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

Re:Re: System API checkpoint issue

From: mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 19:23:05 -0600
Message-Id: <v01540b18b46e167042c8@[128.104.23.196]>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Cc: ij@w3.org, jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu, schwer@us.ibm.com
see comment at MN2 below:

>MSAA *does* rely on an offscreen model to provide access to text in
>documents and many other custom contols. For simple buttons and menu items
>it does allow you to get access to the text but that is not enough by a
>long shot.

MN2:  my comment is correct at stated.  I felt your reply to Ian was misleading,
if Mozilla is truely using "standard" controls when on the windows platform,
that information is available thru MSAA, and *does not* require an
Off-Screen Model.   MSAA can also provide more information than just the
"text" for standard controls.  As for what is defined by "enough", I think
that depends
entirely upon a user's needs.

Now, If you want to change that to "custom" controls on the windows
platform, I already
stated in an earlier email, that is a more general accessibility problem, and
one which I hope *someone* is encouraging Mozilla development team to
avoid.  If the Mozilla development team is going to provide custom controls
that are not accessible to MSAA on the windows platform, then by all means I
think it is also their responsibility to make sure those controls are
accessible.

As for accessing the text in doc., I wasn't implying to use MSAA to do
that.  I would
continue to use the DOM, for UAs, as you've stated.


> A miracle has not happened here yet.
>
>Rich

>menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu (mark novak) on 12/03/99 12:54:24 PM
>
>To:   w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
>cc:   Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, ij@w3.org,
>      jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
>Subject:  Re:Re: System API checkpoint issue
>
>
>
>
>see one comment at MN below:
>
>
>>I will check into this some more, but I am told that the DOM API
>>implemented by the Mozilla group is the W3C DOM Specification (at least as
>>much as the IE is and perhaps more).
>>
>>However, I would strongly disagree that if a company is working to develop
>>a consistent cross-platform solution based on W3C specifications that they
>>are not compliant. Especially if they can document how an assistive
>>technology can connect with the user agent.
>>
>>If Mozilla is willing to create a cross-platform accessible solution based
>>on W3C standards we should support them. The other problem you have is
>that
>>MSAA is still reliant on an offscreen model. A DOM-based solution should
>>not be.
>>Rich
>
>MN:    I need to do a lot of email reading to catch up to the root or
>source of
>this discussion, but one thing that caught my attention directly is the
>comment
>that "MSAA is still reliant on an offscreen model".
>
>Please note, MSAA *does not* require an Off-Screen Model for the
>information
>it provides.
>
>
>
>>Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> on 11/21/99 01:18:36 PM
>>
>>To:   Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
>>cc:   Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
>>Subject:  Re: System API checkpoint issue
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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?
>>
>>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 Friday, 3 December 1999 20:21:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:25 UTC