W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: Proposed change to checkpoint 5.4 based on last call comments in LC#126

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:19:58 -0600
Message-Id: <4.1.20000114090122.00ac4220@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Ian,
I know that in Microsoft Active Accessibility and I am assuming in Java
Accessibility APIs that the AT developer is required to configure what
notifications that they want to recieve.  So I am not sure if Earls and
Peters suggestion is based on how current APIs actually work for getting
notification changes or that they think configuration of event notification
should be part of our requirements.

To me this seems to be something that is somewhat plateform dependent.
Some plateforms have little support (like UNIX) for assistive technologies
and others like MS-Windows and Java have extensive APIs.   

I think we can live with the old text and discuss the issue in the
techniques document.  I am not sure AT vendors would be a big help, since
they will probably prefer what they already know and that is configuration
of event notification.  

We currently have no techniques for Checkpoints 5.4 and 5.5 and I think we
need to get some soon.

The configuration of event notification issue is something the DOM working
group may need to address, if they start building in event notification
specifications in to the DOM.

Jon


At 09:56 AM 1/14/00 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>Jon Gunderson wrote:
>> 
>> Peter Korn and Earl Johnson suggest in their las call comments (LC#126) to
>> change the wording of Checkpoint 5.4 slightly to try to clarify that ATs 
>should
>> have control over what types of change events that it wants to process 
>from the
>> user agent.  I suggest the following new wording for the checkpoint based on
>> their comments:
>> 
>> 5.4 Provide programmatic support that enables access to notification of 
>changes
>> to content and user interface controls (including selection, content 
>focus, and
>> user interface focus).
>
>For the record, the old text is:
>
>      Provide programmatic notification of changes to content and user
>      interface controls (including selection, content focus, and
>      user interface focus).
>
>I actually don't think the old text suggests that ATs can't control
>what they want. The notification is provided, and the recipient can
>do whatever they want with the information. 
>
>It sounds like there are two options:
>
> - Allow (programmatic) configuration of what 
>   notifications are made programmatically.
>
> - Don't allow configuration, but the AT can always ignore any
>   notification it doesn't want.
>
>I think I would prefer the latter, but I would welcome input from
>AT vendors here!
>
> - Ian
>
>-- 
>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
>Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
College of Applied Life Studies
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
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Friday, 14 January 2000 10:22:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:49:51 GMT