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

Re: System API checkpoint issue

From: mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:06:27 -0600
Message-Id: <v01540b01b4684481bf55@[128.104.23.196]>
To: schwer@us.ibm.com
Cc: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
see comments at MN2 below:

At 7:52 AM 11/29/99, schwer@us.ibm.com wrote:
>Mark,
>
>Mozilla does not use MSAA controls. They do have provide a DOM which does
>include the chrome as well as the client area. The IBM browser team is
>looking into how close Mozilla maps to the W3C DOM.
>
>Rich

MN2:  I'm not sure what you mean by a "MSAA control".  What I said was
if they are using standard windows controls, there is no need to map anything
in their API to MSAA, as MSAA would be able to obtain information in the
standard windows UI controls just as it does for any *properly* developed
application for Windows.

However, if they are using non-standard controls, then that is another
issue, not only for this list, but for general accessibility requirements
for Windows, and I hope someone at Mozilla is concerned about that.






>
>menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu (mark novak) on 11/22/99 08:58:09 AM
>
>To:   Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
>cc:   Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
>Subject:  Re: System API checkpoint issue
>
>
>
>
>see comments below at MN:
>
>At 2:18 PM 11/21/99, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>>schwer@us.ibm.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Jon,
>>>
>>> I had a brief meeting with the IBM web browser team and we discussed
>>> Mozilla accessibility. Mozilla is designed as a cross-platform solution
>>> even though it is compiled for each platform. It turns out that all
>>> components including the application chrome can be accessed through
>their
>>> DOM. Our guidelines state that we need to use the system-provided
>>> accessibility features like MSAA however they also require that we use
>the
>>> DOM albeit for the actual document.
>>
>>"Their DOM" is not the same as "The DOM" (meaning the W3C DOM).
>>Therefore,
>>despite the good design idea of making the system platform independent,
>>by not using system conventions or a recognized API, the design causes
>>assistive technologies to lose. Consistency among the interfaces
>>offered by the particular user agent across different platforms may
>>be less important than consistency among different pieces of software
>>on a given platform.
>
>MN:  note, neither is "IE's (4/5) DOM" the same as the W3C DOM.
>
>
>
>>Perhaps the checkpoints are flawed or behavior in the case of
>>overlap is underspecified. Consider these three requirements:
>>
>>  1) Implement system conventions (checkpoint 5.2 of [1])
>>  2) Implement the W3C DOM (checkpoint 5.6)
>>  3) Implement your own, accessible and open API (checkpoint 5.1).
>>      NOTE: I'd like to review what 5.1 means exactly.
>>
>>Mozilla seems to be doing 3 at the expense of 1. Is there a
>>way to map Mozilla's API to MSAA on Windows?
>
>MN:  While I've not looked in detail at Mozilla's latest UI, if they are
>using
>standard windows controls to build it, there is no need to map anything
>in their API to MSAA, as MSAA would be able to obtain information in the
>UI controls just as it does for any properly developed application
>for Windows.  If they are using non-standard controls, then that is another
>issue.
>
>
>>This seems like a real issue where developer and AT input would
>>be very useful.
>>
>> - Ian
>>
>>
>>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-WAI-USERAGENT-19991105
>>
>>> The conclusion of the meeting was that the User Agent guidelines should
>>> allow for cross-platform accessibility through DOM 2 as a minimum since
>>> this will utimately be a W3C standard providing the solution provider
>can
>>> clearly define how an assistive technology would interact with the DOM
>to
>>> provide an accessible solution. I believe that cross-platform
>accessibility
>>> is a more important issue given that it can enable assistive technology
>>> solutions on other OS platforms and devices. Support for device
>>> independence and standard I/O API and all other requirements would still
>>> apply naturally.
>>>
>>> I would like to raise this issue for the next meeting.
>>>
>>> Rich
>>>
>>> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>>> Lead Architect, IBM Special Needs Systems
>>> EMail/web: schwer@us.ibm.com http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/rich.htm
>>>
>>> "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
>>> I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.",
>>> Frost
>>
>>--
>>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>>Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
>>Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Monday, 29 November 1999 10:05:03 GMT

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