thought would be why specify
AT in this case.  Isn't it possible to load just about any kind of helper or
plug-in app. this way?   Granted the JVM mech. was designed with AT in
mind, but that
doesn't prevent all kinds of "other" uses.

Thus I like the wording approach Al is suggesting, that this is really just
an extension
to the UA, and the extenstion should then also follow the "use standard
system API" approach wording.    This wording might be best included in a
previous
checkpoint related to that, or it may be important enough to have a separate
checkpoint.  I could go either way, however, the techniques should explain
or talk about both situations, and I think Rich's example above is a good start
for the second.
Received on Friday, 8 October 1999 10:38:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:49:34 GMT