Re: Proposed edits to Guideline 1.

Hi Ian,

In general I find that the new texts reflect very well what we discussed and decided at the f2f. Just some very small suggestions<Hans> between these tags</Hans>:

Proposal 1) For the Guideline rationale:

<NEW>
To ensure that assistive technologies can both operate the user agent
programmatically (e.g., through simulated keyboard events) and monitor
user
agent output (e.g., output text), developers are expected to use each
API
appropriately. For example, for rendering text, developers are expected
to use
an API for drawing text. Developers should not, for example, convert
text to a
bitmap to be rendered via a graphical API; this may prevent other
software from
being able to use the text. 
</NEW>

<Hans> I do find the "for example" for output more important. However could we give both output and input examples?</Hans>

Proposal 3) Checkpoint 1.2
<NEW>
 Note. Developers should use APIs available at a higher level of
       abstraction than device APIs, provided that, in turn, these
       higher level APIs make use of the standard device APIs for
       the operating system. 
</NEW>

<Hans>
I find the sentence too difficult. Maybe also an example is needed. 
Does the next feel less complicated?
<NEW>
 Note. When available, developers should use APIs at a higher level
       of abstraction than the standard device APIs for the operating
       system, but only if these higher level APIs properly use the 
       standard device APIs. 
</NEW>
</Hans>

 - Ian

[1] http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#255 
[2] http://cmos-eng.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#260 
-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs 
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2000 04:40:24 UTC